It seems biographies of well known figures of the twentieth century have become an ever increasing source material for high drama (Ray, Beyond the Sea). Singer and songwriter Johnny Cash and his true love June Carter are realized by some honest, heartfelt performances and vivid period settings in Walk the Line. Directed by James Mangold (Girl Interrupted) from a screenplay by himself and Gill Dennis, the film draws material from autobiographies The Man in Black and Cash: An Autobiography.
An impending concert by Johnny Cash at Folsom State Prison is the point the story begins as it flashes back to 1944 in the South where the struggling Cash family works on a plantation. As a young boy, Johnny idolizes his older brother Jack and wishes for something special in life. Their mother gives Johnny the love for singing hymns while their father (Robert Patrick) is an alcoholic, stern figure. When tragedy strikes the family, an emotional, dark cloud hangs over Johnny (Joaquin Phoenix) through the years even as he serves military duty in Germany and begins to find solace in writing music. He marries his sweetheart, Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin), and the two have a family and struggle to stay afloat financially while Johnny tinkers with gospel music and forms a trio. When a fateful audition starts badly, he reverts to his more personal, angry music, and the rest is history. Johnny begins cutting records, dressing in his fabled black outfits, and touring with the likes of Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley, and June Carter (Reese Witherspoon). Cash begins an infatuation and life long obsession for June who is also married at the time. Before long, Cash develops a dependency on drugs with unfortunate results. His career at a crossroads and his home life a shambles, he descends into a self-destructive path with only June Carter as his true love and salvation.
Let's face it, the reason for seeing this film is to see how good the performances are by Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon, and they deliver the goods. There is definitely chemistry between the two especially in their duets as both of them show vocal abilities by singing their own songs (as in films like Coal Miner's Daughter and The Buddy Holly Story). It would require a strong actor to play a legend, and Phoenix proves to be adept. He gets his vocals in a deep, low range to the point you are convinced that he is young Johnny Cash! Kudos should also go to Witherspoon who also shows a gift for warbling with a country twang and acting all at once, not a feat to be taken lightly. Goodwin shines in her moments as the first Mrs. Cash, and it's a shame we don't see more of her in the film.
The concert scenes are restaged with authenticity while simultaneously involving us with fluid close-ups and sharp cutting. It's nice to hear some famous songs recreated for today's audience. Even if you weren't a fan, the songs strike a memory chord regardless. Like Ray, Walk the Line shows how familial loss can have a lasting impact creatively and emotionally. The story manages to move ahead a few years at a time and important moments are rendered realistically. It is amusing in these pop music biographies to see a Who's Who of Rock n' Roll greats in their career infancies. Just seeing Cash pal around with the likes of Lewis, Presley, and others is fascinating. A lot of ground is covered in a little over two hours, but it doesn't feel too episodic.
What the film captures successfully is the affect that his music had on prison inmates and how an overwhelming amount of his fan mail was attributed to prisoners who felt that he spoke to them. (Watch for a cameo by co-producer James Keach as the prison warden.) Cash was a man of the people, and the film takes great pains to show that Cash was not perfect and in fact very human. He succumbs to the temptations of female groupies, gets addicted to drugs, goes to prison, and shows peculiar behavior as he obsesses with June. Although he was smitten with her, Cash was instrumental in getting June into the spotlight to do solos and to stand equal with him.
The film's momentum bogs down during Cash's downfall but redeems itself with scenes such as the Thanksgiving dinner in which Johnny confronts his father. Among the movie's few flaws is the failure to develop the strained relationship between Cash and his intimidating father (well played by Patrick), and the resolution of the film with its family reunion doesn't ring true as one would have liked. There is an amusing scene with June and her family scaring off a drug dealer who is trying to see Johnny. More scenes like that would have been welcome.
There will naturally be constant comparisons with Ray, but that shortchanges a film that would shine in any year. OK, Ray might be a tad better and Coal Miner's Daughter is the gold standard, but Walk the Line does just fine and Phoenix is terrific.
*** of **** stars (add ½* for Joaquin's performance)
Vertigo
Vertigo
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
KING KONG-Still the Champ
Let's be clear about this epic retelling of 'beauty and the beast'. If you didn't care for the original 1933 horror classic, King Kong, it is doubtful you will warm to this mega version. That being said, this update is a marvelous, big production that entertains and excites without sacrificing any of its emotional substance. As escapist fare with heart, the new King Kong has blockbuster written all over it, and in this case that's a good thing, a very good thing indeed.
It is Depression era in New York City where Carl Denham (Jack Black), a frustrated movie director, gambles that he can make a hit film on a remote island. Denham happens upon Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), an unemployed actress/comedienne, and casts her as his star. With some deception, he embarks on his filmic voyage with reluctant screenwriter, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody). Arriving at uncharted Skull Island, the film crew ventures inland and is confronted by unfriendly natives who later kidnap Darrow as a human sacrifice. As Driscoll leads the ship's crew to rescue Ann, a gigantic, fierce gorilla called Kong approaches and seizes her. Driscoll and the others are in hot pursuit through a prehistoric land where they are attacked by gigantic creatures. Kong fights his way through carnivorous dinosaurs with his female captive in hand until they reach his mountain top lair. Kong is a vicious animal, but he also reveals a gentler side when tantalized by Ann's comedic and athletic talents. The two begin to form an unlikely bond. When Driscoll manages to rescue Ann, an enraged Kong chases them until Denham tranquilizes the beast. Now a major attraction on Broadway, Kong is a prisoner until he breaks free to wreak havoc while searching for Ann. When the two are reunited, it culminates atop the Empire State Building as Kong is attacked by warplanes in a heartrending finale.
Does the new Kong justify the hype and expectations? Yes, it is the complete moviegoing experience. There are thrills, spectacle, humor, and a sense of heroic adventure, which are rare even in the post-Indiana Jones era. It would take the superhuman effort of a director like Peter Jackson (and writers Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh), who had just completed the legendary Lord of the Rings trilogy, to tackle this project. This is an old fashioned film that stays closely to the original script. That Jackson takes his time in quieter moments to develop his characters and never stumbles when the action starts is truly amazing. Just when you think our heroes are safe, a new danger pops up to keep you at the edge of your seat. He is a master showman of creative, funhouse perils, and when he does things, bigger is better. He re-imagines legendary sequences from the original and takes them to new heights. When Kong fights a dinosaur, he battles not two but three dinosaurs in a clash of the titans! Kong’s rampage on Broadway reminds you of the Piccadilly Circus sequence in An American Werewolf in London. When he is reunited with Ann, the two communicate through unspoken language. It is a moment of truth that Jackson films with an eerie beauty. You just know Jackson is a romantic as he sets up his dawn raid at the Empire State Building and gives his biggest star a great sendoff that compares favorably to the original.
As for Kong himself, the (CG) computer-generated effects are phenomenal as the broadest of emotions and the tiniest of mannerisms and facial nuances (like blinking his eyes) are eloquently captured. Imagine that, pathos from a CG creation!
Literally a far cry from original star Fay Wray, Naomi Watts gives the best performance in emoting true feelings and playing off her giant ape convincingly. Adrien Brody displays the necessary heroics in a role that doesn't demand much more. Jack Black was bold casting, but his character doesn't always work. Although entertaining, his Denham is more calculating and morally ambiguous than actor Robert Armstrong's 1933 depiction.
Technically the film is a marvel, and the art direction and special effects meld seamlessly together so that it is impossible to tell one from the other. Rarely do the effects look artificial except in the dinosaur stampede. The stunning visuals and fluid camera work are like eye candy, and many scenes are shot with a fresh perspective or point of view. Some of the action scenes are almost too much overkill, but Jackson gets away with it because his other scenes are so impressive.
At three hours running time, it moves fairly well. It takes an hour to get to Kong, but when he does appear, the film becomes one big, nonstop chase. There are brief lulls, but credit Jackson with not rushing to an action scene and instead savoring the quiet moments that establish the most important relationship in the story. What's satisfying in the relationship between Kong and Ann is that it is one of companionship and love without the overt sexuality of the original.
There are a couple of unsettling moments when Denham confronts the natives and a spider pit sequence that could be nightmarish for children. This pit sequence pays homage to a scene that was cut from the original and expands on the possibilities in nasty ways. If you thought Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom's insects were creepy, watch out!
Jackson wows his audiences with his talent for managing enormous spectacles and imbuing them with humanity. This film verifies his prowess as one of the most gifted directors of his generation. Audiences looking for adventure of the highest order will find a lot to enjoy here. It’s been three-quarters of a century since the original Kong wowed ‘em, and it’s a safe bet that no one will wow ‘em like Peter Jackson for another 75 years!
**** of **** stars
It is Depression era in New York City where Carl Denham (Jack Black), a frustrated movie director, gambles that he can make a hit film on a remote island. Denham happens upon Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), an unemployed actress/comedienne, and casts her as his star. With some deception, he embarks on his filmic voyage with reluctant screenwriter, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody). Arriving at uncharted Skull Island, the film crew ventures inland and is confronted by unfriendly natives who later kidnap Darrow as a human sacrifice. As Driscoll leads the ship's crew to rescue Ann, a gigantic, fierce gorilla called Kong approaches and seizes her. Driscoll and the others are in hot pursuit through a prehistoric land where they are attacked by gigantic creatures. Kong fights his way through carnivorous dinosaurs with his female captive in hand until they reach his mountain top lair. Kong is a vicious animal, but he also reveals a gentler side when tantalized by Ann's comedic and athletic talents. The two begin to form an unlikely bond. When Driscoll manages to rescue Ann, an enraged Kong chases them until Denham tranquilizes the beast. Now a major attraction on Broadway, Kong is a prisoner until he breaks free to wreak havoc while searching for Ann. When the two are reunited, it culminates atop the Empire State Building as Kong is attacked by warplanes in a heartrending finale.
Does the new Kong justify the hype and expectations? Yes, it is the complete moviegoing experience. There are thrills, spectacle, humor, and a sense of heroic adventure, which are rare even in the post-Indiana Jones era. It would take the superhuman effort of a director like Peter Jackson (and writers Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh), who had just completed the legendary Lord of the Rings trilogy, to tackle this project. This is an old fashioned film that stays closely to the original script. That Jackson takes his time in quieter moments to develop his characters and never stumbles when the action starts is truly amazing. Just when you think our heroes are safe, a new danger pops up to keep you at the edge of your seat. He is a master showman of creative, funhouse perils, and when he does things, bigger is better. He re-imagines legendary sequences from the original and takes them to new heights. When Kong fights a dinosaur, he battles not two but three dinosaurs in a clash of the titans! Kong’s rampage on Broadway reminds you of the Piccadilly Circus sequence in An American Werewolf in London. When he is reunited with Ann, the two communicate through unspoken language. It is a moment of truth that Jackson films with an eerie beauty. You just know Jackson is a romantic as he sets up his dawn raid at the Empire State Building and gives his biggest star a great sendoff that compares favorably to the original.
As for Kong himself, the (CG) computer-generated effects are phenomenal as the broadest of emotions and the tiniest of mannerisms and facial nuances (like blinking his eyes) are eloquently captured. Imagine that, pathos from a CG creation!
Literally a far cry from original star Fay Wray, Naomi Watts gives the best performance in emoting true feelings and playing off her giant ape convincingly. Adrien Brody displays the necessary heroics in a role that doesn't demand much more. Jack Black was bold casting, but his character doesn't always work. Although entertaining, his Denham is more calculating and morally ambiguous than actor Robert Armstrong's 1933 depiction.
Technically the film is a marvel, and the art direction and special effects meld seamlessly together so that it is impossible to tell one from the other. Rarely do the effects look artificial except in the dinosaur stampede. The stunning visuals and fluid camera work are like eye candy, and many scenes are shot with a fresh perspective or point of view. Some of the action scenes are almost too much overkill, but Jackson gets away with it because his other scenes are so impressive.
At three hours running time, it moves fairly well. It takes an hour to get to Kong, but when he does appear, the film becomes one big, nonstop chase. There are brief lulls, but credit Jackson with not rushing to an action scene and instead savoring the quiet moments that establish the most important relationship in the story. What's satisfying in the relationship between Kong and Ann is that it is one of companionship and love without the overt sexuality of the original.
There are a couple of unsettling moments when Denham confronts the natives and a spider pit sequence that could be nightmarish for children. This pit sequence pays homage to a scene that was cut from the original and expands on the possibilities in nasty ways. If you thought Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom's insects were creepy, watch out!
Jackson wows his audiences with his talent for managing enormous spectacles and imbuing them with humanity. This film verifies his prowess as one of the most gifted directors of his generation. Audiences looking for adventure of the highest order will find a lot to enjoy here. It’s been three-quarters of a century since the original Kong wowed ‘em, and it’s a safe bet that no one will wow ‘em like Peter Jackson for another 75 years!
**** of **** stars
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE keeps the flame burning
The phenomenal success of J. K. Rowling’s series of novels for children about a boy in a school of wizardry has been augmented by the enormous box office grosses of the film adaptations. Left with the daunting task of maintaining the standards and quality of the previous installments, Director Mike Newell has fashioned in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, a marvelous, visual treat that matches the series’ previous highs.
A new year at Hogwarts brings old faces and some new ones as the school for witchcraft and wizardry is primed for great change and a growing threat. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) is shaken by a recurring nightmare as the presence of Lord Voldemort looms ominously, and he summons Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) for advice. Soon a mysterious man, “Mad Eye’ Moody (Brendan Gleeson), arrives to help Harry against the dark forces. The school is preparing for a special gathering of two other schools to compete in a special Tri-Wizard Tournament, a fierce and dangerous competition in which only one older student from each respective school may enter via the Goblet of Fire. Harry becomes involved in the competition to the surprise of everyone including himself. As he and the other students find, the games are immensely formidable with dragons, underwater traps, and an endless maze of hedges. Meanwhile, Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) are experiencing the joys and pain of adolescence as the wonders of high school crushes and the anxiety of the school dance wreak havoc. Even Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) catches the romantic bug. Mistrust and accusations complicate matters for Harry, and Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) expresses his concerns about the future. Before long, Harry, Ron and Hermione bicker amongst themselves as their friendship is severely tested. When the tournament concludes, another set of tragic circumstances opens the way for new evil and betrayal. As the elder wizards (Gambon, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman) close ranks to protect the students especially Harry, the future remains uncertain at best.
Ironically, Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral) is the first British director of the series, and, while he had the difficult challenge of continuing the series, he has added some nice wrinkles and touches by delving deeper into the emotional conflicts of these students. In fact, the maturation and changes these teens must encounter richly add to the already exciting story. We root for these heroes and feel their discomfort and pain because we have in a sense grown up with them. As with any Harry Potter storyline, not all the characters are good and, conversely, not all the suspicious ones are bad. Several plotlines are carried over from the previous films and new ones are primed for future sequels. Screenwriter Steven Kloves, the keeper of the flame, has done a herculean job of distilling the essence of Rowling’s novels into each film thus far.
As always, the trio of young actors, Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint, own these roles, and the thought of replacing any of them due to age concerns was unnecessary. All three look great as they are now a little older and wiser. Of course, Gambon, Smith, Rickman, and Coltrane are the old pros who are the constants at Hogwarts. Ralph Fiennes is perfectly suited for his villainous turn in the startling climax. Brendan Gleeson does a fine job as the menacing, yet benevolent ‘Mad Eye’ Moody who supposedly watches over Harry during the tournament. It also seems that the most recent Harry Potter film is becoming quite an international event as the cast of students is even more ethnically diverse than ever before.
As usual, the production values are outstanding with lavish sets and costumes imaginatively photographed by Roger Pratt. The special effects are quite impressive although nothing that you haven’t already seen in the Lord of the Rings trilogy or the Star Wars sextet. Just the generous details and little touches throughout the film like the animated paintings add to the overall care that still goes into these films. Make no mistake, this is a lengthy film, but the pacing is good as a large number of scenes are strung back to back to contain as much of the book as possible into roughly two and a half hours. It feels a bit episodic but never loses sight of the main story and the emotional state of the characters.
There are creepy images and a foreboding atmosphere through much of the film. This adaptation does contain more risqué scenes such as Harry’s bathtub scene or the terrifying menace of Voldemort, in which the tone gets downright mean-spirited. The students are not so innocent anymore as they curse, and in one climactic scene come face to face with the pain of loss. A PG13 rating signals that the Potter adventures are growing up fast.
It does require that the audience have a background in the series of books or films to fully appreciate the significance of critical events, although the film can stand on its own as pure entertainment and a coming of age. In some ways Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is a classic bridge episode similar to The Empire Strikes Back. Not only is it a strong entry in the series with the most open ended finale yet, it proves a good setup for some potentially exciting things to come. Harry’s next adventure can’t come soon enough!
***1/2 of **** stars
A new year at Hogwarts brings old faces and some new ones as the school for witchcraft and wizardry is primed for great change and a growing threat. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) is shaken by a recurring nightmare as the presence of Lord Voldemort looms ominously, and he summons Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) for advice. Soon a mysterious man, “Mad Eye’ Moody (Brendan Gleeson), arrives to help Harry against the dark forces. The school is preparing for a special gathering of two other schools to compete in a special Tri-Wizard Tournament, a fierce and dangerous competition in which only one older student from each respective school may enter via the Goblet of Fire. Harry becomes involved in the competition to the surprise of everyone including himself. As he and the other students find, the games are immensely formidable with dragons, underwater traps, and an endless maze of hedges. Meanwhile, Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) are experiencing the joys and pain of adolescence as the wonders of high school crushes and the anxiety of the school dance wreak havoc. Even Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) catches the romantic bug. Mistrust and accusations complicate matters for Harry, and Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) expresses his concerns about the future. Before long, Harry, Ron and Hermione bicker amongst themselves as their friendship is severely tested. When the tournament concludes, another set of tragic circumstances opens the way for new evil and betrayal. As the elder wizards (Gambon, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman) close ranks to protect the students especially Harry, the future remains uncertain at best.
Ironically, Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral) is the first British director of the series, and, while he had the difficult challenge of continuing the series, he has added some nice wrinkles and touches by delving deeper into the emotional conflicts of these students. In fact, the maturation and changes these teens must encounter richly add to the already exciting story. We root for these heroes and feel their discomfort and pain because we have in a sense grown up with them. As with any Harry Potter storyline, not all the characters are good and, conversely, not all the suspicious ones are bad. Several plotlines are carried over from the previous films and new ones are primed for future sequels. Screenwriter Steven Kloves, the keeper of the flame, has done a herculean job of distilling the essence of Rowling’s novels into each film thus far.
As always, the trio of young actors, Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint, own these roles, and the thought of replacing any of them due to age concerns was unnecessary. All three look great as they are now a little older and wiser. Of course, Gambon, Smith, Rickman, and Coltrane are the old pros who are the constants at Hogwarts. Ralph Fiennes is perfectly suited for his villainous turn in the startling climax. Brendan Gleeson does a fine job as the menacing, yet benevolent ‘Mad Eye’ Moody who supposedly watches over Harry during the tournament. It also seems that the most recent Harry Potter film is becoming quite an international event as the cast of students is even more ethnically diverse than ever before.
As usual, the production values are outstanding with lavish sets and costumes imaginatively photographed by Roger Pratt. The special effects are quite impressive although nothing that you haven’t already seen in the Lord of the Rings trilogy or the Star Wars sextet. Just the generous details and little touches throughout the film like the animated paintings add to the overall care that still goes into these films. Make no mistake, this is a lengthy film, but the pacing is good as a large number of scenes are strung back to back to contain as much of the book as possible into roughly two and a half hours. It feels a bit episodic but never loses sight of the main story and the emotional state of the characters.
There are creepy images and a foreboding atmosphere through much of the film. This adaptation does contain more risqué scenes such as Harry’s bathtub scene or the terrifying menace of Voldemort, in which the tone gets downright mean-spirited. The students are not so innocent anymore as they curse, and in one climactic scene come face to face with the pain of loss. A PG13 rating signals that the Potter adventures are growing up fast.
It does require that the audience have a background in the series of books or films to fully appreciate the significance of critical events, although the film can stand on its own as pure entertainment and a coming of age. In some ways Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is a classic bridge episode similar to The Empire Strikes Back. Not only is it a strong entry in the series with the most open ended finale yet, it proves a good setup for some potentially exciting things to come. Harry’s next adventure can’t come soon enough!
***1/2 of **** stars
JARHEAD’s Dogs of War
The first Gulf War in Iraq has been an occasional subject matter of films, but not until Jarhead has a bona fide story emerged which captures the experience and heartache as told by director Sam Mendes. Although Mendes has never been able to match the heights of American Beauty, he does an effective job of making the audience a participant in the rigors of desert warfare.
Raw recruits are thrust into rough, basic training (at times with tragic results) as they are prepared for duty in Iraq. Among them are Anthony Swofford (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Troy (Peter Sarsgaard). Drill Sgt. Siek (Jamie Foxx) whips the young men into soldiers as they are deployed in the Persian Gulf with the imminent threat of war. This is a rough life with constant humiliation and hazing. Then comes Operation Desert Shield with the endless training, waiting, monotony, and more time away from family and home where wives and girlfriends lose touch or stray. Such is the hapless life of the grunt. A hostile terrain such as dirty oil fields adds to the isolation and need for rebellious acts to mitigate frustration. Swofford and Troy are groomed to be snipers, and when their opportunity comes in Operation Desert Storm, they are more than ready until they are dealt an unexpected turn of events.
The recurring phrase or motif in the film is “Welcome to the suck.” That about sums up what these men are put through. Adapted by William Broyles Jr. from Swofford’s own real life experiences, it is an uncompromising recreation of ‘the suck’. Mendes is content to show you what it was like but never dwells on any one scene longer than needed to get his point across.
Told essentially from his point of view, the film opens and closes with a telling monologue by Swofford that sums up his experience. He and Troy form the nucleus of the film’s conscience and soul. Swofford made the mistake of signing up while Troy is the ironic soldier who wants to fight a war but is thwarted by bureaucracy. The film does ring true in its depiction of the preparation for warfare with the heavy toll it takes on the soldiers and their personal lives. Periodically, an onscreen tag will appear to list the number of days the surging numbers of troops were in Iraq (5000 troops increases to 575,000 troops in 175 days), which helps put the events in perspective. This film demythologizes war and instead presents war as a difficult and often life changing experience resulting not from actual combat, but from the tedium and loneliness.
It is important to note that although Swofford shows a dislike for this man’s army, he continues to do as he is told. This apolitical film does not really take a stance on the war. We really don’t get enough background on Swofford or Troy to understand what makes these men tick. Rather, we are left with what they experience and how they respond on a superficial level. Troy comes across as inconsistent and his motivations are questionable. While the evolution of their relationship doesn’t always make sense, the film still packs an emotional punch. About two-thirds through, the film’s momentum begins to lose some steam and direction. There is also a sad event toward the end that is never fully explained.
Gyllenhaal (Proof, Donnie Darko) is showing good maturity as an actor, and Sarsgaard (Kinsey) is effective as his closest buddy. Jamie Foxx (Ray) registers quite convincingly as the leader of this bunch. Dennis Haysbert and Chris Cooper have short but effective moments as commanding officers with axes to grind.
Although movies have been set in the Iraqi conflict like Three Kings, this film deals directly with the soldiers who must do the dirty work. In some ways this film shares a pedigree with an ensemble piece like Battleground. There are allusions to the Vietnam War particularly at the end involving a Vietnam veteran and also in clips from Vietnam movies like Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter. The early drills recall some of the most harrowing moments from Full Metal Jacket with the verbal insults and discipline. In fact, some of the vicious lines are hysterically funny. It’s certainly a far cry from An Officer and Gentlemen. Like the soldiers at the beginning of Born on the Fourth of July, they go in wide eyed, full of optimism, and ready for action. Instead, what they find is something that beats their spirits down. In a way, the structure of vignettes and random incidents is similar to The Big Red One without the periodic voiceover. Pop songs of the era are matched perfectly to scenes. Technical aspects are good including the camera work and editing. There are some memorable images including an eerie scene where the patrol comes upon a charred caravan of vehicles with burned, Iraqi people.
Jarhead is not a perfect film, but it is well acted and pulls no punches on what it must have been like in Iraq. Those looking for an action packed war film will be severely disappointed and let down. Except for some character inconsistencies, it is a realistic study in the psychological toll that military life takes on a human being.
*** of **** stars
Raw recruits are thrust into rough, basic training (at times with tragic results) as they are prepared for duty in Iraq. Among them are Anthony Swofford (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Troy (Peter Sarsgaard). Drill Sgt. Siek (Jamie Foxx) whips the young men into soldiers as they are deployed in the Persian Gulf with the imminent threat of war. This is a rough life with constant humiliation and hazing. Then comes Operation Desert Shield with the endless training, waiting, monotony, and more time away from family and home where wives and girlfriends lose touch or stray. Such is the hapless life of the grunt. A hostile terrain such as dirty oil fields adds to the isolation and need for rebellious acts to mitigate frustration. Swofford and Troy are groomed to be snipers, and when their opportunity comes in Operation Desert Storm, they are more than ready until they are dealt an unexpected turn of events.
The recurring phrase or motif in the film is “Welcome to the suck.” That about sums up what these men are put through. Adapted by William Broyles Jr. from Swofford’s own real life experiences, it is an uncompromising recreation of ‘the suck’. Mendes is content to show you what it was like but never dwells on any one scene longer than needed to get his point across.
Told essentially from his point of view, the film opens and closes with a telling monologue by Swofford that sums up his experience. He and Troy form the nucleus of the film’s conscience and soul. Swofford made the mistake of signing up while Troy is the ironic soldier who wants to fight a war but is thwarted by bureaucracy. The film does ring true in its depiction of the preparation for warfare with the heavy toll it takes on the soldiers and their personal lives. Periodically, an onscreen tag will appear to list the number of days the surging numbers of troops were in Iraq (5000 troops increases to 575,000 troops in 175 days), which helps put the events in perspective. This film demythologizes war and instead presents war as a difficult and often life changing experience resulting not from actual combat, but from the tedium and loneliness.
It is important to note that although Swofford shows a dislike for this man’s army, he continues to do as he is told. This apolitical film does not really take a stance on the war. We really don’t get enough background on Swofford or Troy to understand what makes these men tick. Rather, we are left with what they experience and how they respond on a superficial level. Troy comes across as inconsistent and his motivations are questionable. While the evolution of their relationship doesn’t always make sense, the film still packs an emotional punch. About two-thirds through, the film’s momentum begins to lose some steam and direction. There is also a sad event toward the end that is never fully explained.
Gyllenhaal (Proof, Donnie Darko) is showing good maturity as an actor, and Sarsgaard (Kinsey) is effective as his closest buddy. Jamie Foxx (Ray) registers quite convincingly as the leader of this bunch. Dennis Haysbert and Chris Cooper have short but effective moments as commanding officers with axes to grind.
Although movies have been set in the Iraqi conflict like Three Kings, this film deals directly with the soldiers who must do the dirty work. In some ways this film shares a pedigree with an ensemble piece like Battleground. There are allusions to the Vietnam War particularly at the end involving a Vietnam veteran and also in clips from Vietnam movies like Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter. The early drills recall some of the most harrowing moments from Full Metal Jacket with the verbal insults and discipline. In fact, some of the vicious lines are hysterically funny. It’s certainly a far cry from An Officer and Gentlemen. Like the soldiers at the beginning of Born on the Fourth of July, they go in wide eyed, full of optimism, and ready for action. Instead, what they find is something that beats their spirits down. In a way, the structure of vignettes and random incidents is similar to The Big Red One without the periodic voiceover. Pop songs of the era are matched perfectly to scenes. Technical aspects are good including the camera work and editing. There are some memorable images including an eerie scene where the patrol comes upon a charred caravan of vehicles with burned, Iraqi people.
Jarhead is not a perfect film, but it is well acted and pulls no punches on what it must have been like in Iraq. Those looking for an action packed war film will be severely disappointed and let down. Except for some character inconsistencies, it is a realistic study in the psychological toll that military life takes on a human being.
*** of **** stars
Literary Classic Shines in PRIDE AND PREJUDICE
Author Jane Austen has been a popular source of material for recent films and television miniseries. Her free spirited, individual women who search for happiness amid ignorance and old fashioned conduct are refreshing even by today’s standards. What’s pleasantly surprising is that Austen’s stories about manners, loyalty, honor, love, and betrayal have a universal appeal and a timeless quality amid a vivid period setting. A good example is Pride and Prejudice, which features thoughtful direction, a strong cast, and an impressive turn by its star, Keira Knightley.
In 18th century England, the Bennet family consists of a mother, (Brenda Blethyn), father (Donald Sutherland), and their many daughters including eldest Jane (Rosamund Pike) and the most independent-minded, Elizabeth (Keira Knightley). Desperate to marry her daughters to wealthy bachelors, mom will manipulate an event like the upcoming ball to play matchmaker. Enter the mysterious Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen) and his friend, Mr. Bingley, who are well-to-do and seeking a female date for the latter. Jane and Bingley seem to hit it off and another ball ensues at the Bingley estate. Meanwhile, the seemingly indifferent Darcy takes note of the free spirited Elizabeth. Gossip and rumors abound. When a soldier, Mr. Wickham, appears to woo Elizabeth and relays a tale of betrayal at the hands of Darcy, Elizabeth begins to despise Darcy. There later appears a cousin, Mr. Collins, who is heir to the Bennet fortunes and is searching for a bride to be. The problem is that Collins is hopelessly unappealing especially to the object of his affection, Elizabeth, much to the annoyance of Mrs. Bennet. Elizabeth finds herself still seemingly attracted again to Mr. Darcy when their paths cross by accident. Add to the complications the intentions of wealthy Lady Catherine de Bourg (Judi Dench), who has designs on Darcy for her younger girl, and you have a dramatic interweaving of a complex study of romance in which lovers fall from grace and reconnect.
Numerous versions of Austen’s novel have been filmed including the Laurence Olivier version from 1940 and a British television series with Colin Firth (ironically cast as a similarly named and etched character, Mark Darcy, from Bridget Jones’s Diary). TV veterans, director Joe Wright and screenwriter Deborah Moggach, do an impressive job of adapting the novel with good clarity of drama and moments of humor. It doesn’t feel like a book but rather an organic, filmic event, no small feat. This is not a ‘dumbed’ down version but a contemporary translation done with the right balance of reverence to the source material while making it accessible to modern day audiences.
Elizabeth is the kind of heroine who can think for herself at a time when women were not accorded many freedoms. She is cool as a proverbial cucumber as she makes a first impression on Darcy, and you feel an interest in how these two souls will come together despite some formidable obstacles along the way. It’s a delightful premise, and part of the fun is how this storyline and several other threads will develop. It is refreshing in any film to see how major characters will challenge an audience by evolving over the course of the story instead of remaining static.
Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Caribbean) at 20 is displaying the beginnings of a long, versatile career as a dependable actress who can tackle such prestigious material as this. In fact, her performance is not unlike the impressive turn of young Kate Winslet in Sense and Sensibility. MacFadyen is effective as Darcy, an aloof, cold fish when we first meet him. Blethyn (Secrets and Lies) is always good, and here she romps as the scheming mother. Sutherland, as the oblivious father, seems to fit period pieces quite well (Start the Revolution Without Me). Dench is always in command whenever she is on screen although it is a minor role. Rosamund Pike (Die Another Day) shows she can do more than action films.
Sure, there are minor plot holes and some inconsistencies in the characters, but the main themes work. The dialogue is proper, old English, and it takes a little time to get up to speed in deciphering the accents. The pace drags slightly toward the end, but it finishes with a nice flourish of resolution and optimism. Its dreamy ending will set hearts swooning and minds wandering to an elegant, romantic era.
The film has a natural, vivid sense of time and place. People bow and curtsey displaying all the proper mannerisms of the time. The cinematography is beautiful amid the English countryside and mansions. The extras are a realistic mixture of handsome faces and plain ones. Likewise, the interiors of the homes look worn and lived in. The balls are realistically choreographed in a manner reminiscent of TV’s Hill Street Blues where people come and go out of frame and others move throughout a fluid camera shot. Transitions that show a passage of time are cleverly done.
Pride and Prejudice is a worthy companion to 1995’s Sense and Sensibility. Don’t expect a boring film but rather a well paced drama with dashes of humor and heartfelt relationships. It not only proves that older, literary material can be brought to life cinematically without being stuffy, but that Knightley has emerged as a force to be reckoned with.
***1/2 of **** stars (especially for classic romance fans)
In 18th century England, the Bennet family consists of a mother, (Brenda Blethyn), father (Donald Sutherland), and their many daughters including eldest Jane (Rosamund Pike) and the most independent-minded, Elizabeth (Keira Knightley). Desperate to marry her daughters to wealthy bachelors, mom will manipulate an event like the upcoming ball to play matchmaker. Enter the mysterious Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen) and his friend, Mr. Bingley, who are well-to-do and seeking a female date for the latter. Jane and Bingley seem to hit it off and another ball ensues at the Bingley estate. Meanwhile, the seemingly indifferent Darcy takes note of the free spirited Elizabeth. Gossip and rumors abound. When a soldier, Mr. Wickham, appears to woo Elizabeth and relays a tale of betrayal at the hands of Darcy, Elizabeth begins to despise Darcy. There later appears a cousin, Mr. Collins, who is heir to the Bennet fortunes and is searching for a bride to be. The problem is that Collins is hopelessly unappealing especially to the object of his affection, Elizabeth, much to the annoyance of Mrs. Bennet. Elizabeth finds herself still seemingly attracted again to Mr. Darcy when their paths cross by accident. Add to the complications the intentions of wealthy Lady Catherine de Bourg (Judi Dench), who has designs on Darcy for her younger girl, and you have a dramatic interweaving of a complex study of romance in which lovers fall from grace and reconnect.
Numerous versions of Austen’s novel have been filmed including the Laurence Olivier version from 1940 and a British television series with Colin Firth (ironically cast as a similarly named and etched character, Mark Darcy, from Bridget Jones’s Diary). TV veterans, director Joe Wright and screenwriter Deborah Moggach, do an impressive job of adapting the novel with good clarity of drama and moments of humor. It doesn’t feel like a book but rather an organic, filmic event, no small feat. This is not a ‘dumbed’ down version but a contemporary translation done with the right balance of reverence to the source material while making it accessible to modern day audiences.
Elizabeth is the kind of heroine who can think for herself at a time when women were not accorded many freedoms. She is cool as a proverbial cucumber as she makes a first impression on Darcy, and you feel an interest in how these two souls will come together despite some formidable obstacles along the way. It’s a delightful premise, and part of the fun is how this storyline and several other threads will develop. It is refreshing in any film to see how major characters will challenge an audience by evolving over the course of the story instead of remaining static.
Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Caribbean) at 20 is displaying the beginnings of a long, versatile career as a dependable actress who can tackle such prestigious material as this. In fact, her performance is not unlike the impressive turn of young Kate Winslet in Sense and Sensibility. MacFadyen is effective as Darcy, an aloof, cold fish when we first meet him. Blethyn (Secrets and Lies) is always good, and here she romps as the scheming mother. Sutherland, as the oblivious father, seems to fit period pieces quite well (Start the Revolution Without Me). Dench is always in command whenever she is on screen although it is a minor role. Rosamund Pike (Die Another Day) shows she can do more than action films.
Sure, there are minor plot holes and some inconsistencies in the characters, but the main themes work. The dialogue is proper, old English, and it takes a little time to get up to speed in deciphering the accents. The pace drags slightly toward the end, but it finishes with a nice flourish of resolution and optimism. Its dreamy ending will set hearts swooning and minds wandering to an elegant, romantic era.
The film has a natural, vivid sense of time and place. People bow and curtsey displaying all the proper mannerisms of the time. The cinematography is beautiful amid the English countryside and mansions. The extras are a realistic mixture of handsome faces and plain ones. Likewise, the interiors of the homes look worn and lived in. The balls are realistically choreographed in a manner reminiscent of TV’s Hill Street Blues where people come and go out of frame and others move throughout a fluid camera shot. Transitions that show a passage of time are cleverly done.
Pride and Prejudice is a worthy companion to 1995’s Sense and Sensibility. Don’t expect a boring film but rather a well paced drama with dashes of humor and heartfelt relationships. It not only proves that older, literary material can be brought to life cinematically without being stuffy, but that Knightley has emerged as a force to be reckoned with.
***1/2 of **** stars (especially for classic romance fans)
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
America on Trial in GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK
Actor/Director George Clooney pays tribute to truth and decency amid distrust and uncertainty in the Communist witchhunts with his recreation of its greatest hero, the newsman of newsmen, Edward R. Murrow, in Good Night, and Good Luck.
In the early 1950’s, the Communist scare and the subsequent subversion of citizens’ rights was at its apex with blacklists and rampant accusations resulting in ruined lives and careers. Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn) was the grand master of the news airwaves in the infantile medium of television. With his show’s director, Fred Friendly (George Clooney) and his production team, he picks one obscure news item regarding an Air Force serviceman who is dismissed due to unspecified charges. Murrow and CBS essentially take on the US Air Force amid this climate of suspicion and presumed guilt. Later, Murrow’s team takes on Senator Joseph McCarthy by making critical comments of the senator’s own words and contradictions. McCarthy retaliates with accusations of Murrow’s supposed association with un-American groups just as the parent network, CBS, reels under sponsorship pressure and the unpredictable whims of network president William Paley (Frank Langella). As Murrow and his own staff come under tense scrutiny by McCarthy and even CBS, public reaction and the response of the print media come to the forefront.
Nothing can compare to the words that were written and spoken with such conviction and honesty as those uttered by Murrow. The title of the movie is a direct quote that Murrow employed to sign off each week at the close of his interview shows. The filmmakers (including director Clooney and writers Clooney and Grant Heslov) were wise to let the text stand on its own. They also benefit from good performances from a cast headed by Strathairn (L.A. Confidential, A League of Their Own), a journeyman actor who has finally found a core role to call his own, and he makes the most of it. He gets the mannerisms and cadence down quite convincingly, and while Strathairn may not look exactly like Murrow, he has the persona nailed. Frank Langella (Dave) is excellent as the mercurial Paley whose support of Murrow was tenuous at best. Ray Wise (Twin Peaks) registers in what could have been a more defined role as a doomed newsman whose guilt by association triggers some life changing events. Patricia Clarkson (The Station Agent) and Robert Downey Jr. (Chaplin) as secretly married staffers, Joe and Shirley, round out the cast. Ironically, perhaps the best performance can be attributed to McCarthy himself as newsreels offer a fascinating, perverse glance at the infamous politician whose flamboyance and dogged theatrics doomed the careers of many government officials and film or television actors. The duel between Murrow and McCarthy seems like two heavyweights going at it verbally in the public arena.
The cinematography by Robert Elswit (Magnolia) is crisp and starkly lit in black and white to evoke the past. The production design and costumes are consistent with the period. Just the sight of newsmen typing on old style typewriters or production assistants carrying around film reels instead of videotape or discs is amusing. The editing by Stephen Mirrione (Traffic, 21 Grams) is tight and well paced. At times the studio broadcasts of a female blues singer bridges various sequences in theme and mood. The broadcast of a live network news program is staged with realism and with the frenzy and excitement that only live television could bring. One wonders what TV veterans like Sidney Lumet or Robert Altman could have brought to the table.
Murrow’s show was kind of a precursor to the current granddaddy of all prime time news shows, 60 Minutes. It was interesting to see that his was not a perfect career having to mix fluffy showbiz interviews with such personalities as Liberace on his Person-to-Person show with legitimate news reports. At 93 minutes, the film surprisingly seems a bit short. You almost feel like this is a big budget episode of the famous You Are There reenactment shows. The story ends almost abruptly as it begins being bookended by a formal event honoring Murrow in 1958.
A couple of things don’t quite work in the film. The characters of Joe and Shirley must come to terms with the network’s policy forbidding marriage among its coworkers, but this subplot doesn’t significantly serve to move the story forward. Clooney shows a workman-like approach to directing the film but it just doesn’t grab you as emotionally as you would like. You sit there entranced by the history but are never fully given to the pathos of its characters. Instead, the film becomes almost a quasi-documentary bereft of much feeling.
As previous films have dealt with the Red Scare and blacklists, this film compares favorably with The Front and the great television movie Fear on Trial. Although the Soviet Union was a major threat to the United States during the Cold War, the accusatory enemy from within was perhaps as great a menace. The implications and parallels to today’s political climate and the role television has in shaping perception are clearly the point Clooney and gang are trying to make. Murrow’s formal speech, which begins and ends the film’s story, is itself a prophetic and sobering commentary and indictment of the possibilities of television and foreshadows the future with amazing prescience. It shows that one man made a difference. Such is the testament to a heroic reporter whose integrity this film manages to capture, albeit in a brief history lesson.
*** of **** stars
In the early 1950’s, the Communist scare and the subsequent subversion of citizens’ rights was at its apex with blacklists and rampant accusations resulting in ruined lives and careers. Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn) was the grand master of the news airwaves in the infantile medium of television. With his show’s director, Fred Friendly (George Clooney) and his production team, he picks one obscure news item regarding an Air Force serviceman who is dismissed due to unspecified charges. Murrow and CBS essentially take on the US Air Force amid this climate of suspicion and presumed guilt. Later, Murrow’s team takes on Senator Joseph McCarthy by making critical comments of the senator’s own words and contradictions. McCarthy retaliates with accusations of Murrow’s supposed association with un-American groups just as the parent network, CBS, reels under sponsorship pressure and the unpredictable whims of network president William Paley (Frank Langella). As Murrow and his own staff come under tense scrutiny by McCarthy and even CBS, public reaction and the response of the print media come to the forefront.
Nothing can compare to the words that were written and spoken with such conviction and honesty as those uttered by Murrow. The title of the movie is a direct quote that Murrow employed to sign off each week at the close of his interview shows. The filmmakers (including director Clooney and writers Clooney and Grant Heslov) were wise to let the text stand on its own. They also benefit from good performances from a cast headed by Strathairn (L.A. Confidential, A League of Their Own), a journeyman actor who has finally found a core role to call his own, and he makes the most of it. He gets the mannerisms and cadence down quite convincingly, and while Strathairn may not look exactly like Murrow, he has the persona nailed. Frank Langella (Dave) is excellent as the mercurial Paley whose support of Murrow was tenuous at best. Ray Wise (Twin Peaks) registers in what could have been a more defined role as a doomed newsman whose guilt by association triggers some life changing events. Patricia Clarkson (The Station Agent) and Robert Downey Jr. (Chaplin) as secretly married staffers, Joe and Shirley, round out the cast. Ironically, perhaps the best performance can be attributed to McCarthy himself as newsreels offer a fascinating, perverse glance at the infamous politician whose flamboyance and dogged theatrics doomed the careers of many government officials and film or television actors. The duel between Murrow and McCarthy seems like two heavyweights going at it verbally in the public arena.
The cinematography by Robert Elswit (Magnolia) is crisp and starkly lit in black and white to evoke the past. The production design and costumes are consistent with the period. Just the sight of newsmen typing on old style typewriters or production assistants carrying around film reels instead of videotape or discs is amusing. The editing by Stephen Mirrione (Traffic, 21 Grams) is tight and well paced. At times the studio broadcasts of a female blues singer bridges various sequences in theme and mood. The broadcast of a live network news program is staged with realism and with the frenzy and excitement that only live television could bring. One wonders what TV veterans like Sidney Lumet or Robert Altman could have brought to the table.
Murrow’s show was kind of a precursor to the current granddaddy of all prime time news shows, 60 Minutes. It was interesting to see that his was not a perfect career having to mix fluffy showbiz interviews with such personalities as Liberace on his Person-to-Person show with legitimate news reports. At 93 minutes, the film surprisingly seems a bit short. You almost feel like this is a big budget episode of the famous You Are There reenactment shows. The story ends almost abruptly as it begins being bookended by a formal event honoring Murrow in 1958.
A couple of things don’t quite work in the film. The characters of Joe and Shirley must come to terms with the network’s policy forbidding marriage among its coworkers, but this subplot doesn’t significantly serve to move the story forward. Clooney shows a workman-like approach to directing the film but it just doesn’t grab you as emotionally as you would like. You sit there entranced by the history but are never fully given to the pathos of its characters. Instead, the film becomes almost a quasi-documentary bereft of much feeling.
As previous films have dealt with the Red Scare and blacklists, this film compares favorably with The Front and the great television movie Fear on Trial. Although the Soviet Union was a major threat to the United States during the Cold War, the accusatory enemy from within was perhaps as great a menace. The implications and parallels to today’s political climate and the role television has in shaping perception are clearly the point Clooney and gang are trying to make. Murrow’s formal speech, which begins and ends the film’s story, is itself a prophetic and sobering commentary and indictment of the possibilities of television and foreshadows the future with amazing prescience. It shows that one man made a difference. Such is the testament to a heroic reporter whose integrity this film manages to capture, albeit in a brief history lesson.
*** of **** stars
Past Illuminates Present in EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED
Actor turned director Liev Schreiber (The Sum of All Fears) does an above average screen version of the novel, Everything Is Illuminated, by author Jonathan Safran Foer. This tale of journey and self discovery is highlighted by strong ensemble performances and sharp direction with a storyline that enriches and enlightens the soul.
Jonathan Foer (Elijah Wood) is a young man who has seen his grandfather, Safran, pass away. Jonathan has a peculiar habit of taking small objects and life’s little memorabilia and sealing them in plastic ziplock bags to display them on his wall. Safran gives Jonathan an old picture showing a young Safran standing next to a beautiful girl who saved his life many years ago. Thus Jonathan commences on a long journey to locate this mystery woman in the Ukraine not knowing if she is still alive. He enlists the help of a brash, young tour guide named Alex (Eugene Hutz) and his grandfather (Boris Leskin) to drive him to his goal. At first the trip hits dead ends and false leads, but as the group nears its target, the men find themselves amid the ruins of a dark chapter in history with the memories of war and the past ghosts of a nonexistent town. There, they find their own respective destinies and will be forever changed by what they learn.
This film feels like it was directed by someone who knew how to get the most from his actors. At times, the film is spoken in Russian and seems like a foreign film. The title itself is a play on self discovery. This is a thoughtful trek of one man into his past, and his past ironically involves his companions; Jonathan’s obsessive journey becomes an emotional journey for Alex and his grandfather as well. It’s a tale of bonding over the long haul and the guilt one must carry for a lifetime. By the end of the film, these characters have all experienced life altering events that will permanently intertwine their lives. It proves that memories can be powerful in traumatizing and also cleansing the soul. It’s also about one’s legacy and how others view an event or a person in the past. Alex eventually sees his grandfather in a completely different light. Even our perception of these individuals will have changed by film’s end which is a tribute to a story that is well told.
The story is deceptively simple. It functions as a road trip movie (like The Straight Story) combined with an interesting mystery story. It really involves a great many layers of emotions and subplots that range from the past to the present. The ending is a bit surreal with its déjà vu feeling.
Elijah Wood (Sin City, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)) has chosen a wide range of roles ever since his splash in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Here, he does a fine job with what is essentially a minimalist role with not much to show. Eugene Hutz and Boris Leskin fare better as Alex and his grandfather respectively. Even the grandfather’s dog named Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. (that’s right) is funny as a fiercely loyal companion.
The spare music score by Paul Cantelon is a moody compliment to the thoughtful nature of the film. The editing is effective as imagery from past and present are linked and transitioned effortlessly. The cinematography by Matthew Libatique (Gothika, Requiem for a Dream) is appropriately stark and lifeless with some impressive images of war and its aftermath.
The coincidences that emerge during the last half of the film make for good drama but are a little too coincidental. We never fully understand the whole background story of Alex’s grandfather and what his motivations are. Likewise, Jonathan’s blank stares and lack of apparent substance and depth do not give us much more than a sketch of a quirky man. At times, the film feels a little downbeat and depressing as more horrific revelations are exposed. But these are minor criticisms of what is a good, introspective story with good performances and interesting themes of remembrance and closure. That Schreiber not only directed but adapted the screenplay to this worthwhile slice of history is a tribute to his talents and promising potential in the future.
*** of **** stars
Jonathan Foer (Elijah Wood) is a young man who has seen his grandfather, Safran, pass away. Jonathan has a peculiar habit of taking small objects and life’s little memorabilia and sealing them in plastic ziplock bags to display them on his wall. Safran gives Jonathan an old picture showing a young Safran standing next to a beautiful girl who saved his life many years ago. Thus Jonathan commences on a long journey to locate this mystery woman in the Ukraine not knowing if she is still alive. He enlists the help of a brash, young tour guide named Alex (Eugene Hutz) and his grandfather (Boris Leskin) to drive him to his goal. At first the trip hits dead ends and false leads, but as the group nears its target, the men find themselves amid the ruins of a dark chapter in history with the memories of war and the past ghosts of a nonexistent town. There, they find their own respective destinies and will be forever changed by what they learn.
This film feels like it was directed by someone who knew how to get the most from his actors. At times, the film is spoken in Russian and seems like a foreign film. The title itself is a play on self discovery. This is a thoughtful trek of one man into his past, and his past ironically involves his companions; Jonathan’s obsessive journey becomes an emotional journey for Alex and his grandfather as well. It’s a tale of bonding over the long haul and the guilt one must carry for a lifetime. By the end of the film, these characters have all experienced life altering events that will permanently intertwine their lives. It proves that memories can be powerful in traumatizing and also cleansing the soul. It’s also about one’s legacy and how others view an event or a person in the past. Alex eventually sees his grandfather in a completely different light. Even our perception of these individuals will have changed by film’s end which is a tribute to a story that is well told.
The story is deceptively simple. It functions as a road trip movie (like The Straight Story) combined with an interesting mystery story. It really involves a great many layers of emotions and subplots that range from the past to the present. The ending is a bit surreal with its déjà vu feeling.
Elijah Wood (Sin City, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)) has chosen a wide range of roles ever since his splash in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Here, he does a fine job with what is essentially a minimalist role with not much to show. Eugene Hutz and Boris Leskin fare better as Alex and his grandfather respectively. Even the grandfather’s dog named Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. (that’s right) is funny as a fiercely loyal companion.
The spare music score by Paul Cantelon is a moody compliment to the thoughtful nature of the film. The editing is effective as imagery from past and present are linked and transitioned effortlessly. The cinematography by Matthew Libatique (Gothika, Requiem for a Dream) is appropriately stark and lifeless with some impressive images of war and its aftermath.
The coincidences that emerge during the last half of the film make for good drama but are a little too coincidental. We never fully understand the whole background story of Alex’s grandfather and what his motivations are. Likewise, Jonathan’s blank stares and lack of apparent substance and depth do not give us much more than a sketch of a quirky man. At times, the film feels a little downbeat and depressing as more horrific revelations are exposed. But these are minor criticisms of what is a good, introspective story with good performances and interesting themes of remembrance and closure. That Schreiber not only directed but adapted the screenplay to this worthwhile slice of history is a tribute to his talents and promising potential in the future.
*** of **** stars
IN HER SHOES Stands Tall
Having previously tackled a wide range of themes in his films, Director Curtis Hanson delves into the love/hate relationship of two disparate sisters in the film, In Her Shoes. The result is an enjoyably entertaining comedy/drama featuring a number of topflight performances and some hilarious dialogue.
Maggie Feller (Cameron Diaz) is an irresponsible, practically illiterate alcoholic who sleeps around and mooches or steals to get by in the world. Her sister, Rose Feller (Toni Collette) is a self conscious, workaholic lawyer who is dating her boss and indulges in her one passion, fashionable dress shoes. (Maggie’s obsession with Rose’s sexy heels recalls an ongoing theme of television’s Sex and the City.) Both sisters lost their psychologically impaired mother to a supposed car accident that affected their family over the years. One day Maggie is thrown out of her house by her step mother and dad. Finding refuge with her sister, Rose, she proceeds to make life miserable with her carefree attitude and interference that ends in embarrassment and anger for both. As Rose’s romantic and professional life is turned upside down, Maggie is sent packing and turns to one last hope, her maternal grandmother she never knew, namely Ella Hirsch (Shirley MacLaine). Ella works in a retirement community in Florida, and Maggie’s appearance causes quite a stir. When she lost her daughter, Ella lost touch with her granddaughters, and Maggie’s ‘visit’ serves as a catalyst for reconnection. Maggie’s visit becomes a reawakening of sorts for herself and a chance for Ella to rediscover her lost family. Meanwhile, Rose is at a crossroads in her life and decides to change course in her job and finds romance from an unlikely source. Anxious to reunite her granddaughters, Ella resorts to extreme measures to bridge an emotional gap as her two girls begin to discover their own identities in unique and unexpected ways.
This is a gem of a film. It says something when you realize early on that you are watching something special. Curtis Hanson (L.A.Confidential, Wonder Boys) has struck gold with Susannah Grant’s (Erin Brokovich) adaptation of the best seller by Jennifer Weiner. The film is really about the secrets and lies that cripple a family over time and how a strange course of events revisit the relationships or lack thereof. Hanson and the company do a marvelous job of balancing some very funny dialogue with more serious, dramatic scenes. There are some great, memorable lines, some of which are funny and smart without losing sight of the context of the story. A number of scenes are touching and affecting in their sensitive handling of real emotions without becoming clichéd. It’s nice to see real people who change over time and how seemingly inconsequential supporting characters gradually come to the forefront.
The acting by the entire cast is strong and you appreciate the little nuances in facial expression and inflection of dialogue that enrich each character. This may be Cameron Diaz’s best performance. That’s saying something as the glamorous model has been more star than actress in her most popular films (Charlie’s Angels, There’s Something About Mary) and she is given a juicy role with sharp direction. Toni Collette has always been a solid actress in any film (Sixth Sense, The Hours) but she has found a wonderful character in Rose and makes the most of it. Shirley MacLaine (Terms of Endearment, The Turning Point) is terrific in what is a change of pace role where she eschews makeup to look her age and shows a maternal wisdom that is the stuff of Supporting Oscars. You wish there were more of her in the film, but what’s there is delicious. It’s nice to see an old pro like Norman Lloyd still displaying his acting chops in what is a minor role of a bed-ridden patient who has a profound influence on Diaz’s character.
The performances are complemented by seamless editing which not only captures the right reactions, but effortlessly switches back and forth between the two sisters especially during key scenes that are thematically linked. Although the running time goes over two hours, the pacing is good, and everything seems integral to the storyline. The musical score by Mark Isham is quite effective in complimenting the emotional moments without ever being intrusive.
Despite its strong script, the film never fully explores Maggie’s transformation which, while uplifting and remarkable, is never totally convincing given her origins and tendencies. Things get wrapped up in a dreamy sendoff which is perhaps too good to be true, but those same qualities also make for a more upbeat film.
Hanson displays a very keen eye in relating what is essentially a woman’s film. Yes, this may be considered a woman’s film in its theme and target audience, but considering the fact it is also a well made, funny, and heart rending film about love and family, the women ought to bring along the men. In Her Shoes is not just about rival sisters but rather it is about a family yanked apart and slowly brought together again in ways that are not altogether apparent at the start. How these lost souls meld together is the stuff of high entertainment and substance.
***1/2 of **** stars
Maggie Feller (Cameron Diaz) is an irresponsible, practically illiterate alcoholic who sleeps around and mooches or steals to get by in the world. Her sister, Rose Feller (Toni Collette) is a self conscious, workaholic lawyer who is dating her boss and indulges in her one passion, fashionable dress shoes. (Maggie’s obsession with Rose’s sexy heels recalls an ongoing theme of television’s Sex and the City.) Both sisters lost their psychologically impaired mother to a supposed car accident that affected their family over the years. One day Maggie is thrown out of her house by her step mother and dad. Finding refuge with her sister, Rose, she proceeds to make life miserable with her carefree attitude and interference that ends in embarrassment and anger for both. As Rose’s romantic and professional life is turned upside down, Maggie is sent packing and turns to one last hope, her maternal grandmother she never knew, namely Ella Hirsch (Shirley MacLaine). Ella works in a retirement community in Florida, and Maggie’s appearance causes quite a stir. When she lost her daughter, Ella lost touch with her granddaughters, and Maggie’s ‘visit’ serves as a catalyst for reconnection. Maggie’s visit becomes a reawakening of sorts for herself and a chance for Ella to rediscover her lost family. Meanwhile, Rose is at a crossroads in her life and decides to change course in her job and finds romance from an unlikely source. Anxious to reunite her granddaughters, Ella resorts to extreme measures to bridge an emotional gap as her two girls begin to discover their own identities in unique and unexpected ways.
This is a gem of a film. It says something when you realize early on that you are watching something special. Curtis Hanson (L.A.Confidential, Wonder Boys) has struck gold with Susannah Grant’s (Erin Brokovich) adaptation of the best seller by Jennifer Weiner. The film is really about the secrets and lies that cripple a family over time and how a strange course of events revisit the relationships or lack thereof. Hanson and the company do a marvelous job of balancing some very funny dialogue with more serious, dramatic scenes. There are some great, memorable lines, some of which are funny and smart without losing sight of the context of the story. A number of scenes are touching and affecting in their sensitive handling of real emotions without becoming clichéd. It’s nice to see real people who change over time and how seemingly inconsequential supporting characters gradually come to the forefront.
The acting by the entire cast is strong and you appreciate the little nuances in facial expression and inflection of dialogue that enrich each character. This may be Cameron Diaz’s best performance. That’s saying something as the glamorous model has been more star than actress in her most popular films (Charlie’s Angels, There’s Something About Mary) and she is given a juicy role with sharp direction. Toni Collette has always been a solid actress in any film (Sixth Sense, The Hours) but she has found a wonderful character in Rose and makes the most of it. Shirley MacLaine (Terms of Endearment, The Turning Point) is terrific in what is a change of pace role where she eschews makeup to look her age and shows a maternal wisdom that is the stuff of Supporting Oscars. You wish there were more of her in the film, but what’s there is delicious. It’s nice to see an old pro like Norman Lloyd still displaying his acting chops in what is a minor role of a bed-ridden patient who has a profound influence on Diaz’s character.
The performances are complemented by seamless editing which not only captures the right reactions, but effortlessly switches back and forth between the two sisters especially during key scenes that are thematically linked. Although the running time goes over two hours, the pacing is good, and everything seems integral to the storyline. The musical score by Mark Isham is quite effective in complimenting the emotional moments without ever being intrusive.
Despite its strong script, the film never fully explores Maggie’s transformation which, while uplifting and remarkable, is never totally convincing given her origins and tendencies. Things get wrapped up in a dreamy sendoff which is perhaps too good to be true, but those same qualities also make for a more upbeat film.
Hanson displays a very keen eye in relating what is essentially a woman’s film. Yes, this may be considered a woman’s film in its theme and target audience, but considering the fact it is also a well made, funny, and heart rending film about love and family, the women ought to bring along the men. In Her Shoes is not just about rival sisters but rather it is about a family yanked apart and slowly brought together again in ways that are not altogether apparent at the start. How these lost souls meld together is the stuff of high entertainment and substance.
***1/2 of **** stars
WALLACE AND GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT is superior family fun
The Oscar winning shorts headlining inventor Wallace and his loyal dog Gromit are expanded to a feature film in Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. The results are a splendidly entertaining 85 minutes of fun, excitement, comedy, and escapism that put most live-action films to shame.
Wallace and his canine pal, Gromit, have a thriving business as Anti-Pestos who hunt down and capture rabbits that are eating the vegetable yards of the neighborhood. Meanwhile, Wallace, who is constantly inventing new contraptions and devices, is experimenting with a mind altering machine that will brainwash a rabbit into not wanting veggies. But of course an accident occurs and later, under the full moon, a strange series of attacks by a large, mysterious creature ravages the vegetable gardens of many a neighbor. Meanwhile, Wallace is attracted to a woman, Lady Tottington, whose vegetables are part of the annual Great Vegetable Convention. At the same time, a lecherous man named Victor Quartermaine is on the make for her riches. As the vegetable competition is ready to begin, all the entrants are threatened by the giant veggie eating creature. Who is this strange creature and how can it be stopped? It falls on the loyal, resourceful Gromit to try to save the day even as danger threatens Wallace and the vegetable gathering.
Wallace and Gromit remind you of comedians Penn and Teller, where one is a straight man to the other’s silent pantomimes. Speaking of Gromit, his character clearly pays homage to the silent characters of Chaplin, Keaton, and even France’s Monsieur Hulot. Voice work by Ralph Fiennes (The Constant Gardener) and Helena Bonham Carter (The Corpse Bride) as Victor and Lady Tottington respectively is quite convincing. Although the characters are made from claymation, they take on a life of their own, and pretty soon you forget that you are watching clay and instead care about the characters as if they were real people.
Clever puns aside, and there are many of them that whiz by at a steady clip, the sight gags are delightfully amusing and inventive. The humorous situations are never stale or run out of steam but are consistently inspired. The title is a giveaway to the plot as it alludes to the werewolf mythology and the full moon. The transformation that serves as a major plot point is played for laughs and not horrific, Wolfman inspired though it may be. The identity of the creature is a playful parody of every werewolf movie ever made with a nod to such staples as King Kong and Frankenstein. The filmmakers even throw a couple of red herrings to keep you guessing until the big revelation. There are scary moments however, without needing to be graphic or terrifying. All this is from a G-rated film?
The pacing is very good and the mood goes from simple comedy to suspense to a hint of romance. Not only is the animation effective with its expressive characters emoting believably, but the overall production is strong even in areas one might not expect in an animated film, namely the cinematography and editing. Even the rousing musical score done by committee is heroically inventive and inspired.
Made by the creative team (Directors Steve Box and Nick Park) which scored big on the recent Chicken Run, ‘Wallace and Gromit’ soars even higher in terms of overall excellence. It works for kids to be sure as the screen is filled with a smorgasbord of colorful and imaginative sets, characters, and effects. What is special is how the film plays for adults in equal measure as the simple storyline is played straight and the jokes are rapid and clever. A great deal of care and time (five years) went into making every scene work, no small feat. This marks another high point this past year in animation as the art form has enjoyed a surge in popularity and creativity. Not only is Wallace and Gromit one of the best animated films of the year (surely giving The Corpse Bride a run for its money), it’s one of the best films of 2005. So when is the sequel coming out?
***1/2 of **** stars
Wallace and his canine pal, Gromit, have a thriving business as Anti-Pestos who hunt down and capture rabbits that are eating the vegetable yards of the neighborhood. Meanwhile, Wallace, who is constantly inventing new contraptions and devices, is experimenting with a mind altering machine that will brainwash a rabbit into not wanting veggies. But of course an accident occurs and later, under the full moon, a strange series of attacks by a large, mysterious creature ravages the vegetable gardens of many a neighbor. Meanwhile, Wallace is attracted to a woman, Lady Tottington, whose vegetables are part of the annual Great Vegetable Convention. At the same time, a lecherous man named Victor Quartermaine is on the make for her riches. As the vegetable competition is ready to begin, all the entrants are threatened by the giant veggie eating creature. Who is this strange creature and how can it be stopped? It falls on the loyal, resourceful Gromit to try to save the day even as danger threatens Wallace and the vegetable gathering.
Wallace and Gromit remind you of comedians Penn and Teller, where one is a straight man to the other’s silent pantomimes. Speaking of Gromit, his character clearly pays homage to the silent characters of Chaplin, Keaton, and even France’s Monsieur Hulot. Voice work by Ralph Fiennes (The Constant Gardener) and Helena Bonham Carter (The Corpse Bride) as Victor and Lady Tottington respectively is quite convincing. Although the characters are made from claymation, they take on a life of their own, and pretty soon you forget that you are watching clay and instead care about the characters as if they were real people.
Clever puns aside, and there are many of them that whiz by at a steady clip, the sight gags are delightfully amusing and inventive. The humorous situations are never stale or run out of steam but are consistently inspired. The title is a giveaway to the plot as it alludes to the werewolf mythology and the full moon. The transformation that serves as a major plot point is played for laughs and not horrific, Wolfman inspired though it may be. The identity of the creature is a playful parody of every werewolf movie ever made with a nod to such staples as King Kong and Frankenstein. The filmmakers even throw a couple of red herrings to keep you guessing until the big revelation. There are scary moments however, without needing to be graphic or terrifying. All this is from a G-rated film?
The pacing is very good and the mood goes from simple comedy to suspense to a hint of romance. Not only is the animation effective with its expressive characters emoting believably, but the overall production is strong even in areas one might not expect in an animated film, namely the cinematography and editing. Even the rousing musical score done by committee is heroically inventive and inspired.
Made by the creative team (Directors Steve Box and Nick Park) which scored big on the recent Chicken Run, ‘Wallace and Gromit’ soars even higher in terms of overall excellence. It works for kids to be sure as the screen is filled with a smorgasbord of colorful and imaginative sets, characters, and effects. What is special is how the film plays for adults in equal measure as the simple storyline is played straight and the jokes are rapid and clever. A great deal of care and time (five years) went into making every scene work, no small feat. This marks another high point this past year in animation as the art form has enjoyed a surge in popularity and creativity. Not only is Wallace and Gromit one of the best animated films of the year (surely giving The Corpse Bride a run for its money), it’s one of the best films of 2005. So when is the sequel coming out?
***1/2 of **** stars
Life as a Math PROOF
Director John Madden and Gwyneth Paltrow reteam (Shakespeare in Love) in this film adaptation of the multi-award winning play, Proof. This tale of the bond between a mathematics student and her brilliant but mentally ill father is touching at times but can be a bit of a downer despite some strong performances by a terrific cast.
Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) lives with her father, Robert (Anthony Hopkins), a brilliant mathematician whose psychological bouts with mental illness undermine a genius of scholarly writings and formulas. The story begins as her father has died recently, and she sees herself talking to him and fantasizing about their past relationship. Pleasant memories give way to painful ones as her father begins to slip away from sanity. Catherine, herself, is a bright mathematics student who is befriended by one of her father’s pupils, Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal). Enter her sister, Claire, (Hope Davis) whose compulsively organized, sanitized lifestyle is counterpoint to the bohemian spirit of her troubled sister. As Claire attempts to convince Catherine to move back to New York and leave the house that their father occupied, strong bonds are tested and old wounds exposed. Meanwhile, Hal has been studying Robert’s journals and eventually stumbles onto a potentially significant discovery courtesy of Catherine. This revelation has serious scholarly implications and generates a potential controversy that intertwines Catherine’s self doubts about her own sanity with her father’s memory. The question remains, “Like father, like daughter?”
It doesn’t quite shed its stagy and talky origins but the basic material seems intact as adapted by Rebecca Miller and David Auburn from his Tony Award and Pulitzer Prize winning play. Cinematically, the film flashes back and forth over a period of a few years to depict Robert’s decline and its effect on the emotionally distraught Catherine. Time is periodically fragmented and memories are linked in an almost stream of consciousness. It is at times hard to distinguish what is reality or a memory or an illusion, and that is perhaps the point of the story to illustrate Catherine’s uncertainties and her own little madness. However, this also serves to confuse the audience.
The film tries to tackle the issue of ‘what is genius’ and ‘what is mental illness’ as if the two might be connected. On the former, we have to take it on faith, and on the latter, there is barely any clinical or medical exposition on Robert’s condition. Are the filmmakers saying that Robert’s genius led to his madness or that it may do the same to Catherine? As an audience, we begin to doubt her sanity and even her mathematic talents. The final flashback scenes with Hopkins as he loses his sanity are heartbreaking but not as powerful as they could have been. It is just not as poignant or powerful when compared to the inspired Shakespeare in Love, granted, a more romantic and comedic film story. Even Catherine’s mad dash at the very end should be emotionally resounding and even uplifting. Rather, it only gives the semblance of hope and an uncertain future for its protagonist.
For Paltrow, this part must have had resonance having just lost her father, producer-director Bruce Paltrow. She is the best thing about this film with her convincing depiction of an emotionally spent daughter who has a guilt ridden conscience. This performance confirms that her Oscar for Shakespeare in Love was no fluke. Hopkins is always fun to watch even though his screen time is rather limited in just flashbacks. Gyllenhaal is pretty good as her friend and confidant. (His career is coming full swing this year with two more high profile films, Brokeback Mountain and Jarhead). Hope Davis (American Splendor, About Schmidt) doesn’t have much to work with in her character, but she proves to be an always dependable supporting actress with each succeeding film.
There will be audiences who note the similarities between this story and A Beautiful Mind. The subject matter may be familiar, but that’s where the connection ends. A Beautiful Mind was adapted from a book and was done with great flamboyance and inspiration. In Proof, we have a more confined space to work from and an even more limited narrative that essentially cannot free itself of its claustrophobic setting. It’s a somewhat downbeat story with good performances especially by Paltrow. For audiences looking for thoughtful introspection on the correlation of genius and mental illness as it affects and perhaps perpetuates through a family, then this is worth your attention. Others will respect the talents involved but may wonder by the end what the fuss was about.
*** of **** stars (mainly for the acting)
Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) lives with her father, Robert (Anthony Hopkins), a brilliant mathematician whose psychological bouts with mental illness undermine a genius of scholarly writings and formulas. The story begins as her father has died recently, and she sees herself talking to him and fantasizing about their past relationship. Pleasant memories give way to painful ones as her father begins to slip away from sanity. Catherine, herself, is a bright mathematics student who is befriended by one of her father’s pupils, Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal). Enter her sister, Claire, (Hope Davis) whose compulsively organized, sanitized lifestyle is counterpoint to the bohemian spirit of her troubled sister. As Claire attempts to convince Catherine to move back to New York and leave the house that their father occupied, strong bonds are tested and old wounds exposed. Meanwhile, Hal has been studying Robert’s journals and eventually stumbles onto a potentially significant discovery courtesy of Catherine. This revelation has serious scholarly implications and generates a potential controversy that intertwines Catherine’s self doubts about her own sanity with her father’s memory. The question remains, “Like father, like daughter?”
It doesn’t quite shed its stagy and talky origins but the basic material seems intact as adapted by Rebecca Miller and David Auburn from his Tony Award and Pulitzer Prize winning play. Cinematically, the film flashes back and forth over a period of a few years to depict Robert’s decline and its effect on the emotionally distraught Catherine. Time is periodically fragmented and memories are linked in an almost stream of consciousness. It is at times hard to distinguish what is reality or a memory or an illusion, and that is perhaps the point of the story to illustrate Catherine’s uncertainties and her own little madness. However, this also serves to confuse the audience.
The film tries to tackle the issue of ‘what is genius’ and ‘what is mental illness’ as if the two might be connected. On the former, we have to take it on faith, and on the latter, there is barely any clinical or medical exposition on Robert’s condition. Are the filmmakers saying that Robert’s genius led to his madness or that it may do the same to Catherine? As an audience, we begin to doubt her sanity and even her mathematic talents. The final flashback scenes with Hopkins as he loses his sanity are heartbreaking but not as powerful as they could have been. It is just not as poignant or powerful when compared to the inspired Shakespeare in Love, granted, a more romantic and comedic film story. Even Catherine’s mad dash at the very end should be emotionally resounding and even uplifting. Rather, it only gives the semblance of hope and an uncertain future for its protagonist.
For Paltrow, this part must have had resonance having just lost her father, producer-director Bruce Paltrow. She is the best thing about this film with her convincing depiction of an emotionally spent daughter who has a guilt ridden conscience. This performance confirms that her Oscar for Shakespeare in Love was no fluke. Hopkins is always fun to watch even though his screen time is rather limited in just flashbacks. Gyllenhaal is pretty good as her friend and confidant. (His career is coming full swing this year with two more high profile films, Brokeback Mountain and Jarhead). Hope Davis (American Splendor, About Schmidt) doesn’t have much to work with in her character, but she proves to be an always dependable supporting actress with each succeeding film.
There will be audiences who note the similarities between this story and A Beautiful Mind. The subject matter may be familiar, but that’s where the connection ends. A Beautiful Mind was adapted from a book and was done with great flamboyance and inspiration. In Proof, we have a more confined space to work from and an even more limited narrative that essentially cannot free itself of its claustrophobic setting. It’s a somewhat downbeat story with good performances especially by Paltrow. For audiences looking for thoughtful introspection on the correlation of genius and mental illness as it affects and perhaps perpetuates through a family, then this is worth your attention. Others will respect the talents involved but may wonder by the end what the fuss was about.
*** of **** stars (mainly for the acting)
Antique Show is a Pleasant Visit
Recently, I attended the Antique Show in Gaithersburg, MD which features older furniture, jewelry, and countless collectibles from around the region. An added feature to these items for sale is the appearance of a few noteworthy film and television stars of the past. This time it was Anson Williams and Donnie Most who were prominent supporting players in the 1970’s sitcom Happy Days. Among the other guests was Marta Kristen who played Judy Robinson, the older daughter in the 1960’s scifi cult classic Lost in Space, a favorite from my childhood. Her striking features stood out and she was such a sweet person who exuded good vibes. I asked if she was doing any current acting and she said that she was pretty much taking a vacation and returning to take care of her family. She did say she had done numerous commercial spots in the past year. It was a pleasure to meet her.
THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN is Naughty Fun
Steve Carell has been a fixture on Comedy Central for years and had scene stealing minor roles in feature films like Anchorman and Bruce Almighty, but with his first starring role as The 40 Year Old Virgin, he has struck pay dirt. Although crude in its humor and at times graphic in its display of sexual conduct, the film has a core story that elevates it above most gross out comedies and does keep the funny lines coming fast enough to amuse most.
Andy Stitzer, a painfully shy 40 year old, works as a service tech at an electronic entertainment showroom. He is friends with three salesmen who soon find during a poker game that Andy is a virgin, never having had sex with a woman before. It seems Andy never got around to that experience although his attempts are hilariously recalled. Because Andy is humiliated and embarrassed at the barbs and jokes at his expense, his buddies band together to help their fledgling. The aid comes in the forms of speed dating, roaming the singles bars, hitting on book store clerks, and propositioning the showroom’s customers where Andy meets an attractive woman, Trish (Catherine Keener), a single mother who has a small business. The two instantly hit it off, but when it comes time to consummate the relationship, things go awry and Andy becomes more despondent when he cannot bear to reveal his deep secret to the woman he loves. It’s time for a momentous decision in Andy’s life.
Carell co produced and stars in what is his pet project. Judd Apatow (The Larry Sanders Show) directs the script he cowrote with Carell. True, some of the jokes crash and burn badly or misfire and fizzle, but enough keeps coming to raise some good roaring fun. As Andy, Carell plays an everyman kind of role, and his friends who on surface seem like chauvinistic frat boys, do care and come to his aid in an endearing spirit. He is so adept at the nuances and exaggerated movements of physical comedy that he needs to exploit them further (as he will in the big screen remake of the TV spy show, Get Smart). Among the numerous scenes, the standout and most talked about one is the infamous hair removal at a waxing clinic where Andy attempts to make himself more physically appealing. The results are disastrous, and it is well known that Carell performed the scene for real and suffered for his ‘art’. Catherine Keener is a breath of fresh air and quite appealing in her realistic role of a single mother looking for love in the most unlikely of places. The relationship between Trish and Andy develops earnestly and serves to anchor the sillier aspects of the storyline. And there is silly aplenty with some outrageous lines of dialogue and vulgar asides. In some ways, this is about a man who finds his own sense of manhood and maturity after being a boy for a long time. There are subplots involving each of the guys that are amusing but don’t really add anything to the story. Also good is the developing relationship Andy has with Trish’s daughter. The final scene is pretty nutty and clever as the credits roll.
On the surface, this film would appear to have all the ingredients for an over-the-top comedy like Animal House or American Pie. Indeed, there are a couple of scenes that are quite sexually explicit. It takes its R rating seriously. Don’t be misled. This is not a one note comedy but rather a romantic tale. At its heart, it has a well intentioned theme of longing and frustration with some genuine compassion. If you go in knowing you may be grossed out at times but still induced to laughter, then that pretty much sums up the appeal of this energetic film. In a star making turn, Carell is one to watch for quite some time.
*** of **** stars
Andy Stitzer, a painfully shy 40 year old, works as a service tech at an electronic entertainment showroom. He is friends with three salesmen who soon find during a poker game that Andy is a virgin, never having had sex with a woman before. It seems Andy never got around to that experience although his attempts are hilariously recalled. Because Andy is humiliated and embarrassed at the barbs and jokes at his expense, his buddies band together to help their fledgling. The aid comes in the forms of speed dating, roaming the singles bars, hitting on book store clerks, and propositioning the showroom’s customers where Andy meets an attractive woman, Trish (Catherine Keener), a single mother who has a small business. The two instantly hit it off, but when it comes time to consummate the relationship, things go awry and Andy becomes more despondent when he cannot bear to reveal his deep secret to the woman he loves. It’s time for a momentous decision in Andy’s life.
Carell co produced and stars in what is his pet project. Judd Apatow (The Larry Sanders Show) directs the script he cowrote with Carell. True, some of the jokes crash and burn badly or misfire and fizzle, but enough keeps coming to raise some good roaring fun. As Andy, Carell plays an everyman kind of role, and his friends who on surface seem like chauvinistic frat boys, do care and come to his aid in an endearing spirit. He is so adept at the nuances and exaggerated movements of physical comedy that he needs to exploit them further (as he will in the big screen remake of the TV spy show, Get Smart). Among the numerous scenes, the standout and most talked about one is the infamous hair removal at a waxing clinic where Andy attempts to make himself more physically appealing. The results are disastrous, and it is well known that Carell performed the scene for real and suffered for his ‘art’. Catherine Keener is a breath of fresh air and quite appealing in her realistic role of a single mother looking for love in the most unlikely of places. The relationship between Trish and Andy develops earnestly and serves to anchor the sillier aspects of the storyline. And there is silly aplenty with some outrageous lines of dialogue and vulgar asides. In some ways, this is about a man who finds his own sense of manhood and maturity after being a boy for a long time. There are subplots involving each of the guys that are amusing but don’t really add anything to the story. Also good is the developing relationship Andy has with Trish’s daughter. The final scene is pretty nutty and clever as the credits roll.
On the surface, this film would appear to have all the ingredients for an over-the-top comedy like Animal House or American Pie. Indeed, there are a couple of scenes that are quite sexually explicit. It takes its R rating seriously. Don’t be misled. This is not a one note comedy but rather a romantic tale. At its heart, it has a well intentioned theme of longing and frustration with some genuine compassion. If you go in knowing you may be grossed out at times but still induced to laughter, then that pretty much sums up the appeal of this energetic film. In a star making turn, Carell is one to watch for quite some time.
*** of **** stars
A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE Disturbs the Senses
This is not a pleasant film. It is about the nature of violence and how humans are forced into violence and its consequences. Master of visceral angst, David Cronenberg, tackles the subject of the present haunted by the past in small town America in A History of Violence. Although its subject matter is disturbing and the visuals are unnerving, it boasts some of the best acting in any film this year and is the most accomplished of Cronenberg’s cinematic canon.
Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a family man who runs a quiet diner in a small town and has the idyllic life of husband to a beautiful, loving wife, Edie (Maria Bello), and father to an adolescent son, Jack (Ashton Holmes), and younger daughter, Sarah (Heidi Hayes). One fateful day a pair of serial criminals barges into the diner looking for trouble in the worst way, and Tom must protect his patrons and staff. What transpires is a remarkable display of self defense and marksmanship as Tom becomes a local hero for his bravery. Soon after, a mysterious, black car begins to stalk Tom and his family at his diner and home. A hardened looking man named Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) approaches Tom. It seems Tom’s notoriety in the media has attracted Fogarty’s attention leading him to believe Tom is not who he appears to be but rather a man named Joey with a very dark, violent past. Years ago, this Joey had run from the mob after causing a lot of trouble and mutilating one of Fogarty’s eyes. The uneasy tension bubbles over when Fogarty and his men confront Tom at his home as his family watches in terror. What happens then and afterwards leads to traumatic discovery and the reevaluation of relationships that culminates full circle at a mobster’s mansion in Philadelphia.
Adapted by Josh Olson from the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke, director Cronenberg displays a sure hand in his scenes of conflict whether they are emotional or violent. How ironic that the Canadian born director comments on the violence in the U.S. He does a nice job of setting up the scenes and characters methodically as we first see a loving family amid an innocent town. Subsequently, an ominous atmosphere of foreboding hangs over the rest of the film. There are some terrific set pieces that culminate in startling violence, and the confrontation at Tom’s house is quite memorable and results in a moment of truth. Let it be said that the violence is organic. It grows out of necessity and is carried out brutally and swiftly. The scenes have a lingering trauma on the characters and the audience. The visuals are stark and powerful by cinematographer Peter Suschitzky with a brooding score by Howard Shore (ironically a veteran scorer of pervious Cronenberg films and Mortensen’s Lord of the Rings trilogy). In fact the film, with its small, peaceful town contrasted with an evil menace, feels like a David Lynch film, and is thematically very much akin to Blue Velvet or Twin Peaks.
Ed Harris makes a grand entrance early on and he grabs this juicy role and never lets go. It is certainly one of his finest performances. William Hurt makes you realize just how talented an actor he is in the relatively short but brilliant turn as a mobster from the past with an agenda. But it is lead actor Viggo Mortensen who shines as the reluctant hero. He balances just the right amount of paradoxical innocence and cunning. He is a man about to peer over the precipice and lose everything he has. His brooding, quiet but strong avenger is constantly riveting. Maria Bello is quite touching as the affected wife and mother who is confronted by fear and uncertainty. Even Stephen McHattie registers strongly as one of the baddies (very reminiscent of the scum in Natural Born Killers) at the beginning.
Some directors are accused of making movies of interminable length. Not so with Cronenberg as he may be accused of being too economic and concise. While the pacing is tightly edited for maximum impact, some relationships needed to be fleshed out more. During the course of the story, there are two graphic displays of sex between Tom and Edie (one playful and the other angry) which serve as emotional counterpoints to their relationship. We need to understand what is going on in Edie’s mind and how she faces the future with her family. While there is a promising development of the early bonding between Tom and his introverted son Jack, we want more exposition of Jack as he goes from harassed school kid to a coming of age. We just needed a bit more character development, but what we do have is pretty thought provoking and unforgettable. The final scene is memorable.
A far cry from his notorious horror films, this film delves into the true nature of self and identity. This is Cronenberg’s most accessible film since The Fly and The Dead Zone. While his early horror films like Scanners and Videodrome dealt with physical transformation, this film deals with metaphysical transformation. He comes dangerously close to his earlier, notorious cult film, Crash (not to be confused with Paul Haggis’ current film), another film about human behavior dealing with psychological change. His films often deal with ugly, sordid truths and secrets that lie beneath what is perceived superficially. A fascinating study and exploration of human behavior under the most extreme duress, A History of Violence is an intelligent, brutal gem of a film not for all tastes, but for those willing to peer on the other side of sanity and complacency, it’s a dark slice of unsavory life.
***1/2 of **** stars
Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a family man who runs a quiet diner in a small town and has the idyllic life of husband to a beautiful, loving wife, Edie (Maria Bello), and father to an adolescent son, Jack (Ashton Holmes), and younger daughter, Sarah (Heidi Hayes). One fateful day a pair of serial criminals barges into the diner looking for trouble in the worst way, and Tom must protect his patrons and staff. What transpires is a remarkable display of self defense and marksmanship as Tom becomes a local hero for his bravery. Soon after, a mysterious, black car begins to stalk Tom and his family at his diner and home. A hardened looking man named Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) approaches Tom. It seems Tom’s notoriety in the media has attracted Fogarty’s attention leading him to believe Tom is not who he appears to be but rather a man named Joey with a very dark, violent past. Years ago, this Joey had run from the mob after causing a lot of trouble and mutilating one of Fogarty’s eyes. The uneasy tension bubbles over when Fogarty and his men confront Tom at his home as his family watches in terror. What happens then and afterwards leads to traumatic discovery and the reevaluation of relationships that culminates full circle at a mobster’s mansion in Philadelphia.
Adapted by Josh Olson from the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke, director Cronenberg displays a sure hand in his scenes of conflict whether they are emotional or violent. How ironic that the Canadian born director comments on the violence in the U.S. He does a nice job of setting up the scenes and characters methodically as we first see a loving family amid an innocent town. Subsequently, an ominous atmosphere of foreboding hangs over the rest of the film. There are some terrific set pieces that culminate in startling violence, and the confrontation at Tom’s house is quite memorable and results in a moment of truth. Let it be said that the violence is organic. It grows out of necessity and is carried out brutally and swiftly. The scenes have a lingering trauma on the characters and the audience. The visuals are stark and powerful by cinematographer Peter Suschitzky with a brooding score by Howard Shore (ironically a veteran scorer of pervious Cronenberg films and Mortensen’s Lord of the Rings trilogy). In fact the film, with its small, peaceful town contrasted with an evil menace, feels like a David Lynch film, and is thematically very much akin to Blue Velvet or Twin Peaks.
Ed Harris makes a grand entrance early on and he grabs this juicy role and never lets go. It is certainly one of his finest performances. William Hurt makes you realize just how talented an actor he is in the relatively short but brilliant turn as a mobster from the past with an agenda. But it is lead actor Viggo Mortensen who shines as the reluctant hero. He balances just the right amount of paradoxical innocence and cunning. He is a man about to peer over the precipice and lose everything he has. His brooding, quiet but strong avenger is constantly riveting. Maria Bello is quite touching as the affected wife and mother who is confronted by fear and uncertainty. Even Stephen McHattie registers strongly as one of the baddies (very reminiscent of the scum in Natural Born Killers) at the beginning.
Some directors are accused of making movies of interminable length. Not so with Cronenberg as he may be accused of being too economic and concise. While the pacing is tightly edited for maximum impact, some relationships needed to be fleshed out more. During the course of the story, there are two graphic displays of sex between Tom and Edie (one playful and the other angry) which serve as emotional counterpoints to their relationship. We need to understand what is going on in Edie’s mind and how she faces the future with her family. While there is a promising development of the early bonding between Tom and his introverted son Jack, we want more exposition of Jack as he goes from harassed school kid to a coming of age. We just needed a bit more character development, but what we do have is pretty thought provoking and unforgettable. The final scene is memorable.
A far cry from his notorious horror films, this film delves into the true nature of self and identity. This is Cronenberg’s most accessible film since The Fly and The Dead Zone. While his early horror films like Scanners and Videodrome dealt with physical transformation, this film deals with metaphysical transformation. He comes dangerously close to his earlier, notorious cult film, Crash (not to be confused with Paul Haggis’ current film), another film about human behavior dealing with psychological change. His films often deal with ugly, sordid truths and secrets that lie beneath what is perceived superficially. A fascinating study and exploration of human behavior under the most extreme duress, A History of Violence is an intelligent, brutal gem of a film not for all tastes, but for those willing to peer on the other side of sanity and complacency, it’s a dark slice of unsavory life.
***1/2 of **** stars
Monday, September 26, 2005
Real Emotions Breathe Life in THE CORPSE BRIDE
Don’t let the creepy title of this animated, musical tale throw you off. In the tradition of other excellent, animated features of recent years, The Corpse Bride will surely rank as one of the best. Granted, this kind of film may not be for all tastes, but if you can get past the title and are game for a wondrous, haunting world of fantasy and love, then this is your meal ticket.
Victor and his parents meet Victoria and her family to attend a wedding rehearsal. Unbeknownst to Victor’s family, it seems Victoria’s parents are broke and desperately need the marriage to secure their future. Yet, marriage is new to the nervous Victor, and when he gets jittery at the church, he runs off and into the woods to collect his thoughts. There, he jokingly recites his wedding vows and slips his wedding band on a finger shaped piece of what appears to be wood. The next thing he knows, the wooden finger is a real finger belonging to a former bride, and she has sprung ‘alive’ to his offer of marriage. As Victor reels in horror and confusion at his ‘corpse bride’, he is whisked away to another world of people who have died. While the corpse bride is partly decomposed, she retains much of her former beauty. Yet others in this strange land are mere skeletons and rotted flesh. It turns out that the corpse bride was to be married, but her groom had evil plans for her. She has been waiting for her true love ever since her demise. Meanwhile, Victoria’s parents are approached by a mysterious, handsome suitor who wants to marry Victoria. Victor must make a fateful decision and choose between the two brides even as the dead descend on the land of the living for a wedding ceremony like none other. One groom and two brides-what to do?
This is Tim Burton’s latest foray into stop motion animation, and he and Mike Johnson direct with economy from a relatively simple screenplay by John August, Pamela Pettler, and Caroline Thompson. The characters, especially Victor and the corpse bride, are well etched and create an emotional bond with the audience. Although we want Victor to marry his love Victoria, we grow to feel sympathy and attachment to the corpse bride as well. As for the images of the dead, Burton and company do a delightful job of making what, on the outset, could be grotesque and turning them into energized, playful souls. There is a terrific Peter Lorre homage with a worm who keeps popping in and out of the bride’s eye socket. After a short time, the skeletal limbs and discolored dead no longer seem frightening or gross. Ironically the most colorful sequences involve the world of the dead while the living are painted in austere, lifeless mutes of gray.
Much of the production team are veterans of other Burton films. Longtime collaborator Danny Elfman again provides an atmospheric score and a handful of nifty, little songs to move things along. Even the voices of the principals are Burton alumni, Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter (Burton’s significant other). Give Depp credit for voicing a British sounding character convincingly while others like Emily Watson, Albert Finney, Christopher Lee and Tracey Ullman, to name a few, are quite effective at bringing their figures to life. It’s a testament to Burton’s imaginative appeal that twice the usual number of major acting talents contributed to this work.
For all those who loved Burton’s earlier produced efforts, The Nightmare Before Christmas (whose ghoulish nature is quite similar) and James and the Giant Peach, this is a worthy followup. The animation itself is virtually seamless, and the characters and figures move as in real life. It is a far cry from the Rankin-Bass Christmas specials of the 1960’s. The set designs and costumes are very much gothic in style. It seems that Burton is drawing from his own films or is perpetuating his influences as evidenced in his previous films like Beetlejuice, Batman, and Edward Scissorhands particularly in his obsession with the good and evil in man. It also delves into the perception of life versus death. Who is really alive and who acts like the nonliving? It is evident that the true antecedent of The Corpse Bride is Burton’s own version of Washington Irving’s Sleepy Hollow with a nod toward Dickens (with its contrast in class distinction and its unsavory characters), especially the Miss Havisham character in Great Expectations.
The Corpse Bride marks a continuing peak in the current revival of animated feature films which was signaled by Toy Story a decade earlier and has been raised to new heights with such recent triumphs as Shrek and Finding Nemo. The final shot is a wondrous, memorable end that recalls the transformation scene in Disney’s classic, Beauty and the Beast. In fact, so good is its animation and technique that it is easy to forgive any shortcomings in what is basically a one act, one note story albeit told with sincerity. With just a bit more pathos and storyline, Burton’s team would have had an instant classic. It’s a near miss, but its status as the best animated film of the year is secure.
***1/2 of **** stars (**** for the animation and *** for the story)
Victor and his parents meet Victoria and her family to attend a wedding rehearsal. Unbeknownst to Victor’s family, it seems Victoria’s parents are broke and desperately need the marriage to secure their future. Yet, marriage is new to the nervous Victor, and when he gets jittery at the church, he runs off and into the woods to collect his thoughts. There, he jokingly recites his wedding vows and slips his wedding band on a finger shaped piece of what appears to be wood. The next thing he knows, the wooden finger is a real finger belonging to a former bride, and she has sprung ‘alive’ to his offer of marriage. As Victor reels in horror and confusion at his ‘corpse bride’, he is whisked away to another world of people who have died. While the corpse bride is partly decomposed, she retains much of her former beauty. Yet others in this strange land are mere skeletons and rotted flesh. It turns out that the corpse bride was to be married, but her groom had evil plans for her. She has been waiting for her true love ever since her demise. Meanwhile, Victoria’s parents are approached by a mysterious, handsome suitor who wants to marry Victoria. Victor must make a fateful decision and choose between the two brides even as the dead descend on the land of the living for a wedding ceremony like none other. One groom and two brides-what to do?
This is Tim Burton’s latest foray into stop motion animation, and he and Mike Johnson direct with economy from a relatively simple screenplay by John August, Pamela Pettler, and Caroline Thompson. The characters, especially Victor and the corpse bride, are well etched and create an emotional bond with the audience. Although we want Victor to marry his love Victoria, we grow to feel sympathy and attachment to the corpse bride as well. As for the images of the dead, Burton and company do a delightful job of making what, on the outset, could be grotesque and turning them into energized, playful souls. There is a terrific Peter Lorre homage with a worm who keeps popping in and out of the bride’s eye socket. After a short time, the skeletal limbs and discolored dead no longer seem frightening or gross. Ironically the most colorful sequences involve the world of the dead while the living are painted in austere, lifeless mutes of gray.
Much of the production team are veterans of other Burton films. Longtime collaborator Danny Elfman again provides an atmospheric score and a handful of nifty, little songs to move things along. Even the voices of the principals are Burton alumni, Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter (Burton’s significant other). Give Depp credit for voicing a British sounding character convincingly while others like Emily Watson, Albert Finney, Christopher Lee and Tracey Ullman, to name a few, are quite effective at bringing their figures to life. It’s a testament to Burton’s imaginative appeal that twice the usual number of major acting talents contributed to this work.
For all those who loved Burton’s earlier produced efforts, The Nightmare Before Christmas (whose ghoulish nature is quite similar) and James and the Giant Peach, this is a worthy followup. The animation itself is virtually seamless, and the characters and figures move as in real life. It is a far cry from the Rankin-Bass Christmas specials of the 1960’s. The set designs and costumes are very much gothic in style. It seems that Burton is drawing from his own films or is perpetuating his influences as evidenced in his previous films like Beetlejuice, Batman, and Edward Scissorhands particularly in his obsession with the good and evil in man. It also delves into the perception of life versus death. Who is really alive and who acts like the nonliving? It is evident that the true antecedent of The Corpse Bride is Burton’s own version of Washington Irving’s Sleepy Hollow with a nod toward Dickens (with its contrast in class distinction and its unsavory characters), especially the Miss Havisham character in Great Expectations.
The Corpse Bride marks a continuing peak in the current revival of animated feature films which was signaled by Toy Story a decade earlier and has been raised to new heights with such recent triumphs as Shrek and Finding Nemo. The final shot is a wondrous, memorable end that recalls the transformation scene in Disney’s classic, Beauty and the Beast. In fact, so good is its animation and technique that it is easy to forgive any shortcomings in what is basically a one act, one note story albeit told with sincerity. With just a bit more pathos and storyline, Burton’s team would have had an instant classic. It’s a near miss, but its status as the best animated film of the year is secure.
***1/2 of **** stars (**** for the animation and *** for the story)
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Director Robert Wise-An Appreciation
The passing of legendary film director Robert Wise last week marks the end of Hollywood’s golden age. Virtually all of the great directors who made their mark before 1950 are now gone. A few veterans like Stanley Donen (On the Town) remain, but with the passing of Wise, Hollywood has lost a true giant of movie history. From his horror classic, The Body Snatchers (1945), to the dream team boardroom of Executive Suite (1954), to a graphic depiction of capital punishment in I Want To Live (1958), to a politically charged indictment of war in The Sand Pebbles (1966), Wise has traversed the cinematic landscape with stunning achievement and success. His was that rare combination of critical acclaim, award recognition, and box office triumph. For years, his 1965 musical, The Sound of Music, was one of the most successful films of all time.
I met Robert Wise at the University of Maryland in College Park when I was still involved in the film program at the student union some 25 years ago. A guy named Mike and I picked up Wise and his wife from the airport and drove them to a hotel room near the campus. He had white hair, glasses, and spoke with a soft tone. En route, I had a chance to talk to him about his movies, and he was very open to answering questions and discussing his stellar career. It was amusing how his wife kept asking us to drive her to Monticello during their stay because she wanted to take a side trip to visit that historic landmark. We never did go but she was persistent and stubborn. When we arrived at their hotel and got them settled, I asked for Wise’s autograph and he obliged. I felt like such a groupie but I had to ask.
I was a fan of his films growing up having been raised on staples like The Sound of Music and West Side Story. I didn’t realize that I had already seen many of his other films and was impressed by what a versatile director he was by delving into a wide array of film genres. For example, his science fiction films like The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Andromeda Strain are now considered classics. It is astonishing how his career spanned a half century of film and that he had worked with some of the top talents in Hollywood whether it be Orson Welles on Citizen Kane (where Wise was a film editor), Val Lewton the king of B movie horror, Clark Gable in Run Silent Run Deep, George C Scott in The Hindenberg, or Steve McQueen in The Sand Pebbles. He won four Oscars as producer and director of West Side Story and The Sound of Music.
Whatever Wise did, he did well. Although he did not do any pure comedies, he had in all his films a gritty realism and authenticity which only served to enhance his subject matter. As a result, his films stand the test of time and seem relevant and watchable even today while other contemporaries seem very dated and phony. A good example of his attention to detail is the chase at the end of The Day the Earth Stood Still as the military read off actual street names in Washington D.C. Would anyone else have known the difference or even cared? Wise did, and his penchant for accuracy has paid handsomely over the years. I told him that I was thoroughly impressed by the meticulous sets in The Andromeda Strain, and he was flattered saying how he strove for great realism because it would enhance the credibility and believability of the movie. Watch the climactic countdown in the quarantine unit and see if any other film comes close to matching the intensity of suspense. The film holds up well to this day. He even told me how he was rushed to meet an impossible deadline for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and while the film was decent enough, it seemed bloated and overlong. Wise said that he did not have time to trim the film down to a good pace and running time. He has since been able to rectify that shortcoming with the recent DVD release of his director’s cut.
Wise spoke to a crowd of students and general public at the student union theater, and many of his films were shown that week. My friend Murray and I drove him to the airport to catch a flight back to the west coast. Its funny how every time I would see an interview of him since then, he seemed exactly the same way he had been on campus-a distinguished, classy veteran of film who loved to talk celluloid and was receptive to the students. I was fortunate to have known a great director and good guy.
I met Robert Wise at the University of Maryland in College Park when I was still involved in the film program at the student union some 25 years ago. A guy named Mike and I picked up Wise and his wife from the airport and drove them to a hotel room near the campus. He had white hair, glasses, and spoke with a soft tone. En route, I had a chance to talk to him about his movies, and he was very open to answering questions and discussing his stellar career. It was amusing how his wife kept asking us to drive her to Monticello during their stay because she wanted to take a side trip to visit that historic landmark. We never did go but she was persistent and stubborn. When we arrived at their hotel and got them settled, I asked for Wise’s autograph and he obliged. I felt like such a groupie but I had to ask.
I was a fan of his films growing up having been raised on staples like The Sound of Music and West Side Story. I didn’t realize that I had already seen many of his other films and was impressed by what a versatile director he was by delving into a wide array of film genres. For example, his science fiction films like The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Andromeda Strain are now considered classics. It is astonishing how his career spanned a half century of film and that he had worked with some of the top talents in Hollywood whether it be Orson Welles on Citizen Kane (where Wise was a film editor), Val Lewton the king of B movie horror, Clark Gable in Run Silent Run Deep, George C Scott in The Hindenberg, or Steve McQueen in The Sand Pebbles. He won four Oscars as producer and director of West Side Story and The Sound of Music.
Whatever Wise did, he did well. Although he did not do any pure comedies, he had in all his films a gritty realism and authenticity which only served to enhance his subject matter. As a result, his films stand the test of time and seem relevant and watchable even today while other contemporaries seem very dated and phony. A good example of his attention to detail is the chase at the end of The Day the Earth Stood Still as the military read off actual street names in Washington D.C. Would anyone else have known the difference or even cared? Wise did, and his penchant for accuracy has paid handsomely over the years. I told him that I was thoroughly impressed by the meticulous sets in The Andromeda Strain, and he was flattered saying how he strove for great realism because it would enhance the credibility and believability of the movie. Watch the climactic countdown in the quarantine unit and see if any other film comes close to matching the intensity of suspense. The film holds up well to this day. He even told me how he was rushed to meet an impossible deadline for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and while the film was decent enough, it seemed bloated and overlong. Wise said that he did not have time to trim the film down to a good pace and running time. He has since been able to rectify that shortcoming with the recent DVD release of his director’s cut.
Wise spoke to a crowd of students and general public at the student union theater, and many of his films were shown that week. My friend Murray and I drove him to the airport to catch a flight back to the west coast. Its funny how every time I would see an interview of him since then, he seemed exactly the same way he had been on campus-a distinguished, classy veteran of film who loved to talk celluloid and was receptive to the students. I was fortunate to have known a great director and good guy.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
THE CONSTANT GARDENER Is a Well Tended Tale
There have been nifty thrillers over the years with conspiracy attached, and many of them have been good like The Parallax View and JFK. Yet few of these have been able to rise above the visceral angst of suspense and intrigue to attain another level of human emotion. One good example is the recent adaptation of John Le Carre’s novel, The Constant Gardener. Adapted by Jeffrey Caine and directed by Fernando Meirelles, this is a superior cinematic rendition of a good, moral suspense yarn told with methodical precision and emotional resonance.
Tessa (Rachel Weisz) is a volunteer-activist who marries timid diplomat, Justin Qualye (Ralph Fiennes) and follows him to Kenya in Africa. When his wife goes missing, Justin decides to follow his wife’s trail and find out what really happened and why. The clues lead to a pharmaceutical drug corporation that is testing tuberculosis drugs on the lower class population. What Justin finds is a shocking conspiracy of secrets and lies reaching up to the British government and a corporate entity that will stop at nothing to release its money making windfall. As Justin discovers the truth, he begins to understand the ruthless nature of conspirators even as he begins to uncover the truth about his marriage.
This is a chilling mystery story that is at its heart a tale of romantic love between a man and a wife he really doesn’t know. Although not perfect, it does endeavor to be many things, and it integrates the love story that forms the soul of the film with an elaborate detective story that touches upon morality, fear, hope, and redemption and achieves them quite well. It’s like reading a long, complex novel. That a film could be filled with so many attributes is quite an achievement and a testament to the source material by Le Carre, a constant source of complex, filmic material ever since the breakout adaptation of his The Spy Who Came in From the Cold in the 1960’s. It is also a tribute to director Meirelles who has a sure hand in every scene and edit while never losing track of his many themes and maintaining strong performances from his talented cast.
At first Justin is oblivious to the insidious forces around him. The garden that he tends to is a metaphor of sorts to a basic, uncomplicated view of his world that is suddenly shaken. The backgrounds in many scenes show a rural countryside with poor people struggling to survive. Life is hard for the people in a harsh landscape. There are always incidental shots of children usually in the background as casual bystanders or observers; they are the innocent ones. This story and its people are distant cousins of the drug gangs in Meirelles’ previous, breakthrough film, City of God. It is in this setting that Justin retraces Tessa’s footsteps which lead to a dirty secret and a rediscovery of their love. Throughout it all, there is an almost inevitable, hopeless feeling, like a stacked deck against Justin. Then there is the question of trust. Who to trust? It seems everyone is either partly involved with the bad guys or reluctant to get involved. There are different levels of trust. There is the hint of marital infidelity and the questioning of loyalty. In this respect, The Constant Gardener reminds one of the underrated Under Fire.
The narrative fluidly flashes back and forth at will to show the beginnings of Justin and Tessa’s relationship amid the intrigue in Kenya. There’s also lots of handheld camera work (Cesar Charlone) that gives the film a semi documentary feel. While the look is raw and primitive, the editing (by Oliver Stone alumni Claire Simpson) is sophisticated and clever as various bits of associative imagery are connected to great emotional and informative effect. A great deal of thought and planning went into this story and its adaptation to connect the dots.
Fiennes is excellent as the beleaguered husband who seeks the truth about his wife. He has a knack for playing tragic characters (Quiz Show, The English Patient), and he has never been better than in this role. You feel his confusion and pain as he goes against difficult odds. Rachel Weisz is terrific as the brave crusader of the African people who risks harm and her marriage by digging for the truth. You feel her passion in Tessa’s character and the free spirit that dominates every scene she is in. You just know that Tessa’s own hard-headed agenda will get her in trouble. It is a far cry from Weisz’s days in action blockbusters like The Mummy, and it is her best role to date. The rest of the uniformly strong cast is excellent particularly Bill Nighy as the slimy Pellegrin.
If you are a conspiracy buff, then this is your kind of film. Although it is a bit of a downer, ultimately it is a haunting fable with memorable imagery, and it is a film that stays with you long after it is over. It should stay with Oscar voters for the long term as well.
***1/2 of **** stars
Tessa (Rachel Weisz) is a volunteer-activist who marries timid diplomat, Justin Qualye (Ralph Fiennes) and follows him to Kenya in Africa. When his wife goes missing, Justin decides to follow his wife’s trail and find out what really happened and why. The clues lead to a pharmaceutical drug corporation that is testing tuberculosis drugs on the lower class population. What Justin finds is a shocking conspiracy of secrets and lies reaching up to the British government and a corporate entity that will stop at nothing to release its money making windfall. As Justin discovers the truth, he begins to understand the ruthless nature of conspirators even as he begins to uncover the truth about his marriage.
This is a chilling mystery story that is at its heart a tale of romantic love between a man and a wife he really doesn’t know. Although not perfect, it does endeavor to be many things, and it integrates the love story that forms the soul of the film with an elaborate detective story that touches upon morality, fear, hope, and redemption and achieves them quite well. It’s like reading a long, complex novel. That a film could be filled with so many attributes is quite an achievement and a testament to the source material by Le Carre, a constant source of complex, filmic material ever since the breakout adaptation of his The Spy Who Came in From the Cold in the 1960’s. It is also a tribute to director Meirelles who has a sure hand in every scene and edit while never losing track of his many themes and maintaining strong performances from his talented cast.
At first Justin is oblivious to the insidious forces around him. The garden that he tends to is a metaphor of sorts to a basic, uncomplicated view of his world that is suddenly shaken. The backgrounds in many scenes show a rural countryside with poor people struggling to survive. Life is hard for the people in a harsh landscape. There are always incidental shots of children usually in the background as casual bystanders or observers; they are the innocent ones. This story and its people are distant cousins of the drug gangs in Meirelles’ previous, breakthrough film, City of God. It is in this setting that Justin retraces Tessa’s footsteps which lead to a dirty secret and a rediscovery of their love. Throughout it all, there is an almost inevitable, hopeless feeling, like a stacked deck against Justin. Then there is the question of trust. Who to trust? It seems everyone is either partly involved with the bad guys or reluctant to get involved. There are different levels of trust. There is the hint of marital infidelity and the questioning of loyalty. In this respect, The Constant Gardener reminds one of the underrated Under Fire.
The narrative fluidly flashes back and forth at will to show the beginnings of Justin and Tessa’s relationship amid the intrigue in Kenya. There’s also lots of handheld camera work (Cesar Charlone) that gives the film a semi documentary feel. While the look is raw and primitive, the editing (by Oliver Stone alumni Claire Simpson) is sophisticated and clever as various bits of associative imagery are connected to great emotional and informative effect. A great deal of thought and planning went into this story and its adaptation to connect the dots.
Fiennes is excellent as the beleaguered husband who seeks the truth about his wife. He has a knack for playing tragic characters (Quiz Show, The English Patient), and he has never been better than in this role. You feel his confusion and pain as he goes against difficult odds. Rachel Weisz is terrific as the brave crusader of the African people who risks harm and her marriage by digging for the truth. You feel her passion in Tessa’s character and the free spirit that dominates every scene she is in. You just know that Tessa’s own hard-headed agenda will get her in trouble. It is a far cry from Weisz’s days in action blockbusters like The Mummy, and it is her best role to date. The rest of the uniformly strong cast is excellent particularly Bill Nighy as the slimy Pellegrin.
If you are a conspiracy buff, then this is your kind of film. Although it is a bit of a downer, ultimately it is a haunting fable with memorable imagery, and it is a film that stays with you long after it is over. It should stay with Oscar voters for the long term as well.
***1/2 of **** stars
JUST LIKE HEAVEN Seems a Bit Familiar
Ghost stories involving romance are a recurring subject matter in Hollywood. Case in point, one can look at The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, Heaven Can Wait, Somewhere in Time and the most recent entree, Just Like Heaven, a modest romantic comedy featuring attractive leads, Reese Witherspoon and Mark Ruffalo. While reasonably entertaining and diverting, it doesn’t quite deliver the goods.
Elizabeth (Reese Witherspoon) is a workaholic doctor in San Francisco who drives to meet a blind date on a rainy night and swerves into the path of a truck. Weeks later, we see David (Mark Ruffalo) who is searching for an apartment when a circular, advertising a vacancy, literally finds him. Upon moving in and settling down, David is surprised and spooked by the appearance of Elizabeth who claims she already lives in the newly rented space. She mysteriously vanishes and reappears, and David is convinced that she must be a ghost. Yet she refuses to believe she is really dead. As they figure out the truth, David and Elizabeth find they are attracted to one another. When the reality of what happened to her that rainy night is revealed, David must resort to desperate measures to save the girl he loves before it is too late.
Directed by Mark Waters, who showed promise with comedies like Mean Girls, this is a film that wants to be more than it is. It aspires to be a lighthearted, romantic love story with dramatic and comedic overtones. That’s pretty ambitious for a script (adapted by Peter Tolan and Leslie Dixon from Marc Levy’s novel, If Only It Were True) that would be better off on television. The themes are pretty familiar and have been done before and better. The filmmakers could have tightened the first hour and the pace would have been improved. At times, the plotline comes dangerously close to losing whatever momentum it has. It takes a long while for anything to happen, perhaps too long. However, the climax does pick up steam as the relationship between the two develops, and one just wishes there was more such life in the earlier stages. To be sure, there are nice touches in the story that allude to fate, coincidence, and true love, but the script doesn’t draw the connections as magically as one wishes.
Then there are the technical inconsistencies that even audiences with suspended disbelief may have a hard time to swallow. We see Elizabeth pass through walls and tables but why can we hear her footsteps on the floor or why can she sit in a truck without falling through? Granted, the special effects, while not earth shattering, are interesting and reasonably imaginative. It is also clever how the editing alternates between the ghostly Elizabeth and reality where no one sees or hears her except David. These point of view crosscuts when David is talking to Elizabeth even as the public sees him talking to no one are at times amusing.
The two stars do have nice screen chemistry together. Reese Witherspoon (Legally Blonde, Election) is watchable in almost anything she stars in, but she can only breathe so much life in a standard storyline. If Mark Ruffalo (Collateral, You Can Count on Me) gets hold of a great comedic script, then you’d definitely have something to utilize his versatility. After successful pairings with Witherspoon and Jennifer Garner in 13 Going on 30, how about teaming him with Rachel McAdams or even Drew Barrymore?
Here is an obvious case of star power being enough to overcome an average script. As comedies go, it really doesn’t climb to great heights, but the leads are so appealing, it really doesn’t matter. A sure video rental, it is a pleasant bit of fluff that will certainly appeal to those who believe in true love and fairy tales. To the rest of the audience, just sit still and smile with your date.
**1/2 of **** stars (*** for romantics)
Elizabeth (Reese Witherspoon) is a workaholic doctor in San Francisco who drives to meet a blind date on a rainy night and swerves into the path of a truck. Weeks later, we see David (Mark Ruffalo) who is searching for an apartment when a circular, advertising a vacancy, literally finds him. Upon moving in and settling down, David is surprised and spooked by the appearance of Elizabeth who claims she already lives in the newly rented space. She mysteriously vanishes and reappears, and David is convinced that she must be a ghost. Yet she refuses to believe she is really dead. As they figure out the truth, David and Elizabeth find they are attracted to one another. When the reality of what happened to her that rainy night is revealed, David must resort to desperate measures to save the girl he loves before it is too late.
Directed by Mark Waters, who showed promise with comedies like Mean Girls, this is a film that wants to be more than it is. It aspires to be a lighthearted, romantic love story with dramatic and comedic overtones. That’s pretty ambitious for a script (adapted by Peter Tolan and Leslie Dixon from Marc Levy’s novel, If Only It Were True) that would be better off on television. The themes are pretty familiar and have been done before and better. The filmmakers could have tightened the first hour and the pace would have been improved. At times, the plotline comes dangerously close to losing whatever momentum it has. It takes a long while for anything to happen, perhaps too long. However, the climax does pick up steam as the relationship between the two develops, and one just wishes there was more such life in the earlier stages. To be sure, there are nice touches in the story that allude to fate, coincidence, and true love, but the script doesn’t draw the connections as magically as one wishes.
Then there are the technical inconsistencies that even audiences with suspended disbelief may have a hard time to swallow. We see Elizabeth pass through walls and tables but why can we hear her footsteps on the floor or why can she sit in a truck without falling through? Granted, the special effects, while not earth shattering, are interesting and reasonably imaginative. It is also clever how the editing alternates between the ghostly Elizabeth and reality where no one sees or hears her except David. These point of view crosscuts when David is talking to Elizabeth even as the public sees him talking to no one are at times amusing.
The two stars do have nice screen chemistry together. Reese Witherspoon (Legally Blonde, Election) is watchable in almost anything she stars in, but she can only breathe so much life in a standard storyline. If Mark Ruffalo (Collateral, You Can Count on Me) gets hold of a great comedic script, then you’d definitely have something to utilize his versatility. After successful pairings with Witherspoon and Jennifer Garner in 13 Going on 30, how about teaming him with Rachel McAdams or even Drew Barrymore?
Here is an obvious case of star power being enough to overcome an average script. As comedies go, it really doesn’t climb to great heights, but the leads are so appealing, it really doesn’t matter. A sure video rental, it is a pleasant bit of fluff that will certainly appeal to those who believe in true love and fairy tales. To the rest of the audience, just sit still and smile with your date.
**1/2 of **** stars (*** for romantics)
THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED Is Above Par
For non-golfers, this true story of an ordinary youth who challenges a seasoned champ in the biggest golf match of all time is a stirring piece of history reenacted for the general audience. Seasoned actor turned director Bill Paxton has taken a simple tale and fashioned a mini pearl of a movie that will fit nicely with the other sports films like Remember the Titans and The Rookie.
As a boy, future English champion golfer, Harry Vardon is introduced to the world of golf while dark, mysterious figures begin to build a golf course nearby. Years later in America, another boy, Francis Ouimet, is a caddie at a golf course and is encouraged by adults to pursue his dream of playing competitively. It turns out Francis has a gift for the sport and he practices religiously. Although he is from a poor working class family, he enters an amateur tournament where he must face off seasoned golfers who are from well-to-do backgrounds. After a series of setbacks and the objections of his laborer father, Francis is given a chance opportunity to restart his dream as an amateur entree in the prestigious U.S. Open where he sees his childhood idol, Vardon, again but now as a competitor and rival. Harry is in the States to claim the U.S. golfing crown as he has (Tiger Woods fashion) done for consecutive years in the British Open. As the grueling course thins the ranks of professionals and to the amazement of swelling throngs of spectators and media, Francis and Harry are on a collision course in the most unlikely playoff matchup in the annals of golf.
This is essentially the story of two golfers with contrasting backgrounds. What is good about this film is that even though this story is about golf, it is easily accessible to mainstream audiences because they become involved in Francis’ dreams. The conflict at home between father (Elias Koteas) and Francis is an important plot point that is comparable to the father-son dynamic of The Rookie. There are nice examples of class struggle between the have-nots and the upper crust. The storylines never get too complex and while the plot is easy to follow, the simplicity can be a detriment in other ways.
There are a couple of unexplained subplots and relationships that are never fully explored. We don’t really understand what motivates or affects Vardon from his childhood. Also there seems to be a parallel being drawn between him and Ouimet which is never clearly explained. Likewise, there is a hint of romance in Ouimet’s life, but we never know where that goes.
This unknown cast works because there are no preconceived notions of stars or recognizable faces. For all intents and purposes, we believe Stephen Dillane is Harry Vardon. The performances deserve notice especially Shia LaBeouf (Holes) as Francis Ouimet and Josh Flitter as the diminutive child caddie, Eddie, whose enthusiasm and quips are disarming. Character actor Luke Askew does register in a change of pace role as an unnamed golfing mentor for Francis.
Director Paxton has a very clean sense of narrative, and it certainly didn’t hurt to be under the tutelage of his favorite director, James Cameron. There is a great shot of the audience watching Ouimet driving the ball and turning their collective heads to follow the ball’s path except for Vardon who stays on the young protégé as he knows it is a good shot. Paxton does save the best for last in the climactic playoff. He displays a sure hand in the final scene as he culminates various plot threads in one emotional finale. We never lose sight of our protagonist’s plight and everything is in service of a storyline adapted by Mark Frost (Twin Peaks) from his novel. If this is an example of Paxton’s capability as a director, then I welcome his next project.
Credit the production team for authentic period sets and costumes. The cinematography and special effects are imaginative and perhaps too clever as we witness the many new ways to simulate a ball in flight or rolling on the fairway.
This is the sort of film you would see as a made for television film like Brian’s Song in the 1970’s or as an HBO feature. Now Disney is mining the sports sagas in a consistently entertaining fashion. I would not put NASCAR past them. If you are looking for an inspiring family film, this is a good choice.
*** of **** stars
As a boy, future English champion golfer, Harry Vardon is introduced to the world of golf while dark, mysterious figures begin to build a golf course nearby. Years later in America, another boy, Francis Ouimet, is a caddie at a golf course and is encouraged by adults to pursue his dream of playing competitively. It turns out Francis has a gift for the sport and he practices religiously. Although he is from a poor working class family, he enters an amateur tournament where he must face off seasoned golfers who are from well-to-do backgrounds. After a series of setbacks and the objections of his laborer father, Francis is given a chance opportunity to restart his dream as an amateur entree in the prestigious U.S. Open where he sees his childhood idol, Vardon, again but now as a competitor and rival. Harry is in the States to claim the U.S. golfing crown as he has (Tiger Woods fashion) done for consecutive years in the British Open. As the grueling course thins the ranks of professionals and to the amazement of swelling throngs of spectators and media, Francis and Harry are on a collision course in the most unlikely playoff matchup in the annals of golf.
This is essentially the story of two golfers with contrasting backgrounds. What is good about this film is that even though this story is about golf, it is easily accessible to mainstream audiences because they become involved in Francis’ dreams. The conflict at home between father (Elias Koteas) and Francis is an important plot point that is comparable to the father-son dynamic of The Rookie. There are nice examples of class struggle between the have-nots and the upper crust. The storylines never get too complex and while the plot is easy to follow, the simplicity can be a detriment in other ways.
There are a couple of unexplained subplots and relationships that are never fully explored. We don’t really understand what motivates or affects Vardon from his childhood. Also there seems to be a parallel being drawn between him and Ouimet which is never clearly explained. Likewise, there is a hint of romance in Ouimet’s life, but we never know where that goes.
This unknown cast works because there are no preconceived notions of stars or recognizable faces. For all intents and purposes, we believe Stephen Dillane is Harry Vardon. The performances deserve notice especially Shia LaBeouf (Holes) as Francis Ouimet and Josh Flitter as the diminutive child caddie, Eddie, whose enthusiasm and quips are disarming. Character actor Luke Askew does register in a change of pace role as an unnamed golfing mentor for Francis.
Director Paxton has a very clean sense of narrative, and it certainly didn’t hurt to be under the tutelage of his favorite director, James Cameron. There is a great shot of the audience watching Ouimet driving the ball and turning their collective heads to follow the ball’s path except for Vardon who stays on the young protégé as he knows it is a good shot. Paxton does save the best for last in the climactic playoff. He displays a sure hand in the final scene as he culminates various plot threads in one emotional finale. We never lose sight of our protagonist’s plight and everything is in service of a storyline adapted by Mark Frost (Twin Peaks) from his novel. If this is an example of Paxton’s capability as a director, then I welcome his next project.
Credit the production team for authentic period sets and costumes. The cinematography and special effects are imaginative and perhaps too clever as we witness the many new ways to simulate a ball in flight or rolling on the fairway.
This is the sort of film you would see as a made for television film like Brian’s Song in the 1970’s or as an HBO feature. Now Disney is mining the sports sagas in a consistently entertaining fashion. I would not put NASCAR past them. If you are looking for an inspiring family film, this is a good choice.
*** of **** stars
Friday, August 12, 2005
RED EYE Is Edge of Your Seat Thrills
With the similarly set Flight Plan coming this fall, Red Eye shows that it can compete with the best of them in the thriller category. Director Wes Craven, best known for his popular horror films like Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream, has stretched his muscles into the suspense genre and has succeeded with a modest, effective gem.
Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) is a hotel manager who is flying home from a funeral when she meets a charming stranger, Jackson Ripper (Cillian Murphy), who ends up threatening her on board the flight. He wants her to call the hotel and change a seemingly innocent reservation for a VIP or her father will be killed. With this premise, a terrified Lisa must contemplate a way to save her father and prevent an even larger plot to assassinate the VIP (who is an official of Homeland Security). Despite her every move, Jackson manages to stay one step ahead of her. As the plane arrives at the airport and the VIP arrives at the hotel, Lisa acts out of desperation to protect not only her father but attempt to thwart a convoluted conspiracy.
That’s it! That is the storyline, and Craven makes the most of a simple setup in character and plot. As an exercise in visceral excitement, the film succeeds admirably with a simple, almost TV plotline. There is a good sketch of characters as they are casually introduced at the beginning. Once the setup is established at takeoff, the plot likewise takes a sinister turn. The interplay between Murphy’s hunter and McAdams’ hunted works quite well as they parry and thrust verbally and then figuratively in front of a mostly oblivious compliment of bystanders. It is remarkable how much of the film’s running time takes place in such tight quarters, but that plays to the strengths of the script by Carl Ellsworth. It does not seem stagy, and yet the suspense quotient is heightened in this intriguing mousetrap. And Craven knows that a human monster like Ripper can be just as scary as any movie monster because it is part of a real world.
The screenplay has some interesting subplots like the assassination scenario which by itself is innovative and not far fetched. At times there is Hitchcock feel with its ‘every man’ or in this case ‘every woman’ lead whose actions and thoughts draw the audience into complicity with the nefarious plot. You think, ‘how is she ever going to warn her father and how the heck is she going to prevent this diabolical plan from being executed so to speak.’
There are minor disappointments overall. It could have been a more compelling story had it delved deeper into Lisa’s mysterious past and trauma and how she evolves as a person from her harrowing experience. But that’s what comes from being spoiled by a film that starts out so promisingly. It does come back to earth when the plane touches down leading to a more standard action ending. The pace, however, is well edited for maximum effect.
McAdams shows the appropriate terror and anxiety and is quite believable. After making her mark in films such as the romantic drama The Notebook and comedies like Mean Girls and Wedding Crashers, she is showing a good range of versatility, and by tackling this genre of suspense, she can move on to other subject matter worthy of her growing abilities. Murphy (quite good in Batman Returns) is talented enough to have other memorable roles. He mixes enough maniacal creepiness with cold, ruthless mercenary in guise of a handsome companion. He needs to avoid future psycho roles lest he becomes typecast.
Although it resorts to a conventional ending, the ride is worth it. It is truly refreshing to see a film that knows when not to overstay its welcome as it clocks in at less than 90 minutes. Once the story is over, it’s over. Maybe Mr. Craven might consider staying in this genre a bit longer. Red Eye is one nifty little thriller.
*** of **** stars
Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) is a hotel manager who is flying home from a funeral when she meets a charming stranger, Jackson Ripper (Cillian Murphy), who ends up threatening her on board the flight. He wants her to call the hotel and change a seemingly innocent reservation for a VIP or her father will be killed. With this premise, a terrified Lisa must contemplate a way to save her father and prevent an even larger plot to assassinate the VIP (who is an official of Homeland Security). Despite her every move, Jackson manages to stay one step ahead of her. As the plane arrives at the airport and the VIP arrives at the hotel, Lisa acts out of desperation to protect not only her father but attempt to thwart a convoluted conspiracy.
That’s it! That is the storyline, and Craven makes the most of a simple setup in character and plot. As an exercise in visceral excitement, the film succeeds admirably with a simple, almost TV plotline. There is a good sketch of characters as they are casually introduced at the beginning. Once the setup is established at takeoff, the plot likewise takes a sinister turn. The interplay between Murphy’s hunter and McAdams’ hunted works quite well as they parry and thrust verbally and then figuratively in front of a mostly oblivious compliment of bystanders. It is remarkable how much of the film’s running time takes place in such tight quarters, but that plays to the strengths of the script by Carl Ellsworth. It does not seem stagy, and yet the suspense quotient is heightened in this intriguing mousetrap. And Craven knows that a human monster like Ripper can be just as scary as any movie monster because it is part of a real world.
The screenplay has some interesting subplots like the assassination scenario which by itself is innovative and not far fetched. At times there is Hitchcock feel with its ‘every man’ or in this case ‘every woman’ lead whose actions and thoughts draw the audience into complicity with the nefarious plot. You think, ‘how is she ever going to warn her father and how the heck is she going to prevent this diabolical plan from being executed so to speak.’
There are minor disappointments overall. It could have been a more compelling story had it delved deeper into Lisa’s mysterious past and trauma and how she evolves as a person from her harrowing experience. But that’s what comes from being spoiled by a film that starts out so promisingly. It does come back to earth when the plane touches down leading to a more standard action ending. The pace, however, is well edited for maximum effect.
McAdams shows the appropriate terror and anxiety and is quite believable. After making her mark in films such as the romantic drama The Notebook and comedies like Mean Girls and Wedding Crashers, she is showing a good range of versatility, and by tackling this genre of suspense, she can move on to other subject matter worthy of her growing abilities. Murphy (quite good in Batman Returns) is talented enough to have other memorable roles. He mixes enough maniacal creepiness with cold, ruthless mercenary in guise of a handsome companion. He needs to avoid future psycho roles lest he becomes typecast.
Although it resorts to a conventional ending, the ride is worth it. It is truly refreshing to see a film that knows when not to overstay its welcome as it clocks in at less than 90 minutes. Once the story is over, it’s over. Maybe Mr. Craven might consider staying in this genre a bit longer. Red Eye is one nifty little thriller.
*** of **** stars
FOUR BROTHERS Returns to the 'Hood
Boyz n the Hood was a landmark film in its realistic depiction of gang violence and its effect on families in urban America. Its novice director, John Singleton, has languished in relative obscurity since then and revisits a similar turf with his revenge drama, Four Brothers. While it reconfirms Singleton’s talents, it is an imperfect action drama that leans too heavily on its mean spirited revenge theme.
A middle aged woman, Evelyn Mercer (Fionnula Flanagan), is known for taking wayward boys off the streets and finding them foster homes. Yet, over time, only four boys could not be placed, and she adopted them herself. Years later, when a liquor store robbery goes awry, Evelyn is murdered. This reunites the four brothers who are now grown (Mark Wahlberg, Tyrese Gibson, Andre Benjamin, and Garrett Hedlund). What seems to be a simple crime gone wrong is only the beginning of a tale of conspiracy and betrayal. With police detectives (Terrence Howard and Josh Charles) seemingly a step behind the clues, the brothers decide to find the answers and punish all those involved even if it leads to corrupt officials, crooked cops, or the top crime boss in town. This causes violent confrontations and retribution until the brothers must attempt a daring plan to avenge their family and bring the murderers to their form of justice.
As portrayed by Singleton, this is a tough, violent neighborhood, a sort of distant cousin to the one in Boyz n the Hood. There are some similarities with New Jack City with its family of gangsters and a ruthless leader. The film does contain well directed scenes. The pool hall scene between Howard and Charles is quite good and the dialogue makes this a mini-gem. At times Singleton knows enough to reel back his characters from a pure revenge tale to one of family and connection. There is a good early scene during Thanksgiving at the dinner table where each brother looks upon the memory and visage of his deceased mother in an empty chair and remembers the lessons she instilled in them. It is a clever moment and speaks volumes on what she meant to each son. Perhaps a bit more of this would have balanced the film and kept it from turning into the overwhelmingly vengeful tale it ultimately becomes.
The film feels tough and gritty, and its characters are real people with real conflicts and emotions. The relationship of these brothers forms the backbone of the film no matter what they endure. They stick up for each other and watch each other’s back. These brothers in arms love each other and fight amongst themselves. We anguish when they suffer and cheer when they triumph. There are humorous moments sprinkled throughout the film and some funny lines spoken at the expense of each character. .
The story, written by David Elliot and Paul Lovett, works on a couple of levels. On one level, it is a detective story with twists and turns and some surprises. There are some clues and red herrings along the way, and you don’t quite know the whole story until the end. On another level it functions as a kind of urban western with its revenge tale. In fact the film is essentially structured similarly to fraternal, revenge westerns as The Sons of Katie Elder and Gunfight at the OK Corral. It’s also about the love given by a selfless mother who gave comfort and hope to four wayward rejects when no one wanted them.
The ending is a little like an urban Mission Impossible with its elaborate ruse. Some of it is implausible but on the whole the sequence works marginally. We don’t know much about Jeremiah Mercer’s family which would have added to our attachment to his character.
Mark Wahlberg is an imposing figure who will stop at nothing to find his mother’s killer.
In fact all four leads are quite strong and well cast. Terrence Howard (who has starred in a number of strong films this year and is a star on the rise for sure) has an effective role as a good cop although his character leaves too early as the conspiracy widens. Fionnula Flanagan is seen too briefly and should have been used more which would have grounded the film morally.
The soundtrack is a good mixture of oldies and serves as the pulse of the kinetic action scenes in the Motown setting. Technical credits for what is essentially a low budget film are solid especially in the cinematography and film editing.
It is entirely possible to be shell shocked by the hard hitting nature of this violent melodrama by film’s end. It’s certainly a crowd pleaser and almost manipulative in the way it generates deep feelings. The film succeeds in terms of sheer energy and force. It’s a little rough around the edges but still a welcome return to Singleton’s roots. While Four Brothers proves that his previous abilities were no fluke, he has yet to exceed let alone match the promise of his first film.
**1/2 of **** stars
A middle aged woman, Evelyn Mercer (Fionnula Flanagan), is known for taking wayward boys off the streets and finding them foster homes. Yet, over time, only four boys could not be placed, and she adopted them herself. Years later, when a liquor store robbery goes awry, Evelyn is murdered. This reunites the four brothers who are now grown (Mark Wahlberg, Tyrese Gibson, Andre Benjamin, and Garrett Hedlund). What seems to be a simple crime gone wrong is only the beginning of a tale of conspiracy and betrayal. With police detectives (Terrence Howard and Josh Charles) seemingly a step behind the clues, the brothers decide to find the answers and punish all those involved even if it leads to corrupt officials, crooked cops, or the top crime boss in town. This causes violent confrontations and retribution until the brothers must attempt a daring plan to avenge their family and bring the murderers to their form of justice.
As portrayed by Singleton, this is a tough, violent neighborhood, a sort of distant cousin to the one in Boyz n the Hood. There are some similarities with New Jack City with its family of gangsters and a ruthless leader. The film does contain well directed scenes. The pool hall scene between Howard and Charles is quite good and the dialogue makes this a mini-gem. At times Singleton knows enough to reel back his characters from a pure revenge tale to one of family and connection. There is a good early scene during Thanksgiving at the dinner table where each brother looks upon the memory and visage of his deceased mother in an empty chair and remembers the lessons she instilled in them. It is a clever moment and speaks volumes on what she meant to each son. Perhaps a bit more of this would have balanced the film and kept it from turning into the overwhelmingly vengeful tale it ultimately becomes.
The film feels tough and gritty, and its characters are real people with real conflicts and emotions. The relationship of these brothers forms the backbone of the film no matter what they endure. They stick up for each other and watch each other’s back. These brothers in arms love each other and fight amongst themselves. We anguish when they suffer and cheer when they triumph. There are humorous moments sprinkled throughout the film and some funny lines spoken at the expense of each character. .
The story, written by David Elliot and Paul Lovett, works on a couple of levels. On one level, it is a detective story with twists and turns and some surprises. There are some clues and red herrings along the way, and you don’t quite know the whole story until the end. On another level it functions as a kind of urban western with its revenge tale. In fact the film is essentially structured similarly to fraternal, revenge westerns as The Sons of Katie Elder and Gunfight at the OK Corral. It’s also about the love given by a selfless mother who gave comfort and hope to four wayward rejects when no one wanted them.
The ending is a little like an urban Mission Impossible with its elaborate ruse. Some of it is implausible but on the whole the sequence works marginally. We don’t know much about Jeremiah Mercer’s family which would have added to our attachment to his character.
Mark Wahlberg is an imposing figure who will stop at nothing to find his mother’s killer.
In fact all four leads are quite strong and well cast. Terrence Howard (who has starred in a number of strong films this year and is a star on the rise for sure) has an effective role as a good cop although his character leaves too early as the conspiracy widens. Fionnula Flanagan is seen too briefly and should have been used more which would have grounded the film morally.
The soundtrack is a good mixture of oldies and serves as the pulse of the kinetic action scenes in the Motown setting. Technical credits for what is essentially a low budget film are solid especially in the cinematography and film editing.
It is entirely possible to be shell shocked by the hard hitting nature of this violent melodrama by film’s end. It’s certainly a crowd pleaser and almost manipulative in the way it generates deep feelings. The film succeeds in terms of sheer energy and force. It’s a little rough around the edges but still a welcome return to Singleton’s roots. While Four Brothers proves that his previous abilities were no fluke, he has yet to exceed let alone match the promise of his first film.
**1/2 of **** stars
DEUCE BIGALOW: EUROPEAN GIGOLO is a Loser
Rob Schneider has been an amusing comic from his days as cast regular on TV’s Saturday Night Live. His only real success was a modest one, Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, and now he returns to that character several years later. The results are disastrous. In the tradition of terrible comedies such as John Goldfarb Please Come Home and Which Way to the Front, this R-rated entree is trouble from start to finish.
Deuce Bigalow takes up where he left off as a jinxed widow who travels to Europe to join his pimp friend, T. J. Hicks (Eddie Griffin), who gets in hot water as a mistaken prime suspect in a series of murders of gigolos or ‘man whores’ as they call themselves. Deuce explores the European world of these men and even interviews the last women to see the murder victims alive. This sets up an amusing series of dates with women who have unusual physical attributes. At the same time the police are investigating the crimes, Deuce runs into and falls in love with a beautiful woman, Eva (Hanna Verboom), who is afflicted with a multitude of behavioral ticks due to obsessive compulsive disorder. She is also the niece of the lead detective on the case who has a grudge against these ‘man whores’. The story leads to the Man Whore Awards as Deuce races to save the day while the murderer has planned a final deadly act.
That sums up a simple, silly plot that is flawed in script and execution. The director (who is heck is Mike Bigelow, a pseudonym?) and a committee of writers don’t give the story or the lead actors a chance to succeed. What’s worse is that the skills of most of the people involved appear amateurish at best and may have been reedited and cut severely during post-production. Indeed, the transitions are at times jarring and sloppy. Billy Wilder, Preston Sturges, and Ernest Lubitsch are rolling in their graves.
If only the screenwriters had trusted their story more and sprinkled the jokes sparingly, the film would take on a more structured and involving comedic romance. Instead, what we get is literally toilet humor of the worst kind and repeated gags that are gross and intellectually void of brain matter. It’s one thing to have bawdy sight gags and vulgar humor which can actually spice up a comedic romp like Animal House or American Pie, but the jokes here are terrible to begin with and inserted at awkward times as if the filmmakers didn’t trust the material and threw in the kitchen sink, albeit a dirty one. It’s saying something when the Farrelly brothers (There’s Something About Mary) have more class in any given scene of their comedies than all these jokes put together. A missed opportunity is Schneider’s character falling in love with Eva. It is perhaps the only half-way decent thing the movie has going, and it is never fully developed. It does try to be good hearted and at times there is a glimmer of a decent scene only to be undermined by a sick punchline.
Schneider tries too hard at being funny and seems like he is forcing the jokes which makes it even worse. Griffin fares scarcely better in a cardboard role unworthy of his standup talent. Only Verboom fares adequately as Eva, and she is perhaps the only nice thing about the film. Not even the cameo/bit roles by Saturday Night Live alumni Norm MacDonald, Fred Armisen, and even Adam Sandler can bring life to the proceedings.
It is best to avoid Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo at all costs, and unless you have nothing better to do with your free time, it is still best to sit in a corner and stare at a blank wall; you will be far more entertained. Run for your lives!
* of **** stars mostly for Hanna Verboom
Deuce Bigalow takes up where he left off as a jinxed widow who travels to Europe to join his pimp friend, T. J. Hicks (Eddie Griffin), who gets in hot water as a mistaken prime suspect in a series of murders of gigolos or ‘man whores’ as they call themselves. Deuce explores the European world of these men and even interviews the last women to see the murder victims alive. This sets up an amusing series of dates with women who have unusual physical attributes. At the same time the police are investigating the crimes, Deuce runs into and falls in love with a beautiful woman, Eva (Hanna Verboom), who is afflicted with a multitude of behavioral ticks due to obsessive compulsive disorder. She is also the niece of the lead detective on the case who has a grudge against these ‘man whores’. The story leads to the Man Whore Awards as Deuce races to save the day while the murderer has planned a final deadly act.
That sums up a simple, silly plot that is flawed in script and execution. The director (who is heck is Mike Bigelow, a pseudonym?) and a committee of writers don’t give the story or the lead actors a chance to succeed. What’s worse is that the skills of most of the people involved appear amateurish at best and may have been reedited and cut severely during post-production. Indeed, the transitions are at times jarring and sloppy. Billy Wilder, Preston Sturges, and Ernest Lubitsch are rolling in their graves.
If only the screenwriters had trusted their story more and sprinkled the jokes sparingly, the film would take on a more structured and involving comedic romance. Instead, what we get is literally toilet humor of the worst kind and repeated gags that are gross and intellectually void of brain matter. It’s one thing to have bawdy sight gags and vulgar humor which can actually spice up a comedic romp like Animal House or American Pie, but the jokes here are terrible to begin with and inserted at awkward times as if the filmmakers didn’t trust the material and threw in the kitchen sink, albeit a dirty one. It’s saying something when the Farrelly brothers (There’s Something About Mary) have more class in any given scene of their comedies than all these jokes put together. A missed opportunity is Schneider’s character falling in love with Eva. It is perhaps the only half-way decent thing the movie has going, and it is never fully developed. It does try to be good hearted and at times there is a glimmer of a decent scene only to be undermined by a sick punchline.
Schneider tries too hard at being funny and seems like he is forcing the jokes which makes it even worse. Griffin fares scarcely better in a cardboard role unworthy of his standup talent. Only Verboom fares adequately as Eva, and she is perhaps the only nice thing about the film. Not even the cameo/bit roles by Saturday Night Live alumni Norm MacDonald, Fred Armisen, and even Adam Sandler can bring life to the proceedings.
It is best to avoid Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo at all costs, and unless you have nothing better to do with your free time, it is still best to sit in a corner and stare at a blank wall; you will be far more entertained. Run for your lives!
* of **** stars mostly for Hanna Verboom
BROKEN FLOWERS Has Emotions in Full Bloom
Flowers bloom and wilt just as people grow and age emotionally over time. How a character starts one way and is changed fundamentally in the end is at the heart of Jim Jarmusch’s latest character study, Broken Flowers. It features a pared down performance by comedian/actor Bill Murray, and it may well be his best role to date.
A successful computer entrepreneur and bachelor, Don Johnston (Murray), receives an anonymous letter from a former lover which reveals that he had a child out of wedlock and that the now nineteen year old son may try to contact him. When his current girlfriend, Sherry (Julie Delpy), breaks up with him, Johnston’s neighbor, Winston (Jeffrey Wright), encourages him to make a list of all his girlfriends from that period of time to figure out who the mother may be. As the list is reduced to four (Sharon Stone Frances Conroy, Jessica Lange, and Tilda Swinton), Winston sends a reluctant Johnston on a quest for the truth. Clues abound as Johnston attempts to query each woman to find the connection to the letter. Past and present feelings come welling to the surface, some them pleasant and some painful. Johnston must endure his lumps as he awkwardly tries to obtain any inkling of truth from his mysterious letter writer. There are red herrings too along the way as anticipated resolutions give way to disappointment and emptiness. Or does it? What is the truth and what is reality? These are the sort of questions that crop up during the trip to the end.
The film opens with the departing Sherry telling Johnston that “you’re never going to change.” That is the beginning of a kind of human experiment of travel and reconnecting with fond memories and old wounds. This special road trip film also works as one of Winston’s mystery novels. Only in this case, it’s one big mystery of life. When Murray’s Johnston begins his mission, he is an inert, emotionally spent, world-weary baby boomer. Director Jarmusch, who has marched to his own drummer, has always done personal, character driven pieces (Stranger than Paradise). He does a great job of inhabiting his world with disparate people who don’t always have happy endings. Jarmusch displays a clean, accessible eye for film composition, and his visuals can be striking and supportive of the emptiness Johnston must feel. Although the film appears plot driven, it is most certainly people driven as it explores relationships. His use of offbeat songs and musical score are good counterpoints to an intimate story.
The screenplay, also written by Jarmusch, is lean, yet poignantly effective, a kind of ‘less is more’ scenario. Such humorous lines as when Murray’s character complains, “I’m a stalker in a Taurus,” generate some fine moments. It is ironic that after all these years, Murray has developed into a bona fide dramatic actor whose comedic sensibilities only serve to accent rather than detract from the story. Perhaps he should have waited to the redo the somber material of The Razor’s Edge which he bravely tackled immediately following the successes of Caddyshack and Meatballs. It’s great to see him explore the subtle side of comedy and drama. He has mastered every nuance and economy of expression and is essentially toning his act down to a minimalist level even more so than in Lost in Translation. At times even his lack of reaction says more than words literally could ever say.
The actresses acquit themselves splendidly. We see too little of Delpy (Before Sunset) and Chloe Sevigny (who portrays a receptionist). Tilda Swinton is also too brief but extremely effective in a change of pace role. Frances Conroy (Six Feet Under) has a more substantive part as a repressed realtor. Sharon Stone looks fantastic and an aging Lange still has the acting chops that produced multiple Oscar nods in the past. (Trivia buffs will note this marks the second film featuring both Lange and Murray who previously excelled in Tootsie.) Speaking of Oscar, it would be a crime not to recognize Murray’s measured, controlled performance. Special mention should go to Wright in an amusing supporting role.
As for the ending, let’s just say that Murray’s character has seen all the former girlfriends with varying results and his suspicions that his son is closing in on him may be realized. These events place him at a crossroads of life. It is not an easy resolution to the film as it will not easily conform to standard plotlines. This is where the film deviates from the norm and this is where its theme potentially comes full circle. While it may be Jarmusch’s most accessible film thus far, it contains a cipher conclusion for the audience to interpret. So caught up are we in discovering the past, that we miss the point of the film-it’s all about self discovery. Despite the ending, which will separate the sophisticates from pop audiences, the film is nearly perfect up to that point for all. Those looking for happy, pat endings will be befuddled. The journey is the most important thing, and perceptive viewers will realize the ending tells more than meets the eye. I smell a sleeper here.
***1/2 of **** stars
A successful computer entrepreneur and bachelor, Don Johnston (Murray), receives an anonymous letter from a former lover which reveals that he had a child out of wedlock and that the now nineteen year old son may try to contact him. When his current girlfriend, Sherry (Julie Delpy), breaks up with him, Johnston’s neighbor, Winston (Jeffrey Wright), encourages him to make a list of all his girlfriends from that period of time to figure out who the mother may be. As the list is reduced to four (Sharon Stone Frances Conroy, Jessica Lange, and Tilda Swinton), Winston sends a reluctant Johnston on a quest for the truth. Clues abound as Johnston attempts to query each woman to find the connection to the letter. Past and present feelings come welling to the surface, some them pleasant and some painful. Johnston must endure his lumps as he awkwardly tries to obtain any inkling of truth from his mysterious letter writer. There are red herrings too along the way as anticipated resolutions give way to disappointment and emptiness. Or does it? What is the truth and what is reality? These are the sort of questions that crop up during the trip to the end.
The film opens with the departing Sherry telling Johnston that “you’re never going to change.” That is the beginning of a kind of human experiment of travel and reconnecting with fond memories and old wounds. This special road trip film also works as one of Winston’s mystery novels. Only in this case, it’s one big mystery of life. When Murray’s Johnston begins his mission, he is an inert, emotionally spent, world-weary baby boomer. Director Jarmusch, who has marched to his own drummer, has always done personal, character driven pieces (Stranger than Paradise). He does a great job of inhabiting his world with disparate people who don’t always have happy endings. Jarmusch displays a clean, accessible eye for film composition, and his visuals can be striking and supportive of the emptiness Johnston must feel. Although the film appears plot driven, it is most certainly people driven as it explores relationships. His use of offbeat songs and musical score are good counterpoints to an intimate story.
The screenplay, also written by Jarmusch, is lean, yet poignantly effective, a kind of ‘less is more’ scenario. Such humorous lines as when Murray’s character complains, “I’m a stalker in a Taurus,” generate some fine moments. It is ironic that after all these years, Murray has developed into a bona fide dramatic actor whose comedic sensibilities only serve to accent rather than detract from the story. Perhaps he should have waited to the redo the somber material of The Razor’s Edge which he bravely tackled immediately following the successes of Caddyshack and Meatballs. It’s great to see him explore the subtle side of comedy and drama. He has mastered every nuance and economy of expression and is essentially toning his act down to a minimalist level even more so than in Lost in Translation. At times even his lack of reaction says more than words literally could ever say.
The actresses acquit themselves splendidly. We see too little of Delpy (Before Sunset) and Chloe Sevigny (who portrays a receptionist). Tilda Swinton is also too brief but extremely effective in a change of pace role. Frances Conroy (Six Feet Under) has a more substantive part as a repressed realtor. Sharon Stone looks fantastic and an aging Lange still has the acting chops that produced multiple Oscar nods in the past. (Trivia buffs will note this marks the second film featuring both Lange and Murray who previously excelled in Tootsie.) Speaking of Oscar, it would be a crime not to recognize Murray’s measured, controlled performance. Special mention should go to Wright in an amusing supporting role.
As for the ending, let’s just say that Murray’s character has seen all the former girlfriends with varying results and his suspicions that his son is closing in on him may be realized. These events place him at a crossroads of life. It is not an easy resolution to the film as it will not easily conform to standard plotlines. This is where the film deviates from the norm and this is where its theme potentially comes full circle. While it may be Jarmusch’s most accessible film thus far, it contains a cipher conclusion for the audience to interpret. So caught up are we in discovering the past, that we miss the point of the film-it’s all about self discovery. Despite the ending, which will separate the sophisticates from pop audiences, the film is nearly perfect up to that point for all. Those looking for happy, pat endings will be befuddled. The journey is the most important thing, and perceptive viewers will realize the ending tells more than meets the eye. I smell a sleeper here.
***1/2 of **** stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)