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
Vertigo
Vertigo
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)