CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY and the Politics of Fear

Controversial documentarian Michael Moore has taken on some important news topics over the past two decades but perhaps none has affected every American more than the financial meltdown of Wall Street in 2008 as depicted in Capitalism: A Love Story. Done in his customary style of news clips, interviews, and enactments, he has fashioned a convincing indictment of greedy bank executives while being engaging and at times enlightening.

He points out a startling fact: We used to be one income family, Wall Street and corporate profits were guided by sound principles, and our country had no business competition. It’s a kind of history lesson courtesy of Moore as he also notes parallels between the demise of Wall Street and that of the Roman Empire, a comparison not without merit.

His thesis is that since President Ronald Reagan came into office, the influence of Wall Street has increased to the point that, while Congress and the U.S. Treasury have promoted financial deregulation, many of them have direct links to financial giants such as Goldman Sachs. It would seem on surface to be a major conflict of interest, and that is the point. A handful of CEO’s have benefited from running the country as a corporation and costing millions of jobs and livelihoods.

Moore ties news stories to an increasing pattern of corporate greed. There is a juvenile facility in Pennsylvania financed by taxpayer money and corrupt public officials. There are college students beholden to banks with student loans, and we witness news reports of a recent plane crash in Buffalo, New York, for what appears to be the lack of funds for safety issues. Then there is the surprising practice of businesses like Wal-Mart that take out life insurance policies on its employees and collecting on the benefits. By contrast, he does show examples of companies owned by workers that operate efficiently and at a profit. His point is there can be win-win situations.

As Wall Street sold ‘derivatives’, a risky form of corporate gambling, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan suggested that Americans tap the equity in their homes, and thus came the refinance boom for banks and a new found wealth for the masses-or was it? Using a home like a bank was a formula for financial disaster as the housing industry collapsed with foreclosures and the banking industry fell too. Moore makes his point with footage of actual foreclosures as sheriffs evict homeowners, and the cruelty is not only losing a home but in the cottage industry that has taken advantage of this agonizing process. Added to this is the preferential treatment that CEO’s gave to each other and many lawmakers regarding mortgage approvals. The question that keeps being asked by Moore and others is ‘where were the regulators’ in all this?

As Congress debated on how to repair the economy with a bailout of as much as $700 billion of taxpayer money, Wall Street used media abetted fear to manipulate lawmakers. It was a politics of fear. But not everyone was buying into the fear. Some members of Congress were brave enough to tell a sobering tale of a lack of oversight versus corporate bonuses being fed by the bailout.

Moore shows that some people are fighting back. A new President (Obama) ushers in the potential for change. People are fighting foreclosures and forcing banks to prove chain of title. The laid off workers at Republic Doors refused to exit the factory, and with media coverage and a supportive President, Bank of America caves in and agrees to pay the workers what is owed to them. This event is not without precedent as Moore points out in 1936, workers at a GM Flint, Michigan plant also fought back. In an ironic, fascinating piece of history of what might have been, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed but never lived to see a second Bill of Rights which would address virtually every important concern for Americans including health care, education, and financial security.

Then Moore makes this observation based on a private corporate memo that says 1% of the population in this country has 95% of the wealth but that the other 99% have an equal vote and the power to make changes (yet still hope to be part of the rich). It is this equal vote that scares the corporate powers. His conclusion is that the only hope for this country is for democracy to work.

Some things don’t come off well in the film; Moore appears to be grandstanding when he rents an armored car to make a citizen’s arrest of the CEOs of Wall Street and get back the public’s money. He even takes crime scene tape to cordon off bank doors. Also, an interview with actor Wallace Shawn seems a bit out of place. Wouldn’t an interview with an industry insider have worked better? You may not agree with everything Moore espouses, but some of the information should cause anyone to research the facts and draw their own conclusions. If you are a fan of his previous films Sicko or Fahrenheit 9/11, then you will appreciate Capitalism: A Love Story.
*** of **** stars

The Ten Greatest War Films of All Time

As Veterans Day approaches, here is a list of some memorable war themed films. You could assemble another list of ten quite easily. I left out biographies - Patton, Schindler’s List, and Sergeant York, and comedic takes like M*A*S*H, and straight wartime dramas - Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, The Best Years of Our Lives, Twelve O’Clock High, and Coming Home, or silent masterpieces - The Big Parade, Wings, and the controversial Birth of a Nation, or foreign entrees - Grand Illusion and Das Boot, fictitious gems - The Guns of Navarone or The Dirty Dozen, and the frontline soldiers of Battleground, The Story of G.I. Joe, They Were Expendable, The Big Red One, and Platoon.

In chronological order-

All Quiet on the Western Front-Unflinching look at front line soldiers who must face the enemy as directed by the maestro war director of all time, Lewis Milestone (A Walk in the Sun, Pork Chop Hill).

From Here to Eternity-The first adult oriented depiction of the personal lives of the men and women whose fates are forever altered by Pearl Harbor.

Paths of Glory-The supreme, anti-war film based on fact and featuring knockout acting by Kirk Douglas and the directorial machinations of a young Stanley Kubrick who would match this effort with Full Metal Jacket.

The Bridge on the River Kwai-The madness of war and how its participants lose sight of what really matters is the core of a cinematic triumph featuring Alec Guinness’ Oscar laden performance and an exciting climax second to none.

The Longest Day-Epic recreation of D-Day which changed the world. Remarkable in its scope and clarity and a star studded roster of cameos.

The Great Escape-The true story of allied escape from a German Stalag has a marvelous cast, superbly edited, and a star turn by motorcycle riding Steve McQueen.

The Deer Hunter-The lives of a Pennsylvania steel town are depicted in loving detail and thrown into allegorical horror of the Vietnam War.

Apocalypse Now- Into the heart of darkness as a military officer is sent to find the mysterious Colonel Kurtz who has descended into war’s hell. The Ride of the Valkyries helicopter charge is stunning.

Glory-The real life exploits of a regiment of soldiers composed of former slaves during the Civil War culminates in the greatest, emotional charge in war filmdom.

Saving Private Ryan-Spielberg stages the most realistic battle scene of all time as D-Day is reenacted in all its horrifying detail. Not until Black Hawk Down did a film come close to matching its verisimilitude of orchestrated mayhem.

The Ten Greatest Horror Films of All Time

Ok, I could have included any number of films like the classics, King Kong, The Wolfman, the Val Lewton classics (Cat People), and Island of Lost Souls, or some cool monsters in The Thing (1951) or Creature from the Black Lagoon, or some mind benders like The Innocents and Peeping Tom, while noting some slashers like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Friday the 13th, and some well deserved sequels like Dawn of the Dead (1978) or thrillers like Silence of the Lambs or Carrie, and some recent gems like The Ring , Nightmare on Elm Street, and Evil Dead. This is only one person’s opinion but the goal was to focus on those films that have stood the test of time and have been the focal point of influence on not just one but many films. Indeed, these ten films vary from inexpensive cheapies to major studio A budgets and cover a wide period of filmmaking. Ultimately the criteria was if the film was unequivocally scary and stayed with you. These ten meet the test. Enjoy.

The Exorcist-the granddaddy of good vs. evil complete with gross moments, great acting, and told with complete conviction by William Friedkin at the height of his powers.

Halloween –John Carpenter set the standard for current slasher films but no one has done a better job at modulating events until its suspenseful climax which ushered in a multitude of sequels.

Psycho-Hitchcock influenced a generation with this innovative film that broke all the rules and foreshadowed Halloween and Carrie.

Night of the Living Dead- low budget indie that has stood the test of time and has inspired dozens of good zombie films (Resident Evil, 28 Days Later) and was a big influence on that Grand Guignol, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Bride of Frankenstein-horror with pathos and over the top imagination as this sequel to Frankenstein surpasses it and establishes itself as an all time movie great among movies.

Nosferatu-a silent masterpiece courtesy of German visionary F.W. Murnau is the best Dracula film without being called Dracula (for legal reasons) and with the most horrifying shot of all time as Max Schreck’s vampire levitates out of his coffin and stalks the last survivor of a ship!

Invasion of the Body Snatchers-the notion of losing yourself to an unemotional, static form is that inhuman terror that infected The Stepford Wives but never as good as this original that puts all other remakes to shame.

Repulsion-the ultimate psychological descent into personal hell with Catherine Deneuve complete with a hallway scene to make you jump; director Roman Polanski was making ready for Rosemary’s Baby

Jaws-and its mostly unseen terror abetted by a masterful John Williams score and a new director named Spielberg would usher in the age of the blockbuster and later Jurassic Park.

Alien- ok any remake of a B-movie of the 50’s (It the Terror from Beyond Space) can’t be all bad if it delivers 100% and introduces us to one of the great movie monsters of all time and a new heroine in Sigourney Weaver.

HORRORFIND WEEKEND 2009

This year's edition of the horror film convention in Hunt Valley, Horrorfind Weekend, featured a fewer number of vendors which was a disappointment for movie poster collectors like myself but not short on industry celebrities and faces. A rare appearance by Adrienne King, the heroine from the original Friday 13th movie, had a perpetual line of people. Old faces like Corbin Bernson (Major League , LA Law), Danny Trejo (Heat, Desperado), and Fred Williamson (M*A*S*H, Three the Hard Way) were there. I met with Margot Kidder who was Lois Lane in the Christopher Reeve Superman movies of the 1970's and 1980's. I also met William Katt who was Carrie's date to the prom! He was a pretty neat guy and spent time getting to know each fan. There were other folks like the great makeup effects artist Tom Savini who had a lifesized friend from Gremlins for me to snap a picture. It was a nice time to take your mind off from reality for a bit.

JULIE & JULIA Serves a Tasty Dish

Take equal parts Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. Add a dash of Stanley Tucci and have chef/director Nora Ephron whip up a delicious patisserie of confectionary delight in the true tale, Julie & Julia. Combining two source books, Julie Powell’s Julie & Julia and Julia Child’s My Life in France, Ephron’s screen adaptation parallels the lives of up and coming master chef Child and aspiring writer Powell who uses Child’s cookbook as the inspiration for her ambitious blog. The results, while not a five star meal, is certainly an entertaining, well acted drama highlighted by some amusing situations.

Two married women from different times and places yearn to satisfy their inner desire for independence. In 1949, Julia Child and her US civil servant husband, Paul, are stationed in Paris, France. Wanting to do something besides sitting around like other wives of the period, she endeavors a variety of classes from hat making to bridge lessons until she and Paul hit upon the fact that she loves to eat. Thus she embarks on a mission to conquer cooking schools and the art of culinary cuisine. In 2002, with similar desires for a more fulfilling life as an author, Julie Powell is getting adjusted to Queens, New York, with her husband, Eric. Powell’s frustrations are channeled into a blog that documents her attempts to realize all 524 recipes in Julia Child’s famous cookbook in 365 days no less. The two lead characters depend on the publishing world for success-Child with her constantly delayed French cookbook manuscript that grows to 700 pages and the doubting responses of skeptical publishers, and Julie with her daily blogs as her way of garnering attention from a publisher. Both women’s lives are set on a journey of self discovery and validation as they find that their goals will be sprinkled with adversity and roadblocks. Ultimately it will be their sheer will, self reflection, and the love of their respective spouses that will see them through in their quests.

Streep is perhaps the best actress of the past thirty years and this role only serves to elevate her status. Although the role is not a tortured soul as in Sophie’s Choice or Kramer vs. Kramer, she embodies Child as a larger than life bon vivant while mimicking her voice and mannerisms with startling acumen and enthusiam. Child’s character gets more development than Powell. As she walks with Paul, her subtle reaction to a baby carriage and subsequent meltdown at the news of her sister’s pregnancy is an interesting revelation. Her love of French food becomes an avocation and her life’s calling. The cooking moments are convincing including a cute sequence involving chopped onions that will have audiences chuckling. She is a woman’s libber by default as she attends a more advanced, male dominated cooking class.

It’s a pity that any actor in a Streep film would suffer by comparison. Yet Adams throws herself in the more contemporary but less developed role with gusto. Her role is more of the everywoman who cooks as a form of therapy. Powell’s background can’t quite compete with the rich history of Child’s origins, but what she does get is a following and respect from fans and publishers. What Ephron should have done toward the end is to reemphasize how Powell’s inability to finish anything of merit has come full circle with this accomplishment and would have provided a more compelling character development.

Stanley Tucci is a standout who more than holds his own with Streep’s Child. It is an Oscar-worthy performance. Chris Messina is a star on the rise as Eric Powell; he performs well with an essentially one note role.

There are nice moments including an amusing scene when Julie and Eric watch Dan Aykroyd’s classic Saturday Night Live take on Julia Child. A subplot involving the House Un-American Activities Committee detracts from the overall spirit of Child’s story, and the film does slow a bit in the last half-hour but never loses interest completely. Ephron does well by linking similar themes and events that each woman experiences thus providing a bond and segue over time and space. One wishes that there was a more direct connection between the two women and even a chance meeting, but we have to settle for indirect links and the sharing of kindred spirits.

Don’t expect anything more than an interesting character study of two women bound by a love for food and search for purpose in their lives. Julie & Julia is light but satisfying fare highlighted by a sumptuous main course, Meryl Streep. Bon appetite!

*** of **** (add 1/2 * for Streep fans)

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF- BLOOD PRINCE Sets the Finale

This remarkably well balanced series of wildly successful films based on an equally popular series of novels by J. K. Rowling shows no signs of waning with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Potter veteran director David Yates and keeper of the flame scribe Steve Kloves have kept together a burgeoning franchise that is laying the foundation for a grand finale.

A new school year begins, and Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) is coming to terms with being the ‘chosen one’ to do battle against the ultimate in evil wizardry, Lord Voldemort and the evil Death Eaters surrounding Hogwart. Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) enlists Harry to serve as bait to draw out the supremely evil Voldemort. An older Professor Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) returns to the school and brings with him a mysterious history of having taught the boy who became Lord Voldemort. Harry in the meantime discovers a manuscript by the ‘Half-Blood Prince’ and thinks that it is the key to learning the wizardry secret that will enable Harry and his comrades, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) to defeat the man who killed his parents and godfather, Sirius Black. Harry’s school rival Draco harbors revenge against him for the death of his evil father. There is the aerial game Quidditch that challenges Ron’s mettle, and the blossoming of adolescent romance between Potter and Ron’s sister, Ginny and between Ron and Hermione. Then there is Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) and some mysterious behavior that questions his allegiance. As Dumbledore makes Harry promise to do whatever he instructs, the Death Eaters are unleashed within Hogwart with devastating consequences and a shocking betrayal that will forever change the destiny of the school and foreshadow the coming showdown with Voldemort.

This is a more grownup Potter as it explores relationships more thoroughly and some amusing situations arise such as a love triangle that plagues Ron. It is amusing to see how hormones are thriving amongst the teens and love is in the air. Growing up was never this hard. There are also surprises of a high order that will send the series on a new, ominous path while raising questions about the loyalty of a major player. The one constant is our beloved trio of maturing wizards who must face an uncertain future without an important character. The film reinforces the continuous themes of loyalty and friendship among our wizard heroes. That bond and natural chemistry among the three actors is partly what holds this remarkable series together.

Most of the characters are back from the previous film Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It does feel like school has restarted when Professors Dumbledore, Snape, and McGonagall (venerable Maggie Smith) show up. Other familiar faces reappear, which greatly help in the continuity and progression of the story. The filmmakers are wise to introduce a couple new characters here and there without shaking up the status quo too much. All the Potter films have benefited from a strong focus on storyline in keeping with the novel sources.

Production values are topnotch again, and the dark, moody colored cinematography is an artistic triumph. It is impressive at how mainstream films have pushed the creative aspects of filmmaking without sacrificing popularity; witness the cinematography and art direction of The Dark Knight and the film editing in The Bourne Ultimatum. It has almost become passé to expect imaginative state of the art special effects in the Potter films, but they are always serving the plot and not merely to draw attention to the spectacle itself.

Since these are British performers, there is a bit of adjusting to their heavy British accents. This film, perhaps more than any other, assumes that the audience is already well versed on Potter lore, and so it may prove a bit confusing to the uninitiated. It starts out well and tries one’s patience just a tad as it builds a complex narrative that loses steam half-way through and picks up momentum toward the end and never lets up with a devastating payoff which in turn sets up the two part finale in grand fashion.

Though not the best film of the series, The Half-Blood Prince sets the table for the final battle of good versus evil. This must be a pretty good film because I can’t wait for the final installments.

*** of **** stars

PUBLIC ENEMIES Rekindles Gangster Era

Johnny Depp is hitting his stride in recent years with his Pirates of the Caribbean films and character roles. Director/writer Michael Mann has been a respected stylist of the crime genre with such notables as Heat, Thief, and TV’s Miami Vice. The union of these two super talents results in a more than satisfactory retelling of the legendary bank robber, John Dillinger, in Public Enemies. This violent tale focuses on the free spirit of Dillinger and his infamous robberies in the Midwest at the height of the Great Depression.

In 1933, the country is in the midst of the Great Depression and bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) captures the public’s fascination and even folk hero worship. Having helped to break his friends out of prison, he continues his robberies in and around Chicago. As the crime wave sweeps the Midwest, the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover enlists up and coming agent, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), (who has just nailed Pretty Boy Floyd,) to capture Dillinger, Public Enemy Number One. Purvis employs a variety of sophisticated listening devices and police work to track him. Dillinger thinks he is invincible and executes even more daring bank robberies. He dates hat check girl Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and travels with her to Florida for horse races and then to Arizona, where lawmen recognize and arrest him. Transported to Indiana State Penitentiary, an easier place to breakout than a federal prison thanks to his mob lawyer, he uses a fake gun to engineer an escape. He is joined by notorious hothead robber, Baby Faced Nelson, and they score more violent robberies. Purvis insists on recruiting a crack force of Texas lawmen who assist him in closing in on the Dillinger gang leading to a memorable shootout in Little Bohemia. As Dillinger crosses the state line, he violates federal laws and brings pressure on organized criminals, who turn on the fugitive. Billie’s fear that John will be caught or killed is tempered by her love for him, and when she is captured by local law enforcement, Purvis intercedes. When a call girl comes forward with information about Dillinger, Purvis sets up a fateful ambush at The Biograph Theater where the FBI will be waiting.

It is interesting that Dillinger’s relationship with organized crime syndicates helped him with a legal infrastructure that disappeared once the mob deemed him a risk to their lucrative business. Further, Hoover’s political agenda was desperate to make headlines and build the FBI into a future powerhouse of law. It is also fascinating how technically proficient the FBI was on its use of wire taps and eavesdropping devices while being relatively incompetent in conducting a simple arrest or taking part in a shootout.

What is refreshing is the core romance between Dillinger and Billie Frechette. Dillinger is presented as bold, charismatic and at times ruthless. It is his bravado that attracts fellow criminals and Billie to him. Cotillard gets a strong role that is considerably more than window dressing. Her performance is convincing, and her chemistry with Depp’s Dillinger makes this romance believable and heartbreaking thus lending an emotion subtext to the typical gangster movie. Bales’s Purvis is portrayed as an obsessed, determined lawman who is dry and dull in sharp contrast to the devil may care attitude of the freewheeling Dillinger. Billy Crudup registers effectively as the young Hoover. Mann favorite Stephen Lang, barely recognizable, registers a solid performance as a hardened Texas lawman who is critical to the end of the film.

Besides the usual set designs and costumes to mimic the depression era, heavy use is made of period music. The Little Bohemia shootout is a major set piece with heavy use of handheld cameras. Although a detailed montage of action, it still does not have the visceral impact of John Milius’ Dillinger or even the classic, G-Men. There is also an extended bank heist reminiscent of Mann’s Heat in its boldness and precision of execution. The climactic ambush at the Biograph Theater is depicted in excruciating detail and still carries a great deal of tension.

The last scene at a women’s prison may never actually have happened, and it is curious that Lang’s lawman and not Purvis serves as the catalyst for this key moment. The subsequent, final shot of Cotillard after getting a special message is quite memorable. It almost raises this film to another level.

Public Enemies is not the best of Michael Mann, but it is a solid entry in his canon of crime films. What is notable is another star turn by Depp, an actor at his creative peak.

*** of **** stars

UP Carries You Away

Pixar has found a home with Disney and, with apologies to Dreamworks and other animation studios, no one has come close in recent years to their fresh, inventive, and importantly, timeless spirit in computer animation. In UP, a tale of loneliness and friendship is told in a simple, heartfelt way. This is one of the best films of the year and puts live action films to shame.

Carl begins as an adventure-loving boy whose childhood friendship with a girl, Ellie, grows into a marriage as adults and a dream to visit their ideal destination, Paradise Falls in South America. Later widowed, Carl becomes a crusty, elderly man who longs for escape. In time, his neighborhood is transformed into an urban development, and one fateful day with the threat of being committed to a retirement community, he takes his house on a bold, unlikely trip by balloons through the skies to South America. Unfortunately, he discovers an accidental passenger in the form of a Boy Scout named Russell who is looking to get his final merit badge by helping a senior citizen. Carl must make a momentous decision that changes his life and affects Russell. Their joint flight arrives somewhere in the vicinity of Paradise Falls. Along the way they encounter an unusual, giant bird dubbed Kevin and a dog named Dug whose thoughts are vocalized through his special electronic collar. This motley group encounters a mysterious, dangerous presence that threatens them and jeopardizes Carl’s journey to his final destination.

Pete Docter (Wall-E, Toy Story) and Bob Peterson (Finding Nemo) bring their story and screenplay talents to the fore as co-directors. It’s really a story about unfulfilled, broken dreams and things left undone, and the spirit and drive to recapture those feelings. The film begins with a subplot involving the friendship and growing romance of a young Carl and Ellie who share a passion for life and adventure. The imaginative vignettes tell a complete love story in an opening montage that ends as our film is only beginning-wow!

What makes this film head and shoulders above most animations is its poignant confrontation of life’s ups and downs. It’s about life and death told in terms that are not disingenuous. In the grand tradition of Disney classics as Bambi and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, movies about finding a safe place from danger are at the core of children’s animation, and this film plays on that tradition. The novelty here is that the lead character is elderly. There is a sense of The Wizard of Oz in its otherworldly journey of discovery and camaraderie, and even the climax smacks of Saturday morning cliffhangers. A nice change of pace is the lack of contemporary, inside jokes or puns based on pop culture that are staples of such Dreamworks hits as the Shrek films. The situations here are organically amusing from natural conflicts and plot.

Carl (voiced to perfection by Edward Asner) is a mean, bitter soul who rediscovers his innocence and humanity through Russell, who in turn discovers the safety of a nuclear family with Carl and some unlikely companions. Kevin is cute, emanating amusing sound effects and body movements without uttering a single line of dialogue. Dug is a riot as the misfit dog whose heart of gold is matched by his incessant habit of having his ‘talking’ interrupted at any moment by a sudden spasm of posturing and shouting, “point” or “squirrel”! It’s a hoot. Christopher Plummer is effectively sinister as a blast from the past. The only criticism of the movie is minor at the end when we are not quite sure about Russell’s parents and how much they are part of his life. John Ratzenberger’s (Cheers) streak of doing a voice in every major Pixar release is intact.
The computer animation is so good, that anything not human looks like a picturesque postcard. When Carl’s balloons sprout above his house, we admire their stunning, vibrant colors. Interesting uses of cinematography are employed as if this were a live action feature. The final image is ironic as it is iconic, a fitting end to a fairy tale.

This one ranks highly alongside Pixar favorites like Finding Nemo and Wall-E. Quite possibly, adults may find as much (if not more) to enjoy in this story. It’s amazing that a modest story featuring a kid and old man told with conviction and skill is one of the best films of 2009.

**** of **** stars (preceded by a winning short, Partly Cloudy)

ANGELS AND DEMONS-AN IMPROVEMENT

Dan Brown’s phenomenal bestseller, The DaVinci Code was made into an equally successful film adaptation. Angels and Demons, while actually a prequel to that book, has been adapted into a movie sequel, and the results are certainly more promising. Director Ron Howard and actor Tom Hanks reteam for a better telling of intrigue, murder, and suspense amid a historic and religious setting. Essentially an almost real-time thriller which jumps from ancient landmark to landmark, this film actually works pretty well within its own confines and is thus a satisfying entertainment without getting sidetracked on the holy mission of revelatory discovery and truth that its predecessor got tangled in.

A scientific breakthrough in a Swiss laboratory generates powerful, anti-matter particles. When a mysterious group steals this deadly material, they threaten Vatican City with annihilation. The plot thickens when four Cardinals, in consideration to succeed the recently deceased Pope, are kidnapped and threatened with hourly execution at a holy site. Despite his purely scientific, empirical measure of the world, symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks with a normal hairdo this time) is whisked from Harvard campus to Vatican City where he is joined by Dr. Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) whose lab created the stolen particles. Together, they attempt to locate the Cardinals and the anti-matter particles. We meet the Vatican Police guard and their protocols and protectiveness over not only the church and its members, but its archives which are at the heart of Langdon’s quest for clues. The Pope’s assistant, Camerlengo Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor), the Vatican Guard Commander Richter (Stellan Skarsgard), and elder Cardinal Strauss (Armin Mueller-Stahl) participate in the investigation. History (according to Dan Brown) has it that in 1668, four scientists or free-thinkers known as the Illuminati were kidnapped, branded and executed by the church. Now a darker version of the Illuminati is ready to exact an ‘eye-for-an-eye’ revenge on the church, and they intend to finish the job with one big bang of anti-matter. The clues lead to the four elements of fire, water, air and earth, and perhaps more. What do these have to with actual church locations? Complicating the proceedings is a mysterious assassin who carries out the lethal agenda with unerring accuracy even as Langdon, Dr. Vetra, and the police attempt to prevent further bloodshed. Should Vatican City be evacuated as thousands of people hold a vigil for the new Pope? Can everyone be trusted even in the most sensitive and elite of holy circles? These questions are raised as Langdon desperately searches for answers to save the Vatican.

Having not read the original novel, I feel the film does work on its own which is more than can be said of its predecessor which got lost in self importance and confusing exposition. Screenwriters David Koepp (Jurassic Park, Spiderman) and Akiva Goldsman (A Beautiful Mind) have tried to streamline and condense Brown’s immense, detailed novel into a serviceable story, which focuses on a race against time and is a pretty decent mystery without having the ‘holier than thou’ agenda. References are made to Langdon’s previous adventure with The DaVinci Code, but the film wisely stays on course almost in actual-time so that the suspense level is ratcheted up progressively until the potentially explosive climax.

There are some shortcomings to the film. There is alot of material covered here so it seems a bit episodic, and plot details that beg for a more patient explanation are raced over. The characters are not sufficiently fleshed out to give more meaning to what happens later. All we get are some brief notes of each person’s background to go forward; that is a missed opportunity. Perhaps Dan Brown’s book did not give much in the way of detailed history for his players, but that does not excuse the filmmakers from trying to make a stronger, more emotional connection. Further, elements of the plot strain credibility, and you need to make a leap of faith so to speak to accept some pretty amazing coincidences and key events. In particular, the climax is full of major surprises and a stunning turn of events that require a suspension of disbelief.

Production values are impressive particularly in the art direction and visual effects to recreate Vatican City (since permission for location shooting was denied). The camera work shows great fluidity, and seldom have visuals been more kinetic as in this film or for that matter any other recent adventure/mystery. This helps in the pacing and overall flow of the story.

It’s nice for a change to see male and female leads working together without resorting to the obligatory romance. Here, it’s strictly business. In fact the film plays almost like a chapter of TV’s 24 or The X Files which may determine whether the plot twists and turns are surprising or satisfyingly fresh to the uninitiated viewer. If you have seen The Godfather III, the storyline conspiracies may also seem a bit familiar. Still, you get the feeling that Howard and Hanks have gotten the hang of things this time around. What you get is a moderately interesting mystery in an elaborate, big budget setting. The visuals are impressive but the story itself is nothing special to write home about.

*** of **** stars
(**1/2 stars if you’re a 24 fan)

STAR TREK REDUX EXHILERATES

Continuing the trend of reinventing sixties iconic figures such as Batman and James Bond, Star Trek was inevitably next in line. For those who fretted that the new incarnation of creator Gene Roddenberry’s beloved franchise of ‘Wagon Train to the Stars’ would be dishonored or ignored, they needn’t worry. This new version, intended to reboot the franchise that was so popular in TV reruns and subsequently in a series of big budget films, is a remarkably balanced take on the origins of the classic Enterprise crew. It is designed to appeal to the non-initiated audience while referencing the existing canon of Star Trek lore. Director J. J. Abrams (Fringe, Alias, Mission Impossible III) brings a fresh vision abetted by Trekkie fan/writers, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.

James T. Kirk is born as his father rescues a starship crew during a Romulan attack led by the mysterious Nero (Eric Bana). A young rebel who grows into a brash, thrill seeking adventurer, young Kirk (Chris Pine) is recruited into Star Fleet Academy by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood). Meanwhile the half Vulcan / half human Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto) has matured amid bullying kids and decides his destiny lies with The Federation as a cadet instead of his home planet Vulcan. Kirk strikes up a friendship with an ornery young Doctor Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban is a hoot) whose distrust of space and things not medical will become legendary. It is McCoy who devises a way for Kirk to become a crew member of the newly commissioned starship Enterprise. In fact, most of what will become the core crew is assembled including communications officer Uhura (Zoe Saldana), helmsmen Sulu (John Cho) and Chekov (Anton Yelchin), and later, engineer Scotty (Simon Pegg). Seeking vengeance against the Federation, Nero has traveled through time to exact pain and destruction with a planet killing device that will draw the Enterprise to Vulcan and ultimately Earth. With the Universe in the balance, Kirk and Spock must decide if they can work together (with the help of a certain mentor).

The parallel life paths of Kirk and Spock are marked contrasts of two men who will clash and reconcile their future relationship. Kirk smacks of hawkish, shoot-from-the-hip reactionary while Spock is the logical, think-inside-the-box good soldier. Nero reminds us a bit of Khan from Wrath of Khan. The character of Uhura is a major upgrade. She is a multi-talented officer who has romantic longings for a certain Vulcan. Greenwood shines as the veteran Pike. Leonard Nimoy makes a welcome, pivotal appearance as an elder Spock who figures prominently in the history that is to come. The cast makes the most of iconic roles and excels at recreating the personas of what we remember; each crew member gets an opportunity to shine. It is nice to see this group working and improvising together for the first time to solve a crisis. Further, this story takes it for granted as does its audience that this crew is not only multicultural, but multi-species, a far cry from the novelty of the integrated crew of classic Trek.

The screenplay has some well written dialogue and clever Trek references sprinkled throughout, and age old lines of the classic show are introduced for the first time. When McCoy utters, “I’m a doctor, not a physicist”, it’s a riot. Part of the fun is watching two heavyweights like Kirk and Spock faceoff and slowly bond and seeing how Kirk ascends to the captain’s chair. We finally get to learn what the ‘Kobayashi Maru’ wargame really is and how Kirk manages to defeat the test.

Sure, the plot has some gaping holes if you think about continuity and the fate of a certain venerable, classic character. Nero’s motives are explained in time, but they don’t make total sense. This film also does not have the gravitas of deep themes as previous films which is perhaps its only true failing, but instead, we get a strong character study that more than compensates.

Technical effects are quite impressive although Abrams seems to favor close-ups and tight camera setups that put the viewer in the middle of action scenes. Fortunately, there are no jarring Cloverfield handheld camera moves. There is a good fight sequence on a weapons platform and a surprise on an ice planet. You want phasers shooting back and forth in space battle? You’ve got them here. In fact the energy level keeps this voyage bouncing along.

The Enterprise is stunning-it has never looked quite this way ever, and it is cool how they depict the starship going into warp drive. There are imaginative points of view when showing off the ship’s exterior, and the interior is brimming with activity and sound, which is in stark contrast to the more antiseptic views from the earlier show. The costumes (complete with female miniskirts) harken back to that period and yet seem fresh. At credits’ end, there is a nice dedication to the Roddenberrys, Gene and Majel Barrett (who voices the Federation computer one last time).

Fans of the old show may tear up at how faithful and creative Abrams and his screenwriters are with Trek lore and how they set everything up nicely going forward. This is their alternate universe now, and we are game for the experience. This crew, baptized under fire, is ready for new missions, and they cannot come soon enough. Way to go, Mr. Abrams. This Trek rocks!

***1/2 of **** stars

OSCAR PREDICTIONS 2008 films

OK, a last minute Oscar prediction for 2008 films…..
Because it is a level playing field in terms of quality, there could be a surprise in several categories except Best Supporting Actor. I have only seen some of the acting nominees but, as always, have seen all the Best Picture ones. Enjoy the telecast-the producers(Bill Condon did Dreamgirls) should have some cool faces and events that changes the traditional presentations. Here we go. –Clint
BEST PICTURE-All the films here are good but not one grabbed me deeply. However, Slumdog Millionaire is a gritty Cinderella story with universal appeal and should complete its magical journey.
BEST DIRECTOR-Danny Boyle makes good films (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later) and this is his coming out ceremony with Slumdog.
BEST ACTRESS-very close race between my favorite, Meryl Streep in Doubt and Kate Winslet in The Reader. Historically when an actress is overdue, she wins. When an actress has another strong film that year (revolutionary Road), she wins. Winslet wins.
BEST ACTOR-Sean Penn in Milk was transforming despite Mickey Rourke in the comeback film The Wrestler. Very very close…..I go with my heart-Sean Penn.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS-very tough here too but it is likely between Penelope Cruz in Vicky Cristina Barcelona and a short, memorable moment by Viola Davis in Doubt. If Streep loses, look for Davis to be the representative winner on Doubt. Cruz is heavily favored but I still remember Davis-so Davis.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR-Heath Ledger was so good in a memorable way in The Dark Knight (which should have been a best picture nominee-it was nominated in every major guild –Producers, Director etc)
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-Milk was a very complete film and could have won Best Picture in another year. Here is its validation.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-Slumdog Millionaire, although this is where an upset could occur with strong competition from every film.
The rest…..
Benjamin Button should take SPECIAL EFFECTS (from Iron Man), possibly ART DIRECTION, and of course most definitely MAKEUP.
The Dark Knight in addition should take SOUND MIXING and SOUND EDITING,
Slumdog could scoop more awards like MUSICAL SCORE (think The Last Emperor), CINEMATOGRAPHY, and even COSTUME DESIGN. Probably EDITING although Benjamin Button is strong here.
Wall-E deserves BEST ANIMATION and could have been a Best Picture nominee. It could steak best song from Slumdog.
Waltz with Bashir should pickup FOREIGN FILM and Man on Wire for DOCUMENTARY FEATURE.
The tally-Slumdog-7 Oscars, Benjamin Button and Dark Knight could end up with 3 Oscars each. I give up on the short film categories.

The Masterpiece That Is THE DARK KNIGHT

When Batman Begins (2005) reenergized the franchise with its dark, brooding vision and Zen beginnings, it looked like the followup could be primed for even better results. The higher expectations have not only been met, but are exceeded in The Dark Knight. Featuring a diabolical performance by the late Heath Ledger, this is a terrific film that takes the franchise to darker places, and it is a milestone in comic adaptations and certain to alter the course of such films in the future.

An elaborate bank heist is engineered by the ruthless Joker who is stealing from and toying with the mobsters of Gotham City. Batman (Christian Bale), the caped crusader, watches over the city aiding police Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman). Although Batman is an outcast in society, his true identity is billionaire Bruce Wayne, Gotham’s revered benefactor. A new ‘face’ in the form of District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), has arrived to clean up crime. Dent is a supremely confident, dynamic ‘white knight’ who means business, and he is dating Wayne’s former love, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal). As Wayne Enterprise’s Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) upgrades his armor and weaponry, Batman must confront the Joker, who consolidates his power and rule over Gotham’s mobs and begins to target city officials including Dent for assassination. When Dent sets himself as bait for The Joker, Batman must chase down and save the district attorney and Rachel from certain death. Meanwhile, a new villain emerges from an unlikely source. Racing against time, Batman is forced into a life and death choice, and he must decide if he should make a sacrifice that will forever change the course of Gotham’s heroic avenger.

Directed by Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins, Momento) in arguably his most accomplished work, this mature, psychological movie takes its themes seriously and weaves subplots upon subplots. For instance, how does a group of people respond when its morality and survival instincts are tested to the limit? You may be surprised and thrilled by the answers. The plot twists are so numerous, you wonder, ‘am I really watching an action picture?’ By the end, the franchise is launched into a new, uncertain direction. Bravo to the filmmakers for not playing it safe.

Whenever Ledger is onscreen, he is simply terrific. There is not one false note or boring moment as he lights up the screen. With his body language, every inflection and facial expression all working in concert to create a horrifying persona, he is so convincing, you cannot imagine that it is Heath Ledger. He is complemented, as are the other leads, with a well written script full of memorable lines. This Joker is a far cry from previous incarnations (Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson) of the clown prince of crime. When Wayne tries to fathom The Joker’s motivations, Alfred counsels him and states, “Some men want to watch the world burn.” This Joker is grounded in real evil and is thus all the more menacing. We get bits and pieces of Joker’s sordid, traumatic past, which are totally credible in explaining his origins. Essentially an urban terrorist, he threatens the innocent and causes them to live in fear, and he kills with no remorse. There is no logic to his acts, and yet he is a brilliant, clever strategist. Batman follows his own set of rules, but must he sink to Joker’s level in order to combat him?

If The Joker is like the devil, then Batman is almost a Christ-like figure, one with self doubt and who is willing to protect the innocent even if it means taking on or absorbing the sins and pain of the world around him. Christian Bale continues to impress by portraying dual characters (Bruce Wayne/Batman) effectively and playing off the likes of Freeman and Caine, who make the most of their supporting roles. Eckhart is convincing as Dent, a role much more developed and utilized than in Batman Forever. Gyllenhaal (replacing Katie Holmes) does quite well as Wayne’s former flame. Oldman is very good as Gordon which is quite the change of pace from having previously played evil villains (JFK). In fact, Oldman, Freeman, and Caine form the moral compass of the film.

With a talented cast bringing well rounded characters to the screen, Nolan keeps things grounded and never loses track of his story. A Gotham car chase and Hong Kong escape are breathtaking sequences yet wholly believable. You don’t think of anything as computer generated or overdone, which is remarkable in this age of special effects. Are you listening Michael Bay (Armageddon, Con Air)? There are several well composed shots that are iconic and haunting. The hardware is eye-catchy including the Batmobile and a scooter like none you’ve ever seen. Pacing is methodical but it seems a bit choppy and jumpy by cramming in so much narrative material into a 2.5 hour running time. The camerawork is at times quite fluid and dazzling by enhancing the mood or (in The Joker’s case) madness.

There are a couple of moments that are a bit misleading or confusing such as an assassination attempt that may have claimed a key character’s life. And the villain’s fate is sort of, how shall I put this, left hanging? But these are tiny quibbles in a film vastly richer than any comic book adaptation (Spiderman 2 and Iron Man are in this elite company) to date. Rated PG-13, this is essentially an R rated film in spirit and not for younger children. It is creepy and sustains an overall dark, violent mood throughout. Go see The Dark Knight for a multi-layered story that challenges and surprises. Go see the wonderful acting and writing led by maestro Nolan. But most of all go see a burst of genius that was Ledger’s brilliant, last hurrah.

**** of **** stars

WALL-E Brings Pathos to Computer Animation

Pixar has produced some of the best animation in the past decade with its computer-generated features (Toy Story, Monsters Inc., and Finding Nemo) that have been marked by strong storylines and vivid characters. The tradition continues in an impressive way with Wall-E. This deceptively simple tale is transformed by the emotional content told almost entirely through visuals.

A polluted Earth has become uninhabitable for 700 years, and one of its only residents is Wall-E, a small robot whose solitary mission is to be a mobile, trash compactor. In his work, he also finds and collects trivial, odd artifacts of mankind’s past such as a Rubik’s cube. He comforts himself with an old video, Hello Dolly, and as he learns about humans and his yearning for love, it becomes his idyllic vision of happiness amid an insulated, dull existence. Along his travels, he comes across a unique find, a live plant! One day a spaceship lands and deposits a robot probe. Fascinated by this kindred machine, Wall-E follows and eventually befriends this unit known as Eve. Eve has a directive that will hopefully return humans to Earth if only it can sustain life, and Wall-E’s plant figures immeasurably. Eve is returned to her mother ship with Wall-E frantically chasing after his newly found love. On a spaceship acting as a living city for its machine-dependent, overweight humans, little robots are not only the caregivers, but in control. Wall-E and Eve must figure a way to return the humans to earth and find happiness even if it means making the ultimate sacrifice.

Wall-E’s innocence and childlike wonder (think E.T.), as exemplified by how he introduces himself to everyone he meets, could almost have sprung from Steven Spielberg’s imagination. It’s in the small details that enrich Wall-E as a character. He brings to mind an amalgam of past robots like Star Wars’ R2-D2 and the little robots in Silent Running, and his fears and joys are expressed through body language and squeals. When he shuts down each night to sleep, he rocks himself as a child would. He is clumsy around Eve, and when he takes her to his makeshift home of robot parts and paraphernalia, he is like a little kid. Ironically, he is the catalyst to bring the humans back home.

Writer and director, Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo), takes a huge risk by basing the film’s premise almost entirely on a song from Hello Dolly. I can’t think of an animated film that relied so much on visual storytelling. Even Fantasia and Allegro Non Troppo were collections of musical sequences not narrative features. In a way, this film is almost too sophisticated in its display and execution for little kids but is just right for adults. Remarkably, this is a tale with nary a spoken word by the principals. One has to think of silent films to approach this achievement. The operative word here is pathos like the best of Charlie Chaplin’s little tramp and, amazingly, this film earns its stripes by emoting body language, action, and sound effects. Yet most of the characters aren’t even human!

Fred Willard has an amusing small role as the corporate president. Sigourney Weaver, as the ship’s computer voice, is an inspired choice since, like Eve, she was a female hero (in the Alien movies) and had to deal with computer voices in those films. The animation is almost 3-D in its rich detail and simulated, fluid camerawork. The interior of the mother ship, the Axiom, is a futuristic view of a commercialized (think Blade Runner) city in space.

Yes, it is a thinly veiled message for all those ‘save the earth’ and ‘think green’ people, but that never detracts from the main theme of saving humanity amid a touching love story. There are moments when you think a scene could have played out a bit better, but that is minor. It is likely that Wall-E’s reputation will grow over time as a shining example of stretching the art form by challenging and trusting its audience. Bravo to the folks at Pixar for taking a chance and for entertaining and moving us.

***1/2 of **** stars (preceded by a winning short, Presto)

The Wisdom of KUNG FU PANDA

Looking for an animated film that the whole family can watch and enjoy? Then the summer has a good selection in Kung Fu Panda, a magical tale of talking animals, martial arts, eastern philosophy, and good versus evil. It is also voiced by several well known stars not the least of which is the force of nature that is Jack Black.

Panda bear Po (Jack Black) works for his father’s noodle business in ancient China but yearns for something more. His interest in martial arts leads him to being an accidental selection as the ‘chosen one’ to defend the local town from a vengeful leopard Tai Lung (Ian McShane), a former student of the wise, martial arts teacher, Shifu (Dustin Hoffman). As the ‘chosen one’, Po is given the sacred Dragon Scrolls and is trained by Shifu in the ways and technique of Kung Fu much to the consternation of the Furious Five, the current crop of warriors. Po presents the ultimate challenge both physically and mentally to Shifu until the master hits on an unorthodox idea. As Tai Lung approaches and the Furious Five attempt to defend the town, Po must learn the ways of the true warrior. As he begins to mature and learn about himself, he becomes the last line of defense.

This story nicely blends serious themes with moments of comedic fun. What is refreshing in the humor is that it is organic and timeless without resorting to pop references (as in Shrek)-no small feat. It also depicts the ancient Chinese warriors with not only martial arts prowess, but abilities to defy gravity as in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Children will find a wondrous, far away land populated by real people in the guise of animal characters. It is a believable world with real feelings of yearning, tradition, envy, and bravery.

A somewhat more subdued Jack Black does a fine job emoting and realizing the young Po. Dustin Hoffman is quite good as the wise sage, a sort of Asian Yoda (or the other way around). It’s rather hard to believe the star power behind the other voices including Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, and Seth Rogen. The movie could have worked just as well without them.

The movie actually gets better in the middle and toward the end, not that long a wait. Its basic themes of destiny and loyalty are universal. As Master Shifu says, “there are no accidents.” The animation and creative use of camera angles and zooms are breath taking at times. You kind of wish the script had just a bit more substance and this would have become a treasured classic. As it is, Kung Fu Panda is a delightful, inoffensive adventure with something for all ages.

*** of **** stars

Indiana Jones Rides Again in THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL

The question that begs to be asked is if the latest installment of Indiana Jones is any good? The answer is yes, and one needn’t fret over another letdown like The Phantom Menace, which undermined the original Star Wars trilogy. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, far from perfect, gets the job done and carries on its tradition of high adventure in satisfying fashion.

In 1957 Nevada, mysterious soldiers persuade Dr. Henry ‘Indiana’ Jones Jr. (Harrison Ford) to locate an important crate amidst a large warehouse of X-Files type of treasures. A ruthless Russian, Irinia Spalko (Cate Blanchett), leads her troops in an obsessive search for a mythic, crystal skull of unknown origin that may have potential psychic powers if it is joined with other skulls hidden in a lost city in the South American jungle. Meanwhile at his college, Professor Jones meets young ‘Mutt’ Williams (Shia LaBeouf) who needs Indy’s help to rescue his mentor, Dr. Oxley, and his mom, Marion. It seems they, too, have been hunting for the skull. Pursued by Russian agents, Indiana and Mutt attempt to rescue their comrades while discovering clues about the crystal skull. During the journey, certain truths emerge, and Indy must confront his past and a former love. As Irina closes in, who will survive when the enigmatic skulls are reunited and unleash their hidden, unworldly power?

The screenplay by David Koepp cobbles previous stories and ideas from a battery of writers. While it has more heart than any Lara Croft film by far, one wishes that original writer, Lawrence Kasdan, had a final rewrite to punch up the emotional content to compliment the action. I do like, however, that they tease you with the possibility that Mutt may or may not be Indy’s son and if Indy will ‘get the girl’. Bravo to the filmmakers for confronting these issues head on by story’s end.

Harrison Ford may be 65 years of age, but he looks great and does most of his own stunts! (To put things in perspective, John Wayne was 62 in True Grit and Cary Grant was 59 in Charade.) Shia LaBeouf is more than able as his new sidekick with a greased comb and an attitude, and Karen Allen is most welcome as Marion, able to take charge and hold her own. Cate Blanchett is appropriately sinister and alluring as the deadly Irina. Unfortunately other talents are not well developed, leaving in its lurch, John Hurt as Oxley, Jim Broadbent as a college dean, and Ray Winstone as an older sidekick with his own agenda.

While Raiders of the Lost Ark had countless, memorable action scenes, this film has a few of its own. There are the usual barrage of bloodless shootouts, fistfights, and bits of customary nastiness with bugs, snakes and skeletons not to mention the exciting climax where you just know the greedy, evil commies will get theirs. Naturally, some of the scenes strain credibility in being quite implausible and unrealistic (as in plunging from a waterfall or two or three), but it is all in good fun. The hair raising escapes are like a well oiled machine particularly in an exhilarating but impossible chase in the jungle as major characters leap among three, count ‘em three moving vehicles! And if it feels like parts of the story seem familiar, keep in mind that the filmmakers are paying homage to the Saturday morning serials of their youth. Other referenced movies come to mind like Forbidden Planet and Journey to the Center of the Earth.

Production values are top notch. Veteran composer John Williams rekindles the musical cues, and Michael Kahn’s editing pushes the limits of nail biting suspense. A couple scenes look a little sloppy and don’t come off as well as they should, and although there are some slow spots with confusing dialogue and murky exposition, there is always a marvelously choreographed action scene waiting around the corner. For example, the opening sequence is vintage Indiana Jones as Spielberg builds up a grand entrance for his star and puts him in immediate peril. Later, there is an anxious moment when Jones is about to be caught in an atomic blast and must use his wits to survive. What has always made the character so likeable is that he is fallible. Even Indy’s mistakes and hiccups can be humorous and exciting, as evidenced in a sinking pit where he must come to grips with a childhood fear.

Lucas and Spielberg proved that lightning could strike three times in a row in the 1980’s (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, and The Last Crusade), and now they have done it a fourth time. I put this film on par with the later chapters. Viewers who keep in mind how the 1950’s timeline lends itself to more science fiction elements, will understand that, while every Indy saga ends with a supernatural event, this one is grounded in the ‘watch the skies’ frame of mind. It is this conceit that may throw off a few fans of the older films.

The door is left open for more adventures, but the film does wrap things in a neat bow. You wish that they would just leave well enough alone and gracefully end on a high note. Indeed, the last, parting shots are terrific for fans. As with the previous chapters, this film is likely to improve with repeated viewings. I seem to recall liking the first one and then savoring it considerably more over time. Indiana Jones ages like fine wine. Drink up.

*** of **** stars

Downey Triumphant as the Invincible IRON MAN

Although not as well known as other Marvel Comic icons as Spiderman or X Men, this film adaptation of Iron Man works due to the sure hand of director Jon Favreau (Swingers, Elf) who cleverly mixes action, drama, humor, and a totally winning performance by comeback actor, Robert Downey Jr. In terms of a first film showing a superhero’s origin, it is the one of the best to date.

Billionaire industrialist Tony Stark is a weapons manufacturer whose cavalier attitude and playboy appetite are matched only by his sheer genius in technology. On a tour of his weaponry in Afghanistan, he is wounded in the heart by shrapnel and captured by rebels who order him to build a super weapon of mass destruction. With the help of another civilian, Stark changes up and instead builds a powerful suit of high tech armor that sustains his weak heart and enables his escape but not without a price. Guilt ridden and traumatized by his experiences, Stark has a literal change of heart and alters the militaristic direction of his company much to the chagrin of his elder partner, Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges). A couple of friends, his assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), and military liaison, Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard), stick loyally by Stark’s side despite his earlier predilections. Intent on improving and perfecting his Iron Man suit, Stark experiments with its design and takes dangerous risks. His mission is to utilize his Iron Man technology to fight the evil in the world, starting first in Afghanistan. When the truth comes out about what Stark Industries is really doing with weapons sales, it leads to a deeper conspiracy and a battle of titans as Iron Man meets an old foe.

Buffed and in terrific physical condition, Downey is quite convincing as the prodigy whose initial devil-may-care attitude must undergo a transformation. (It is not without irony that the role and the person should merge in light of Downey’s real life, personal setbacks.) The movie rests on his shoulders, and he makes the most of his role. Bridges is great at playing a businessman with a sinister agenda. Paltrow strikes sparks with Downey and you yearn for more scenes with the two of them. The same goes for Howard as Stark’s best friend. What is a little hard to swallow is how Pepper and Rhodes could put up with such a pompous persona in the early goings.

Favreau has an amusing bit part as an assistant to Stark. Further, the robotic voice that assists Stark in his technological work is actor Paul Bettany! And yes, Stan (the man) Lee, one of the comic book creators, has a fleeting cameo.

The scenes, which show Stark developing his updated Iron Man suit and test-driving it, are realistic and at times amusing. The Iron Man suit 2.0 is a marvel of construction and is the coolest thing imaginable. There is no way that this concept of a hero could have been rendered as convincingly even a few years ago. My how movie magic has caught up with these stories finally and done them justice. It is clever how the film incorporates the original Iron Man design (which brings to mind a sort of poor man’s version of Robocop) and progresses through its more modernized version. Pure fans of the original comic (including myself) are thrilled at the reverence paid to the classic beginnings.

There is an aerial battle between American fighter jets and Iron Man that is a lot of fun. The special effects, while being among the most realistic and cleverly used in any action film, are well integrated with the strong narrative. Despite the eye candy, you get the feeling that the filmmakers never lose sight of what the story is about and how to stay focused on the characters. The pacing is excellent.

In terms of subplots, the Afghan conflict hits close to home with the current war in Iraq. Also, the secret government agency S.H.I.E.L.D. gets an introduction as support for Stark and figures to have a bigger role in future Marvel movies; don’t forget to stay until the credits are done for a bonus. The film has an edge about it in dialogue and theme, and is better for it especially in the final scene, which is surprising and has implications for future adventures.

I would put this film on par with Batman Begins and Spiderman, not bad company. While not as emotionally stirring as the best moments of X Men United or Spiderman 2, this is only the first of what likely will be a long running franchise. If the sequel can maintain the same quality as this effort, we could be in for the best superhero movie yet! And lest there be any doubt about Favreau’s ability to take on comic heroes, don’t worry; he understands what they mean and how to do them justice. He ‘get’s it’!

***1/2 of **** stars

Oscar Predictions for 2007

OK, I admit to having limited viewings of the nominees for 2007 so I will base my picks on what I did see and also make an educated guess. I confess to having only seen the best picture nominees and few of the other nominated films.

PICTURE-Atonement might have won in the past, but this kind of film doesn’t win anymore. There Will Be Blood is hailed as a Citizen Kane of sorts but it worked for some and really turned off others. Juno is that little film that could but, like Little Miss Sunshine from year’s past, won’t make it here. Michael Clayton is wonderful but its nominations are award in itself for this kind of film. I can get past its abrupt ending and admire No Country for Old Men (think The Departed which had an unsatisfying end) which should win.

DIRECTOR-Coen brothers get their dues for No Country for Old Men.

ACTOR-Daniel Day-Lewis towers above them all.

ACTRESS-I will stick my neck out even though Julie Christie is the favorite; I will go with my heart and pick upset winner Marion Cotillard’s knockout job in La Vie en Rose.

SUPPORTING ACTOR-Javier Bardem period.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS-toughest, most unpredictable category….Tilda Swinton could get the consolation award for Michael Clayton

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-Juno!

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-No Country for Old Men

The rest of the tech categories should evenly split such films as Transformers, Sweeney Todd, Atonement, Bourne Ultimatum, and La Vie en Rose.

ANIMATED-Ratatouille
SONG-Once gets its just due
SCORE-Atonement
MAKEUP-La Vie en Rose
VISUAL EFFECTS-Transformers
EDITING-Bourne Ultimatum should win in the tradition of Bullitt and all great action films.
CINEMATOGRAPHY-Atonement
ART DIRECTION-Sweeney Todd
FOREIGN FILM-Counterfeiters
COSTUME-Sweeney Todd
SOUND MIXING-Bourne Ultimatum
SOUND EDITING-Bourne Ultimatum
DOCUMENTARY-Sicko

Have not seen any of the short subject so I won’t hazard a guess.
The totals award count should go to No Country for Old Men with at least 4 awards.

ENJOY!

MICHAEL CLAYTON and His Conscience

Tony Gilroy, who has scripted all three Jason Bourne adaptations recently and helped revive the spy genre, has his directorial debut of his script in Michael Clayton, and the results are nothing short of spectacular with a story that harkens back to the conspiracy laden, morality plays of the 1970’s and passionate acting to boot by a strong cast.

Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a fixer of problems for a leading law firm which experiences a crisis as its leading legal mind, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) has a breakdown as he defends an industrial giant, U-North, from a multi-billion dollar lawsuit. U-North’s corporate counsel Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton) grows worried and later realizes that Edens may have some other agenda in mind, a trump card of sorts, that may threaten U-North, and she orders a couple of men to eliminate the problem. Add to this Clayton’s own woes as he owes loan sharks big money. As Clayton attempts to help Edens, a tragedy occurs which reverberates with Clayton’s own values and tests his resolve to delve deeper into an insidious world of corporate greed and murder. How far he is willing to go to save his own skin or find justice even if it risks his well being brings him to a defining point in his life.

You know this movie has a high minded agenda and stamp of quality when some of the producers include Steven Soderbergh (Erin Brockovich), Sydney Pollack (Absence of Malice), Anthony Minghella (The English Patient), and Clooney (Syriana) himself. Production values from camerawork to music are all topflight. Gilroy proves a sure-handed director and the film feels like the work of a veteran director of thrillers in the mode of The Insider or any John Grisham adaptation. like The Firm.

Clooney does a very good job as Clayton, a man who solves problems for a law firm. A smart, talented man who knows the legal business, he also is human with a mysterious past. He is far from perfect with shortcomings including a gambling problem and debt, which makes him more identifiable to the audience. Tom Wilkinson (In the Bedroom) is quite convincing with his American accent as the legal giant who has apparently lost his mind (like Bulworth or Network’s Howard Beale), and Tilda Swinton’s company woman, is so good, you wish there were more of her. Swinton’s talent is on the rise after such films as The Deep End. Sydney Pollack has been displaying his acting chops lately and proves to be equally adept at character roles (Tootsie, Eyes Wide Shut) as he is at directing.

The film is quite strong and when it reaches its bravura, concluding scene, it rises to the occasion and elevates the plot to lofty heights and rarefied air. It is a supremely crowd pleasing moment and cinches Michael Clayton as not only an interesting thriller and mystery, but an intelligent, literate morality play highlighting a talented writer now director and its ever shining star.

***1/2 of **** stars

A Bold NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

Starting with the film noir hit, Blood Simple, co-directors and screenwriters, Joel and Ethan Coen have had a productive output of auteur films that range from manic comedies (O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Raising Arizona) to thoughtful crime dramas (Fargo, Millers Crossing). With their latest, No Country for Old Men, they have excelled at personal filmmaking that just misses the mark by not delivering a more pronounced ending. Under the trappings of a mystery and then chase thriller, this film is an exercise in movie making at its best while taking chances with conventional characters and plot. It also features splendid performances by Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem.

Set in 1980 after the Vietnam War, an aged sheriff, Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), talks of a long line of lawmen in his family. One day, in the desert a welder named Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) comes upon the remnants of a drug deal gone badly and a case of money and decides to take it. It turns out that some Mexicans are on his trail and mean business. So does a mysterious stranger, a clever, psychotic assassin, Anton (Javier Bardem). And the chase is on with Mexicans, the law, and worst of all, Anton, in pursuit. Moss sends his wife Carla to her mom’s, and he hightails it to an obscure motel. Apparently a syndicate has hired Anton to get the money and dispatch anyone who gets in the way, but Anton has other ideas and begins to eliminate not just the Mexican competition, but nearly everyone connected with him! Anton’s weapons of choice are a lethal air gun and the largest silencer rifle ever. He methodically hunts down Moss through detective work and a tracking device. You know that despite his resourcefulness, Moss is simply overmatched. Meanwhile, the syndicate hires another hitman, Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) to recover the money and eliminate Anton. All the while, Bell is adding up the clues and the growing trail of bodies to form an ominous picture of what is happening and what is to become. As much as he tries to help Moss and his wife, he cannot compete with the likes of Anton. By the end, Bell contemplates retirement knowing a killer is on the loose.

Josh Brolin really makes a strong impression as the doomed Moss. His character reminds one of a younger Kris Kristofferson. Not since Michael Madsen in Reservoir Dogs has there been a hideously terrifying character as Bardem’s hitman, Anton. His calm, dispassionate killer is surely inspired by past movie villains as the ones in Point Blank and The Terminator. Yet, in his own strange way, Anton has his code and motivation. He even gives his potential victims a second chance based on random luck. And he is most unforgiving if he is crossed.

There are a number of well constructed scenes to enjoy including a marvelous one at a convenience store which illustrates Anton’s manic state, and a moment in a Mexican hotel that is unbearably tense as Moss is cornered in his room by someone who could be Anton.

The cinematography by Roger Deakins (The Shawshank Redemption) is quite effective as it illustrates a desolate, barren landscape in which this cat and mouse game is played out.

There are a couple problems with the films narrative, however. While it is good that the film attempts and mostly succeeds at being unique and offbeat, a few things are confusing like what really happens toward the end at a motel as Moss waits for his wife. What happens to the money? Some killings are off screen or suggested, and you have to make assumptions based on the context of a given scene.

The abrupt conclusion is a bit baffling; it won’t work for most audiences, and even the most ardent cinephile may need to digest the last several minutes to make sense of it. Pay attention to the film’s underlying theme. Reread the title of the film and understand that it is about the tradition of the lawmen being displaced by a new world order. Jones does a voice over at the beginning and he concludes it with a melancholy lament and recounting of a disturbing dream. If only the structure of the film could convey that more clearly, there would have been a better narrative flow to its finale. Some may call the device brilliant, but it does not work as it may have been intended. But don’t let this slip deny the pleasures of a marvelous ensemble of actors and some great camerawork. It could easily be the Coen brothers’ best work to date, and that is something to truly appreciate.

***1/2 of **** (mostly for Bardem and the terrific narrative until the unconventional, confusing ending)

Oil and Family in THERE WILL BE BLOOD

Having been praised for his Altmanesque work on such multi-character and interweaving storyline films as Boogie Nights and Magnolia, Paul Thomas Anderson has set out for completely new territory, and the results, while not necessarily commercially palatable for mainstream audiences, is a unique tale of greed, power, and the loss of one’s soul in There Will Be Blood. Adapted loosely from Upton Sinclair’s novel, Oil, this is truly a labor of love by Anderson, who has elicited a stunning performance from Daniel Day-Lewis.

A struggling oil miner in 1898, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), slaves away on a dig until it begins to yield oil. Years later, he raises a child as his son amid the rural setting and buys oil fields while paying little or nothing for them. One day a stranger, Paul, offers to sell his family’s land knowing there is some oil. Plainview sets forth to this property in the guise of a hunter and makes an offer to the religious family. The elder son, Paul’s brother Eli (Paul Dano), is mistrustful. Eventually Plainview gets his land, begins to pump oil, and coddles the locals in a public relations sleight of hand. Although not a religious man, he subjugates his convictions to secure needed land rights. As Eli becomes a rising force of religious zeal, Daniel becomes a wealthy oil baron. Enter a mysterious man who has family ties to Plainview, and the quest for money and power takes on another aspect that complicates matters. Plainview’s thirst for oil will stop at nothing until he is eaten away to a vindictive, monstrous self, setting the stage for a macabre reunion with an old face.

This is a slice of the industrial revolution and the horrors of quality control in keeping with author Sinclair’s The Jungle. The period setting, with its raw, forbidding environment and dangerous existence, is vividly realized. This was a time where greedy men dealt with their own kind for personal gain, and women stood their place. Its antecedents are other similarly themed films like Giant, Greed, and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, while it’s lack of warmth and stark visuals would have impressed director Stanley Kubrick. It was a time where future billionaire’s were in the making. As such it is a fascinating history and culture lesson all at once. Is this how the West was really won? Is this the darker side to Manifest Destiny?

Aside from watching Plainview’s amassing of wealth, the core relationship he has with his son, who witnesses much of his machinations, is an interesting one. Plainview at times shows paternal affection only to betray any semblance of loyalties and love for the prospect of oil. In fact, the film is filled with betrayals such as the way Plainview cheats families out of their potential wealth and a gut wrenching scene with his son on a train. It is a bleak film, but you’ve got to admire the singular vision with which Anderson and Lewis convey this character. We are fascinated by Plainview, but we don’t have to like him.

There is a scene that illustrates Plainview’s willingness to sacrifice his beliefs (or non-beliefs) in order to gain more oil fields. Set in a small church, this baptism scene is the highlight of the film and goes so over the top that it is a hoot. Further, when Plainview makes a play for land rights among sellers, his pitch becomes canned and rehearsed like a well ‘oiled’ commercial. He is a selfish con man, a liar, and a cheat. As much as you want to find something redeeming about him, it never fully emerges. He is also a most unforgiving and vengeful man in the worst way.

Former Oscar winner (My Left Foot) Lewis, like legendary actor Paul Muni, has limited his film output over the years. That he chose to do this based on Anderson’s script speaks highly of the attraction of other high profile stars (e.g. Tom Cruise in Magnolia or Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love). Paul Dano (Little Miss Sunshine) is pretty compelling as Eli, quite a weird, and ominous figure. The cinematography (Robert Elswit) recalls Days of Heaven. The minimalist score (Jonny Greenwood) is a bit unusual as it almost becomes an accompanying sound effect than theme.

The movie does have some impressive, opening minutes that are visual without talking. Some of the dialogue has a sadistic bite to it while the staging of scenes lends itself to a strong theatricality; despite its wide expanse of land setting, it has a claustrophobic feel. The pace of the film, which may test the audience’s patience, is quite deliberate and almost slows to a halt, but Lewis surprises and fascinates at every turn. Watch out for the bizarre ending which may perplex some viewers. Although some may not appreciate it, others will simply relish this informal history lesson in the making of a turn-of-the-century mogul as personified by an acting giant who is about to add another gold statuette to his collection.

*** of **** stars (**** for Lewis’ performance)

ATONEMENT and the Power of Love and Lies

With the sweep of an epic and the intimacy of romance, Atonement comes across as a pretty good piece of period filmmaking until its devastating truths elevate the film to even greater heights. Joe Wright, who is becoming the torchbearer to period filmmakers, Ivory and Merchant (Room with a View), has been down this path before with his terrific Pride and Prejudice.

It is 1935 at a wealthy estate in England where two sisters contemplate life. The older sister, Cecilia (Keira Knightley), is at odds with the housekeeper’s grown son, Robbie (James McAvoy). The younger sister, Briony (Saoirse Ronan), is an impressionable teen and budding writer. Cecilia’s brother, Leon, arrives with a male friend, Paul, who takes keen interest in some children staying at the home. One evening, a passion erupts between Cecilia and Robbie that is interrupted by Briony. Later that night a girl is brutally assaulted by an unknown assailant. The subsequent allegations will have tragic consequences. The story shifts between London where Cecilia is a nurse and Dunkirk where Robbie fights to survive the early stages of World War II. The couple struggle to be reunited from afar even as a maturing Briony comes to terms with her past deeds. It is only later in life that she faces her guilt by paying tribute to the undying love of a tragic couple.

Atonement sets out to be an ambitious undertaking of love corrupted by outside forces and those from within as it spans the decades. It shows how mere words can hurt in ways that cannot be imagined. In this, the plot is not dissimilar to The Children’s Hour where a child’s words hurt deeply. The story focuses less about the horror and effects of war, and more on the purging and cleansing of sins. Briony chooses to deal with her misrepresentations and redeems herself with a final act of poetic justice (think Titanic), even if it takes a lifetime.

The film suffers a bit from confusing points of view as seen through the eyes of Briony by replaying the same scene to depict her point of view. What remains somewhat unclear are her motives. Is she jealous of the love between Cecilia and Robbie or is she making wild assumptions based on distortions?

The acting is quite good with teen Saoirse Ronan a standout as Briony. In fact, all three actresses who play Briony at various stages of life are a splendid tandem (much like the tandems in Shine or TV’s Life with Judy Garland).

Almost functioning as a Greek tragedy, the film most people will compare this to is The English Patient, which is ironic because there is a scene that has a television interviewer played by Patient’s director, Anthony Minghella! Atonement benefits from some good cinematography (Seamus McGarvey), which depicts some startling, surreal imagery especially in a tracking shot that says all that need be said of the horrifying evacuation of British troops at Dunkirk. The editing flashes back and forth to make a point or give background, and yet you wonder what is real or imagined. The musical score (Dano Marianelli) is in keeping with the dramatic mood quite nicely.

By the finale, we get to have an ending of sorts. Is it reality or the fabrication of an author’s guilt-ridden imagination? One thing is for sure: the feelings of longing and love are real. Atonement is like reading an epic romance novel with a bit of Jane Austen thrown in for good measure. As such, it’s pretty compelling.

***1/2 of **** stars (for romantics)

JUNO’S Touching, Growing Pains

An interesting phenomenon is happening slowly in Hollywood. The offspring of some of the movie industry’s best directors have begun to assert themselves with their own, distinct voices. Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation), whose father is Francis Coppola of The Godfather fame, Nick Cassavetes (The Notebook) whose father John Cassavetes pioneered independent films, and now Jason Reitman whose father is Ivan Reitman of Ghostbusters fame, have all proven that talent can be in the genes. Reitman has perfectly realized his vision of a coming-of-age drama, Juno, based on a fabulous script by newbie, Diablo Cody. This small, original film has enough intelligence and creative filmmaking to stand among bigger budgeted studio releases as among the best of 2007.

Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) is a sixteen year old high schooler whose planned sexual encounter results in an unplanned pregnancy that causes a sensation among her classmates and at home with her dad and stepmom. A smart, sassy-mouthed loner, Juno, after deliberating on whether or not to abort the unborn, takes matters in her own hands and decides to donate her baby to an adopting, yuppie couple, Mark and Vanessa. Life is not so easy as situations change suddenly, and the dynamics of Mark and Vanessa throw everything into a tailspin as Juno’s life becomes much more complicated. Wondering if couples can ever really stay together and if true love can exist, Juno makes some hard, mature choices in her life.

The movie is presented in a unique format with actual, script lines subtitling the bottom of every shot. It’s almost as if the DVD extras are being used onscreen. This device, while interesting, can be a bit annoying too. A series of ballads punctuate and underscore the narrative much like Cat Stevens did in Harold and Maude. It does enhance the story and mood. The structure of the narrative is sectioned by the seasons beginning with autumn.

High school life is portrayed in a convincing manner with the behaviors and interplay dead on target. Some individual scenes like Juno’s parents first hearing and fearing what big announcement Juno has in store for them, or the confrontation with the ultrasound technician are pretty amusing. And there are quiet, introspective moments like between Juno and her dad or with her ‘boyfriend’ Bleeker that are quite touching.

Ellen Page already made her mark with the recent Hard Candy and showed her versatility in X Men-The Last Stand, but to exhibit that rare combination of drama and humor in a believable manner is quite a feat. There is not one false note in her impressive performance. You begin to place yourself in her position and empathize through her joy and pain. The rest of the cast is strong, and each has good portions of dialogue to capitalize upon. J .K. Simmons is quickly becoming a go-to character actor as Juno’s dad, and you wish Allison Janney had a bit juicier part to fly with as the stepmom. Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman are quite good as the prospective, adoptive parents. Michael Cera (Superbad) and Olivia Thirlby make convincing schoolmates.

We discover with Juno that life can be full of unexpected surprises and twists, and it is how we deal with those events that can have a profound and lasting effect on one’s future and happiness. (I can’t wait for writer Cody’s next story.) When you think about it, the screenplay rings true throughout without being preachy or awkward; it just sounds like it could really happen. That’s what makes Juno a terrific slice of life tale, a deceptively simple story with a rich core of acting and words. Oscars love this kind of independent jewel.

***1/2 of **** stars

War as Parable - IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH

‘War is hell’ but perhaps it is the postwar that is most telling. At least that is the thesis of Paul Haggis’ latest film, In the Valley of Elah, a story of a father’s quest for his son that reveals some bitter truths about war. Not an easy film to swallow upfront, it is certainly one of the best films of the year.

A grizzled, former military policeman, Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones), is notified that his son, Mike, is AWOL after returning from the fighting in Iraq. What begins as a methodical search for his son’s whereabouts becomes more tragic and clashes with local police and military brass. Where is his son, and what do his soldier buddies know about one fateful night near their base? And what if anything did happen to him in Iraq? These questions are answered in small pieces and with alarming implications. Hank’s skills at police work help convince local Detective Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron) to take charge of the case despite the doubts of her own colleagues and the military, led by investigator Lt. Kirklander (Jason Patric). Mike’s PDA has garbled video that begins to paint a disturbing picture of the war front. Hank’s search takes an emotional toll on himself and his wife (Susan Sarandon). He and Emily form an uneasy alliance, and, amid theories and suspects, what emerges is an ominous portrait of war veterans on the homefront. Ultimately Hank comes face to face with a disarming truth about his son’s fate and the possible involvement of his military brethren.

The story is based on actual events in 2001 in Tennessee, and its title references the mythic tale of David and Goliath set at a time when the rules of engagement were different than the present. Its sparse, simplistic structure of a mystery peppered with flashback video and imagery may seem on surface like an independent film, but its message and execution is on a grander scale and not merely with dialogue. With effective visuals, much is conveyed by silence, expression, or simple body language.

As with other Haggis films, things that seem ordinary and insignificant at the beginning have implications later on. Though not as overtly obvious with connecting a myriad of dots as in his Oscar winner Crash, the threads are all there to gradually weave together. It is refreshing that the jurisdictional conflict between local police and the military does not take a stereotypic turn of heavy handed conspiracy and coverup even though the military investigators are not cast in the best light. It shares a similar feel with the recent Courage Under Fire where the truth is unearthed in small bits until a bigger picture emerges. A couple of minor plot points go nowhere such as Hank meeting an old comrade who may have connections with military intelligence.

As grandiose and flamboyant as was his Oscar–winning turn in The Fugitive, Tommy Lee Jones’ acting here is equally underplayed; he is magnificent. Through the pain and guilt that creep over his lined features, you also feel his suffering, his loss, and understand his bitterness. His Hank is a proud man, a patriot, who wants the truth. The truth ultimately changes him forever. Equally up to the challenge is Theron, in a strong performance, whose detective is a single mother who must battle her own squad and superiors while trying to solve a mystery. Even Sarandon’s brief moments are affecting as the long distance wife. The rest of the cast is very good; they become real people.

This is not simply the readjustment to the homefront done magnificently in The Best Years of Our Lives or the heavy use of dramatic love triangle to condemn the Vietnam War in Coming Home. Rather, it takes the concept of a given war and allows it to become the ultimate villain in an increasingly sordid mystery. Its ending calls to mind The Deer Hunter but with a more pessimistic bent. It most certainly vilifies the effects of war on its men.

It is significant that a passing quote, “We all do stupid things,” says something about not just the horror of warfare, but what such conflict does to its soldiers, and how they become soulless monsters capable of the most brutal of crimes. This is a brave, imperfect film that sets a somber tone and never lets up. The final image is a statement that makes this perhaps the subtlest of antiwar films ever. Oscar nominations can start here with picture, direction, screenplay, and the duo of Jones and Theron. While not everyone will be willing to let the story unfold with its nuanced direction and understated acting, those who are patient will find a moving tale of innocence lost and corrupted.

***1/2 of **** stars (give Tommy Lee ****)

HIGH NOON WITH 3:10 TO YUMA

Although the western film recently experienced a brief resurgence with Unforgiven, the number of quality ones has been few like Open Range. With the remake of the 1956 cult western, 3:10 to Yuma, (itself adapted from a short story by Elmore Leonard), the genre is primed for another comeback with this tense, well acted film.

Set in the old west not long after the Civil War, a cattle rancher, Dan Evans (Christian Bale), and his family struggle to make a life for themselves as a local businessman threatens to foreclose on his property and make way for a railroad. His cattle are poached by outlaws led by Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) and his lieutenant, Charlie Prince (Ben Foster in a surly, effective performance). The criminals rob a money wagon (in a scene right out of Heat done western style) and stop at a local town. Wade is captured by local lawmen and is escorted to catch the Yuma prison train, which is hours away from arriving. Evans offers to join the group in return for some valuable reward money that will ultimately help his family’s plight. Thus begins a tortuous journey that has potential repercussions for Evans’ family and Wade’s bid for freedom even as his gang is in pursuit. Will Evans and his motley crew get Wade to the railroad station in time and who will survive?

Director James Mangold, fresh from his successful biopic, Walk the Line, again elicits strong performances from his two leads, Crowe and Bale. Crowe is everything we expect him to be, and his role is Oscar worthy. His outlaw is a cultured, Bible-quoting man who effuses an animal magnetism that is appealing to men and women. What is so satisfying here is that Bale is equally up to the task and really shines in a difficult, challenging role. The supporting cast is uniformly sharp with special nod to a grizzled, unrecognizable Peter Fonda as a tough bounty hunter. Logan Lerman is effective as Evans’ older son who is ashamed of and gradually realizes a growing respect for his father. Luke Wilson has an amusing bit role as a corrupt railroad hand.

The film has a plot similar to the 1950’s westerns High Noon and Last Train from Gun Hill, and encompasses elements of the classic western formula, namely the cattleman versus the railroad; only in this case, it is used as a jumping off point to a deeper, more psychological conflict. This is really a movie about what motivates people to do what they do. Most of the dialogue involves Wade’s hurling insults and quips at a stoic Evans. We can see that Wade has a respect and growing admiration for Evans’ seemingly hopeless quest, and the emerging facts have a strong bearing on what is to come. We learn about Wade’s childhood and about what truly guides Evans’ reasons for taking such a risky mission. His role in the Union Army during the Civil War comes to the fore. And how did he get his leg maimed? These shades of background and characterization enrich an already tense and interesting plot. The memorable ending, which pushes credibility just a tad, truly tests each man’s resolve and sense of justice.

Production values are strong with beautiful cinematography by Phedon Papamichael (Walk the Line, The Pursuit of Happyness). The film moves at a deliberate, methodical pace (editor Michael McCusker) and is never boring. It gets to the conflict fairly quickly and reaches its finale, an agonizing chase across town that is quite exciting and riveting right to the startling end.

Make no mistake, this is a film that western enthusiasts will love while those who appreciate a strong, tense character study will find much to savor. Although we expect gold performances from Crowe and the ever maturing Bale (hard to believe this was the boy in Spielberg’s Empire of the Sun), it is Mangold’s prowess in that delicate balance of critically acclaimed, popular filmmaking, that may become a major force in Hollywood for years to come.

***1/2* of **** (mostly for Crowe and Bale and of course western fans)

HORRORFIND’s FAMILIAR FACES

The latest edition of the horror convention Horrorfind in Hunt Valley, MD, on August 11, 2007, was a bit smaller in vendor participation, but not lacking in star power as usual. Headlining the actors and authors was Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange, Time After Time, Star Trek: Generations) whose latest works include stints on TV’s Heroes and the upcoming Rob Zombie remake of Halloween. A gracious fellow who had the longest of autograph seeking lines, McDowell certainly has lost none of his appeal.

Also signing and mixing with the public were such notables as Udo Kier who gained fame through the early 1970s as Andy Warhol’s Dracula. There was Ernie Hudson from Ghostbusters and The Crow, and Michael Gross from TV’s Family Ties and the Tremors movies (featuring one of the greatest man versus monster face-offs in movie history). Other notables included Dee Wallace Stone from E.T., makeup effects guru now actor, Tom Savini, and many others. One notable absentee was actress Amanda Plummer.

Yes, there were the usual vendors selling posters and other horror-related items that seemed quite bizarre, but a ghoulish time was had by all.