Boyz n the Hood was a landmark film in its realistic depiction of gang violence and its effect on families in urban America. Its novice director, John Singleton, has languished in relative obscurity since then and revisits a similar turf with his revenge drama, Four Brothers. While it reconfirms Singleton’s talents, it is an imperfect action drama that leans too heavily on its mean spirited revenge theme.
A middle aged woman, Evelyn Mercer (Fionnula Flanagan), is known for taking wayward boys off the streets and finding them foster homes. Yet, over time, only four boys could not be placed, and she adopted them herself. Years later, when a liquor store robbery goes awry, Evelyn is murdered. This reunites the four brothers who are now grown (Mark Wahlberg, Tyrese Gibson, Andre Benjamin, and Garrett Hedlund). What seems to be a simple crime gone wrong is only the beginning of a tale of conspiracy and betrayal. With police detectives (Terrence Howard and Josh Charles) seemingly a step behind the clues, the brothers decide to find the answers and punish all those involved even if it leads to corrupt officials, crooked cops, or the top crime boss in town. This causes violent confrontations and retribution until the brothers must attempt a daring plan to avenge their family and bring the murderers to their form of justice.
As portrayed by Singleton, this is a tough, violent neighborhood, a sort of distant cousin to the one in Boyz n the Hood. There are some similarities with New Jack City with its family of gangsters and a ruthless leader. The film does contain well directed scenes. The pool hall scene between Howard and Charles is quite good and the dialogue makes this a mini-gem. At times Singleton knows enough to reel back his characters from a pure revenge tale to one of family and connection. There is a good early scene during Thanksgiving at the dinner table where each brother looks upon the memory and visage of his deceased mother in an empty chair and remembers the lessons she instilled in them. It is a clever moment and speaks volumes on what she meant to each son. Perhaps a bit more of this would have balanced the film and kept it from turning into the overwhelmingly vengeful tale it ultimately becomes.
The film feels tough and gritty, and its characters are real people with real conflicts and emotions. The relationship of these brothers forms the backbone of the film no matter what they endure. They stick up for each other and watch each other’s back. These brothers in arms love each other and fight amongst themselves. We anguish when they suffer and cheer when they triumph. There are humorous moments sprinkled throughout the film and some funny lines spoken at the expense of each character. .
The story, written by David Elliot and Paul Lovett, works on a couple of levels. On one level, it is a detective story with twists and turns and some surprises. There are some clues and red herrings along the way, and you don’t quite know the whole story until the end. On another level it functions as a kind of urban western with its revenge tale. In fact the film is essentially structured similarly to fraternal, revenge westerns as The Sons of Katie Elder and Gunfight at the OK Corral. It’s also about the love given by a selfless mother who gave comfort and hope to four wayward rejects when no one wanted them.
The ending is a little like an urban Mission Impossible with its elaborate ruse. Some of it is implausible but on the whole the sequence works marginally. We don’t know much about Jeremiah Mercer’s family which would have added to our attachment to his character.
Mark Wahlberg is an imposing figure who will stop at nothing to find his mother’s killer.
In fact all four leads are quite strong and well cast. Terrence Howard (who has starred in a number of strong films this year and is a star on the rise for sure) has an effective role as a good cop although his character leaves too early as the conspiracy widens. Fionnula Flanagan is seen too briefly and should have been used more which would have grounded the film morally.
The soundtrack is a good mixture of oldies and serves as the pulse of the kinetic action scenes in the Motown setting. Technical credits for what is essentially a low budget film are solid especially in the cinematography and film editing.
It is entirely possible to be shell shocked by the hard hitting nature of this violent melodrama by film’s end. It’s certainly a crowd pleaser and almost manipulative in the way it generates deep feelings. The film succeeds in terms of sheer energy and force. It’s a little rough around the edges but still a welcome return to Singleton’s roots. While Four Brothers proves that his previous abilities were no fluke, he has yet to exceed let alone match the promise of his first film.
**1/2 of **** stars
Vertigo
Vertigo
Friday, August 12, 2005
DEUCE BIGALOW: EUROPEAN GIGOLO is a Loser
Rob Schneider has been an amusing comic from his days as cast regular on TV’s Saturday Night Live. His only real success was a modest one, Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, and now he returns to that character several years later. The results are disastrous. In the tradition of terrible comedies such as John Goldfarb Please Come Home and Which Way to the Front, this R-rated entree is trouble from start to finish.
Deuce Bigalow takes up where he left off as a jinxed widow who travels to Europe to join his pimp friend, T. J. Hicks (Eddie Griffin), who gets in hot water as a mistaken prime suspect in a series of murders of gigolos or ‘man whores’ as they call themselves. Deuce explores the European world of these men and even interviews the last women to see the murder victims alive. This sets up an amusing series of dates with women who have unusual physical attributes. At the same time the police are investigating the crimes, Deuce runs into and falls in love with a beautiful woman, Eva (Hanna Verboom), who is afflicted with a multitude of behavioral ticks due to obsessive compulsive disorder. She is also the niece of the lead detective on the case who has a grudge against these ‘man whores’. The story leads to the Man Whore Awards as Deuce races to save the day while the murderer has planned a final deadly act.
That sums up a simple, silly plot that is flawed in script and execution. The director (who is heck is Mike Bigelow, a pseudonym?) and a committee of writers don’t give the story or the lead actors a chance to succeed. What’s worse is that the skills of most of the people involved appear amateurish at best and may have been reedited and cut severely during post-production. Indeed, the transitions are at times jarring and sloppy. Billy Wilder, Preston Sturges, and Ernest Lubitsch are rolling in their graves.
If only the screenwriters had trusted their story more and sprinkled the jokes sparingly, the film would take on a more structured and involving comedic romance. Instead, what we get is literally toilet humor of the worst kind and repeated gags that are gross and intellectually void of brain matter. It’s one thing to have bawdy sight gags and vulgar humor which can actually spice up a comedic romp like Animal House or American Pie, but the jokes here are terrible to begin with and inserted at awkward times as if the filmmakers didn’t trust the material and threw in the kitchen sink, albeit a dirty one. It’s saying something when the Farrelly brothers (There’s Something About Mary) have more class in any given scene of their comedies than all these jokes put together. A missed opportunity is Schneider’s character falling in love with Eva. It is perhaps the only half-way decent thing the movie has going, and it is never fully developed. It does try to be good hearted and at times there is a glimmer of a decent scene only to be undermined by a sick punchline.
Schneider tries too hard at being funny and seems like he is forcing the jokes which makes it even worse. Griffin fares scarcely better in a cardboard role unworthy of his standup talent. Only Verboom fares adequately as Eva, and she is perhaps the only nice thing about the film. Not even the cameo/bit roles by Saturday Night Live alumni Norm MacDonald, Fred Armisen, and even Adam Sandler can bring life to the proceedings.
It is best to avoid Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo at all costs, and unless you have nothing better to do with your free time, it is still best to sit in a corner and stare at a blank wall; you will be far more entertained. Run for your lives!
* of **** stars mostly for Hanna Verboom
Deuce Bigalow takes up where he left off as a jinxed widow who travels to Europe to join his pimp friend, T. J. Hicks (Eddie Griffin), who gets in hot water as a mistaken prime suspect in a series of murders of gigolos or ‘man whores’ as they call themselves. Deuce explores the European world of these men and even interviews the last women to see the murder victims alive. This sets up an amusing series of dates with women who have unusual physical attributes. At the same time the police are investigating the crimes, Deuce runs into and falls in love with a beautiful woman, Eva (Hanna Verboom), who is afflicted with a multitude of behavioral ticks due to obsessive compulsive disorder. She is also the niece of the lead detective on the case who has a grudge against these ‘man whores’. The story leads to the Man Whore Awards as Deuce races to save the day while the murderer has planned a final deadly act.
That sums up a simple, silly plot that is flawed in script and execution. The director (who is heck is Mike Bigelow, a pseudonym?) and a committee of writers don’t give the story or the lead actors a chance to succeed. What’s worse is that the skills of most of the people involved appear amateurish at best and may have been reedited and cut severely during post-production. Indeed, the transitions are at times jarring and sloppy. Billy Wilder, Preston Sturges, and Ernest Lubitsch are rolling in their graves.
If only the screenwriters had trusted their story more and sprinkled the jokes sparingly, the film would take on a more structured and involving comedic romance. Instead, what we get is literally toilet humor of the worst kind and repeated gags that are gross and intellectually void of brain matter. It’s one thing to have bawdy sight gags and vulgar humor which can actually spice up a comedic romp like Animal House or American Pie, but the jokes here are terrible to begin with and inserted at awkward times as if the filmmakers didn’t trust the material and threw in the kitchen sink, albeit a dirty one. It’s saying something when the Farrelly brothers (There’s Something About Mary) have more class in any given scene of their comedies than all these jokes put together. A missed opportunity is Schneider’s character falling in love with Eva. It is perhaps the only half-way decent thing the movie has going, and it is never fully developed. It does try to be good hearted and at times there is a glimmer of a decent scene only to be undermined by a sick punchline.
Schneider tries too hard at being funny and seems like he is forcing the jokes which makes it even worse. Griffin fares scarcely better in a cardboard role unworthy of his standup talent. Only Verboom fares adequately as Eva, and she is perhaps the only nice thing about the film. Not even the cameo/bit roles by Saturday Night Live alumni Norm MacDonald, Fred Armisen, and even Adam Sandler can bring life to the proceedings.
It is best to avoid Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo at all costs, and unless you have nothing better to do with your free time, it is still best to sit in a corner and stare at a blank wall; you will be far more entertained. Run for your lives!
* of **** stars mostly for Hanna Verboom
BROKEN FLOWERS Has Emotions in Full Bloom
Flowers bloom and wilt just as people grow and age emotionally over time. How a character starts one way and is changed fundamentally in the end is at the heart of Jim Jarmusch’s latest character study, Broken Flowers. It features a pared down performance by comedian/actor Bill Murray, and it may well be his best role to date.
A successful computer entrepreneur and bachelor, Don Johnston (Murray), receives an anonymous letter from a former lover which reveals that he had a child out of wedlock and that the now nineteen year old son may try to contact him. When his current girlfriend, Sherry (Julie Delpy), breaks up with him, Johnston’s neighbor, Winston (Jeffrey Wright), encourages him to make a list of all his girlfriends from that period of time to figure out who the mother may be. As the list is reduced to four (Sharon Stone Frances Conroy, Jessica Lange, and Tilda Swinton), Winston sends a reluctant Johnston on a quest for the truth. Clues abound as Johnston attempts to query each woman to find the connection to the letter. Past and present feelings come welling to the surface, some them pleasant and some painful. Johnston must endure his lumps as he awkwardly tries to obtain any inkling of truth from his mysterious letter writer. There are red herrings too along the way as anticipated resolutions give way to disappointment and emptiness. Or does it? What is the truth and what is reality? These are the sort of questions that crop up during the trip to the end.
The film opens with the departing Sherry telling Johnston that “you’re never going to change.” That is the beginning of a kind of human experiment of travel and reconnecting with fond memories and old wounds. This special road trip film also works as one of Winston’s mystery novels. Only in this case, it’s one big mystery of life. When Murray’s Johnston begins his mission, he is an inert, emotionally spent, world-weary baby boomer. Director Jarmusch, who has marched to his own drummer, has always done personal, character driven pieces (Stranger than Paradise). He does a great job of inhabiting his world with disparate people who don’t always have happy endings. Jarmusch displays a clean, accessible eye for film composition, and his visuals can be striking and supportive of the emptiness Johnston must feel. Although the film appears plot driven, it is most certainly people driven as it explores relationships. His use of offbeat songs and musical score are good counterpoints to an intimate story.
The screenplay, also written by Jarmusch, is lean, yet poignantly effective, a kind of ‘less is more’ scenario. Such humorous lines as when Murray’s character complains, “I’m a stalker in a Taurus,” generate some fine moments. It is ironic that after all these years, Murray has developed into a bona fide dramatic actor whose comedic sensibilities only serve to accent rather than detract from the story. Perhaps he should have waited to the redo the somber material of The Razor’s Edge which he bravely tackled immediately following the successes of Caddyshack and Meatballs. It’s great to see him explore the subtle side of comedy and drama. He has mastered every nuance and economy of expression and is essentially toning his act down to a minimalist level even more so than in Lost in Translation. At times even his lack of reaction says more than words literally could ever say.
The actresses acquit themselves splendidly. We see too little of Delpy (Before Sunset) and Chloe Sevigny (who portrays a receptionist). Tilda Swinton is also too brief but extremely effective in a change of pace role. Frances Conroy (Six Feet Under) has a more substantive part as a repressed realtor. Sharon Stone looks fantastic and an aging Lange still has the acting chops that produced multiple Oscar nods in the past. (Trivia buffs will note this marks the second film featuring both Lange and Murray who previously excelled in Tootsie.) Speaking of Oscar, it would be a crime not to recognize Murray’s measured, controlled performance. Special mention should go to Wright in an amusing supporting role.
As for the ending, let’s just say that Murray’s character has seen all the former girlfriends with varying results and his suspicions that his son is closing in on him may be realized. These events place him at a crossroads of life. It is not an easy resolution to the film as it will not easily conform to standard plotlines. This is where the film deviates from the norm and this is where its theme potentially comes full circle. While it may be Jarmusch’s most accessible film thus far, it contains a cipher conclusion for the audience to interpret. So caught up are we in discovering the past, that we miss the point of the film-it’s all about self discovery. Despite the ending, which will separate the sophisticates from pop audiences, the film is nearly perfect up to that point for all. Those looking for happy, pat endings will be befuddled. The journey is the most important thing, and perceptive viewers will realize the ending tells more than meets the eye. I smell a sleeper here.
***1/2 of **** stars
A successful computer entrepreneur and bachelor, Don Johnston (Murray), receives an anonymous letter from a former lover which reveals that he had a child out of wedlock and that the now nineteen year old son may try to contact him. When his current girlfriend, Sherry (Julie Delpy), breaks up with him, Johnston’s neighbor, Winston (Jeffrey Wright), encourages him to make a list of all his girlfriends from that period of time to figure out who the mother may be. As the list is reduced to four (Sharon Stone Frances Conroy, Jessica Lange, and Tilda Swinton), Winston sends a reluctant Johnston on a quest for the truth. Clues abound as Johnston attempts to query each woman to find the connection to the letter. Past and present feelings come welling to the surface, some them pleasant and some painful. Johnston must endure his lumps as he awkwardly tries to obtain any inkling of truth from his mysterious letter writer. There are red herrings too along the way as anticipated resolutions give way to disappointment and emptiness. Or does it? What is the truth and what is reality? These are the sort of questions that crop up during the trip to the end.
The film opens with the departing Sherry telling Johnston that “you’re never going to change.” That is the beginning of a kind of human experiment of travel and reconnecting with fond memories and old wounds. This special road trip film also works as one of Winston’s mystery novels. Only in this case, it’s one big mystery of life. When Murray’s Johnston begins his mission, he is an inert, emotionally spent, world-weary baby boomer. Director Jarmusch, who has marched to his own drummer, has always done personal, character driven pieces (Stranger than Paradise). He does a great job of inhabiting his world with disparate people who don’t always have happy endings. Jarmusch displays a clean, accessible eye for film composition, and his visuals can be striking and supportive of the emptiness Johnston must feel. Although the film appears plot driven, it is most certainly people driven as it explores relationships. His use of offbeat songs and musical score are good counterpoints to an intimate story.
The screenplay, also written by Jarmusch, is lean, yet poignantly effective, a kind of ‘less is more’ scenario. Such humorous lines as when Murray’s character complains, “I’m a stalker in a Taurus,” generate some fine moments. It is ironic that after all these years, Murray has developed into a bona fide dramatic actor whose comedic sensibilities only serve to accent rather than detract from the story. Perhaps he should have waited to the redo the somber material of The Razor’s Edge which he bravely tackled immediately following the successes of Caddyshack and Meatballs. It’s great to see him explore the subtle side of comedy and drama. He has mastered every nuance and economy of expression and is essentially toning his act down to a minimalist level even more so than in Lost in Translation. At times even his lack of reaction says more than words literally could ever say.
The actresses acquit themselves splendidly. We see too little of Delpy (Before Sunset) and Chloe Sevigny (who portrays a receptionist). Tilda Swinton is also too brief but extremely effective in a change of pace role. Frances Conroy (Six Feet Under) has a more substantive part as a repressed realtor. Sharon Stone looks fantastic and an aging Lange still has the acting chops that produced multiple Oscar nods in the past. (Trivia buffs will note this marks the second film featuring both Lange and Murray who previously excelled in Tootsie.) Speaking of Oscar, it would be a crime not to recognize Murray’s measured, controlled performance. Special mention should go to Wright in an amusing supporting role.
As for the ending, let’s just say that Murray’s character has seen all the former girlfriends with varying results and his suspicions that his son is closing in on him may be realized. These events place him at a crossroads of life. It is not an easy resolution to the film as it will not easily conform to standard plotlines. This is where the film deviates from the norm and this is where its theme potentially comes full circle. While it may be Jarmusch’s most accessible film thus far, it contains a cipher conclusion for the audience to interpret. So caught up are we in discovering the past, that we miss the point of the film-it’s all about self discovery. Despite the ending, which will separate the sophisticates from pop audiences, the film is nearly perfect up to that point for all. Those looking for happy, pat endings will be befuddled. The journey is the most important thing, and perceptive viewers will realize the ending tells more than meets the eye. I smell a sleeper here.
***1/2 of **** stars
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
BATMAN BEGINS Jumpstarts the Franchise
Batman Begins is a reinventing of Bob Kane’s original comic book hero, and it is generally a successful transition into the 21st century with some nice wrinkles and updates. The comic book hero from D.C. Comics has captured the imagination of the public in print, television, and film. Director Christopher Nolan’s vision cleverly takes threads of the original story and merges them with unique twists and turns.
The wealthy Wayne family of Gotham City is well lauded, and young son, Bruce, lives an idyllic, pampered life with childhood friend Rachel. A chance accident lands him in a cave of bats which begins a cycle of trauma that will culminate in the murder of his parents in the city streets. A wayward, lost soul, Bruce (Christian Bale) grows into a young man who remains distant despite the support of family butler, Alfred (Michael Caine). Seeking meaning in his life, he travels the streets of the world to understand the criminal elements until a fateful meeting in Asia with a mentor, Ducard (Liam Neeson), who beckons Wayne to a temple/fortress in a remote mountain. There, he meets a group of avengers who have great fighting skills and unyielding, harsh justice. Bruce learns from Ducard to shed his inner fears of bats and harness the feelings of his parents’ death. As Wayne masters his physical and mental prowess, his sense of humanity ultimately collides with the shadow group’s ruthless sense of justice.
Wayne returns to and assimilates into Gotham City as a ‘millionaire playboy’ who secretly assumes the symbol of a bat to fight crime as Batman. In a city of increasing corruption and crime enters crime lord Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) and his cohort, Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy) whose alter ego, Scarecrow, will figure in an ever complicated plot. With support from Rachel (Katie Holmes), who works for the District Attorney, and Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Wayne also finds within his corporation an advanced weapons division overseen by Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) who helps to arm Batman with state of the art body armor and sophisticated devices. As Batman commences his crime fighting, Scarecrow and ultimately a figure from Wayne’s past will threaten Gotham with ultimate doom.
This film stakes a claim to its own vision and resists previous, formulaic blueprints like Spiderman for depicting super heroes. With the most recent Batman films reducing the franchise to an uninspired shadow of its former self, someone had sense enough to let visionary director Nolan (Momento, Insomnia) have a crack at it. He has a great knack for incorporating his nightmarish imagery and integrated flashbacks into a brooding, dark exploration of human paranoia, memories and fear. Nolan cleverly traumatizes young Wayne with bats which ironically will be his salvation.
This is a different kind of narrative with more mood, psychological depth, and deliberate pacing. When Batman appears from above, it is an iconic vision of terror and swift justice, the perfect distillation of urban redemption in the guise of a bat facing down evil. Comic book aficionados will revel in a faithful rendering that stays true to the original’s roots and at the same time pays homage to recent updates like the critically acclaimed, Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight. Fans will also be amused at the new interpretations and somewhat poetic license taken on such established conventions as the bat cave, the bat signal, the coming to be of future Commissioner Gordon, and Alfred the butler. It is refreshing that the hero and villains are not really superhuman like Superman but rather ordinary people who are driven by a psychological bent.
The only real letdown is that while it starts out on a promising path, it degenerates into a conventional, by-the-numbers action formula in the last fifteen minutes. The story, which admittedly takes its good time to unfold, starts to run out of steam and momentum about three quarters of the way through and drags a bit until the revved up end. One could almost forgive the obvious teaser at the end which is a deliberate setup for a future sequel. It’s ironic that as much as the filmmakers tried to make Batman plausible and grounded in reality, there are credibility gaps especially towards the end. In one scene, Gordon attempts to operate the Bat vehicle, and it just doesn’t ring true. A fight aboard an elevated train (and earlier fight scenes) is at best standard fare.
Christian Bale (The Machinist) has been perceived as a rising talent whose persona is that of dark intensity; who better to portray the Dark Knight? He is surrounded by an exceptional supporting cast. Caine is effortlessly stoic. It is amusing in one scene to see both veteran pros like he and Freeman counsel Bale. Liam Neeson is good as a mentor but he is in danger of being typecast in these kinds of roles. Oldman is cast against type and quite effectively as a good cop. Ken Watanabe (The Last Samurai) as the leader of the temple is not given much to do unfortunately.
The luscious musical score by committee is appropriately strong and heroic without leaning on a catchy title theme as previous Batman scores have popularized e.g. Nelson Riddle on TV and Danny Elfman in film. The art direction and set design are impressive in their own interpretation of Gotham City compared to the earlier Tim Burton films which set a new standard.
By the climax, you root for the film to fulfill its promise but it doesn’t quite succeed. Although successes like X Men and Spiderman are good examples of mainstream, pop hero entertainment, the makers of Batman Begins for the most part have raised the super hero film to an art film, and that’s not a bad thing.
*** of **** stars (Add 1/2 * for comic book diehards)
The wealthy Wayne family of Gotham City is well lauded, and young son, Bruce, lives an idyllic, pampered life with childhood friend Rachel. A chance accident lands him in a cave of bats which begins a cycle of trauma that will culminate in the murder of his parents in the city streets. A wayward, lost soul, Bruce (Christian Bale) grows into a young man who remains distant despite the support of family butler, Alfred (Michael Caine). Seeking meaning in his life, he travels the streets of the world to understand the criminal elements until a fateful meeting in Asia with a mentor, Ducard (Liam Neeson), who beckons Wayne to a temple/fortress in a remote mountain. There, he meets a group of avengers who have great fighting skills and unyielding, harsh justice. Bruce learns from Ducard to shed his inner fears of bats and harness the feelings of his parents’ death. As Wayne masters his physical and mental prowess, his sense of humanity ultimately collides with the shadow group’s ruthless sense of justice.
Wayne returns to and assimilates into Gotham City as a ‘millionaire playboy’ who secretly assumes the symbol of a bat to fight crime as Batman. In a city of increasing corruption and crime enters crime lord Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) and his cohort, Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy) whose alter ego, Scarecrow, will figure in an ever complicated plot. With support from Rachel (Katie Holmes), who works for the District Attorney, and Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Wayne also finds within his corporation an advanced weapons division overseen by Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) who helps to arm Batman with state of the art body armor and sophisticated devices. As Batman commences his crime fighting, Scarecrow and ultimately a figure from Wayne’s past will threaten Gotham with ultimate doom.
This film stakes a claim to its own vision and resists previous, formulaic blueprints like Spiderman for depicting super heroes. With the most recent Batman films reducing the franchise to an uninspired shadow of its former self, someone had sense enough to let visionary director Nolan (Momento, Insomnia) have a crack at it. He has a great knack for incorporating his nightmarish imagery and integrated flashbacks into a brooding, dark exploration of human paranoia, memories and fear. Nolan cleverly traumatizes young Wayne with bats which ironically will be his salvation.
This is a different kind of narrative with more mood, psychological depth, and deliberate pacing. When Batman appears from above, it is an iconic vision of terror and swift justice, the perfect distillation of urban redemption in the guise of a bat facing down evil. Comic book aficionados will revel in a faithful rendering that stays true to the original’s roots and at the same time pays homage to recent updates like the critically acclaimed, Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight. Fans will also be amused at the new interpretations and somewhat poetic license taken on such established conventions as the bat cave, the bat signal, the coming to be of future Commissioner Gordon, and Alfred the butler. It is refreshing that the hero and villains are not really superhuman like Superman but rather ordinary people who are driven by a psychological bent.
The only real letdown is that while it starts out on a promising path, it degenerates into a conventional, by-the-numbers action formula in the last fifteen minutes. The story, which admittedly takes its good time to unfold, starts to run out of steam and momentum about three quarters of the way through and drags a bit until the revved up end. One could almost forgive the obvious teaser at the end which is a deliberate setup for a future sequel. It’s ironic that as much as the filmmakers tried to make Batman plausible and grounded in reality, there are credibility gaps especially towards the end. In one scene, Gordon attempts to operate the Bat vehicle, and it just doesn’t ring true. A fight aboard an elevated train (and earlier fight scenes) is at best standard fare.
Christian Bale (The Machinist) has been perceived as a rising talent whose persona is that of dark intensity; who better to portray the Dark Knight? He is surrounded by an exceptional supporting cast. Caine is effortlessly stoic. It is amusing in one scene to see both veteran pros like he and Freeman counsel Bale. Liam Neeson is good as a mentor but he is in danger of being typecast in these kinds of roles. Oldman is cast against type and quite effectively as a good cop. Ken Watanabe (The Last Samurai) as the leader of the temple is not given much to do unfortunately.
The luscious musical score by committee is appropriately strong and heroic without leaning on a catchy title theme as previous Batman scores have popularized e.g. Nelson Riddle on TV and Danny Elfman in film. The art direction and set design are impressive in their own interpretation of Gotham City compared to the earlier Tim Burton films which set a new standard.
By the climax, you root for the film to fulfill its promise but it doesn’t quite succeed. Although successes like X Men and Spiderman are good examples of mainstream, pop hero entertainment, the makers of Batman Begins for the most part have raised the super hero film to an art film, and that’s not a bad thing.
*** of **** stars (Add 1/2 * for comic book diehards)
Friday, July 15, 2005
The Island is a fun, summer flick
Michael Bay has directed some big budget action adventures that have an over-the-top feel (like Pearl Harbor and Armageddon). He tones it down a bit and, despite borrowing from a myriad of past films, his latest effort, The Island, is an intelligent, entertaining adventure with science fiction as its source material.
In the not too distant future, there is a segregated world of men and women who function with a limited view and knowledge of their antiseptic world. Their only way of life is that they must work, follow the rules and dream of being selected in the lottery to go to The Island, the ultimate destination of happiness and fulfillment. One of the populace is a male, Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan McGregor), who begins to question his existence and role in the world even as he develops a friendship with a female, Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson). He also experiences nightmares about an outside world and expresses doubts about the validity of his surroundings including the lottery. He relates these concerns to a friendly doctor, Merrick (Sean Bean) and later to an outsider, McCord (Steve Buscemi), a computer geek. As he explores the floors above him, he stumbles onto another level where he discovers a terrible truth and lie. Realizing that their world is only part of something much more, Lincoln and Jordan make a break to the outside with McCord’s help and find themselves pursued by bounty hunters led by Albert Laurent (Djimon Hounsou). It seems that Merrick works for a cloning corporation dependent on enormous outside funds, and it is involved in secretly cloning humans for individual sponsors. The problem is that the corporation has gone too far in its experiments with tragic consequences. Searching for answers, Lincoln and Jordan eventually find themselves face to face with Lincoln’s sponsor whereupon they decide to stop Merrick’s evil plans and expose his horrifying activities to the world even as Laurent closes in.
This film is engaging from the very start with its interesting premise, and it does a good job of maintaining a steadily building mystery until the startling revelation which spins our protagonists in another direction. And if it seems the storyline is derivative of a multitude of other film plotlines, it’s because concepts such as duplicate humans, memory loss, corporate societies, and the pursuit of individual freedom and identity in a futuristic setting have been visited before. There are strong echoes of Coma, Logan’s Run, Minority Report, Total Recall, and especially George Lucas’ early THX 1138 and John Frankenheimer’s Seconds. And savvy viewers may recall an older made-for-television movie along the same lines called The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler. Yet by liberally borrowing from these stories, The Island reinterprets familiar themes into a reasonably entertaining story unto its own with a nod to science fiction author Philip Dick.
Adapted from his own story by Caspian Tredwell-Owen and Alias alums Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the narrative takes a deliberate path, and its exciting action scenes, particularly the numerous chases on foot and by car, are in service of the plot. Michael Bay has been notorious for filming elaborate, ‘shoot ‘em up’ and ‘blow ‘em up’ set pieces that resemble a massive videogame. Here, he holds back a little and concentrates more on staying true to his storyline. ‘The play’s the thing’ and events move so rapidly, you don’t notice the credibility gaps that strain logic at times.
Sean Bean (who is making himself quite the first choice in movie villainy as in Goldeneye) is quite good as the sinister Merrick, and Djimon Hounsou (Gladiator) registers in a role that could have been one dimensional and without heart. Ethan Phillips (late of Star Trek: Voyager) lends able support as a resident of the clone world. And let us not forget the wonderful Steve Buscemi (Reservoir Dogs) who gets some of the best lines and exits much too soon. The leads, McGregor (Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith) and Johansson (Lost in Translation) are quite photogenic and work together quite well. One wishes they have future screen pairings.
The special effects are effective and especially impressive when Lincoln meets his dead on double. Those scenes are so good, they are seamless. The world of the near future is realistic in its depiction in much the way Blade Runner integrated futuristic vehicles and technology with older, existing buildings and settings. The pace is well edited, and the film never feels slow and boring.
Again, there are a couple of scenes which really strain credulity, but they come and go so
quickly that you are on to the next scene. One obvious complaint is the product placement that becomes a bit self conscious and annoying after the third or fourth product logo is conspicuously shown. You’ll see what I mean. It’s also hard not to have a slight feeling that the film’s main theme has controversial, political implications with the debate over cloning, stem cell research and the abortion fight in recent headlines.
Although it is ironically a clone of other film plots, The Island delivers legitimate action and thrills without sacrificing its linear storytelling. Let yourself go and don’t pay too much attention to the occasional plot lapses, and you’ll find this a reasonably diverting adventure.
*** of **** stars (mainly for sci-fi action fans)
Michael Bay has directed some big budget action adventures that have an over-the-top feel (like Pearl Harbor and Armageddon). He tones it down a bit and, despite borrowing from a myriad of past films, his latest effort, The Island, is an intelligent, entertaining adventure with science fiction as its source material.
In the not too distant future, there is a segregated world of men and women who function with a limited view and knowledge of their antiseptic world. Their only way of life is that they must work, follow the rules and dream of being selected in the lottery to go to The Island, the ultimate destination of happiness and fulfillment. One of the populace is a male, Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan McGregor), who begins to question his existence and role in the world even as he develops a friendship with a female, Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson). He also experiences nightmares about an outside world and expresses doubts about the validity of his surroundings including the lottery. He relates these concerns to a friendly doctor, Merrick (Sean Bean) and later to an outsider, McCord (Steve Buscemi), a computer geek. As he explores the floors above him, he stumbles onto another level where he discovers a terrible truth and lie. Realizing that their world is only part of something much more, Lincoln and Jordan make a break to the outside with McCord’s help and find themselves pursued by bounty hunters led by Albert Laurent (Djimon Hounsou). It seems that Merrick works for a cloning corporation dependent on enormous outside funds, and it is involved in secretly cloning humans for individual sponsors. The problem is that the corporation has gone too far in its experiments with tragic consequences. Searching for answers, Lincoln and Jordan eventually find themselves face to face with Lincoln’s sponsor whereupon they decide to stop Merrick’s evil plans and expose his horrifying activities to the world even as Laurent closes in.
This film is engaging from the very start with its interesting premise, and it does a good job of maintaining a steadily building mystery until the startling revelation which spins our protagonists in another direction. And if it seems the storyline is derivative of a multitude of other film plotlines, it’s because concepts such as duplicate humans, memory loss, corporate societies, and the pursuit of individual freedom and identity in a futuristic setting have been visited before. There are strong echoes of Coma, Logan’s Run, Minority Report, Total Recall, and especially George Lucas’ early THX 1138 and John Frankenheimer’s Seconds. And savvy viewers may recall an older made-for-television movie along the same lines called The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler. Yet by liberally borrowing from these stories, The Island reinterprets familiar themes into a reasonably entertaining story unto its own with a nod to science fiction author Philip Dick.
Adapted from his own story by Caspian Tredwell-Owen and Alias alums Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the narrative takes a deliberate path, and its exciting action scenes, particularly the numerous chases on foot and by car, are in service of the plot. Michael Bay has been notorious for filming elaborate, ‘shoot ‘em up’ and ‘blow ‘em up’ set pieces that resemble a massive videogame. Here, he holds back a little and concentrates more on staying true to his storyline. ‘The play’s the thing’ and events move so rapidly, you don’t notice the credibility gaps that strain logic at times.
Sean Bean (who is making himself quite the first choice in movie villainy as in Goldeneye) is quite good as the sinister Merrick, and Djimon Hounsou (Gladiator) registers in a role that could have been one dimensional and without heart. Ethan Phillips (late of Star Trek: Voyager) lends able support as a resident of the clone world. And let us not forget the wonderful Steve Buscemi (Reservoir Dogs) who gets some of the best lines and exits much too soon. The leads, McGregor (Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith) and Johansson (Lost in Translation) are quite photogenic and work together quite well. One wishes they have future screen pairings.
The special effects are effective and especially impressive when Lincoln meets his dead on double. Those scenes are so good, they are seamless. The world of the near future is realistic in its depiction in much the way Blade Runner integrated futuristic vehicles and technology with older, existing buildings and settings. The pace is well edited, and the film never feels slow and boring.
Again, there are a couple of scenes which really strain credulity, but they come and go so
quickly that you are on to the next scene. One obvious complaint is the product placement that becomes a bit self conscious and annoying after the third or fourth product logo is conspicuously shown. You’ll see what I mean. It’s also hard not to have a slight feeling that the film’s main theme has controversial, political implications with the debate over cloning, stem cell research and the abortion fight in recent headlines.
Although it is ironically a clone of other film plots, The Island delivers legitimate action and thrills without sacrificing its linear storytelling. Let yourself go and don’t pay too much attention to the occasional plot lapses, and you’ll find this a reasonably diverting adventure.
*** of **** stars (mainly for sci-fi action fans)
Monday, July 11, 2005
Shore Leave 27 Convention
The fan sponsored convention, Shore Leave at Marriott’s Hunt Valley Inn in Baltimore, Maryland, was a nice way to spend a weekend (July 8-10, 2005) immersed in science fiction movies, celebrity speakers, and related dealer items. Although Mark Goddard (Lost in Space) had departed early on the Sunday I attended, and Mary McDonnell (Independence Day) was tied up with last minute shoots on her Battlestar Galactica show, there were enough other celebrities to make it a fun show including last minute Galactica costar Tricia Helfer. There were actors and actresses from shows like TV’s Babylon 5 and Stargate SG1. I focused on Joanna Cassidy, the versatile actress from such films as Under Fire, Blade Runner, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? She looked stunning and seemed quite proper and soft spoken. She spoke fondly of former costar Gene Hackman and his generosity as an actor. She expressed interest in writing screenplays and was deciding what life direction to take having just sold her house on the West Coast. Her current schedule is busy with movie roles including a comedy and her recurring role on cable TV’s Six Feet Under.
I also had a chance to speak with veteran character actors William Windom and Malachi Throne. What a treasure trove of history and anecdotes these actors had! They both guest starred in classic Star Trek episodes. It was interesting to hear these two old salts reminisce about their careers. Windom still has that boyish mischievous streak about him and was downright funny. His short lived classic based on James Thurber stories called My World and Welcome To It is fondly remembered, and he talked about the producer Danny Arnold who had autocratic authority without producing by committee. Arnold would later produce the classic Barney Miller. His reaction to the overwhelming popularity of his one shot guest role in Star Trek’s The Doomsday Machine baffles him as he considers acting no more than a craft and nothing special. He told me he wanted to return to acting as soon as he had his knees repaired.
Mr. Throne definitely has a theatrical acting pedigree and, like Windom, he has acted on stage, screen and television over half a century. He had a key supporting role in TV’s It Takes a Thief in the late 1960’s, and left after two seasons. I told him how I felt that show went downhill after he left, and he agreed wholeheartedly. I asked him to compare producers Gene Roddenberry and Irwin Allen (who ruled TV sci-fi in the 1960’s with Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and Lost in Space). He said that Roddenberry was always thinking ahead and anticipated trends like cop shows before they were popular. While he was grateful for the work from Allen, it could be maddening. He related a story about being cast for a TV role and Allen wanted a larger beard than what he wore in reality. So Throne shaved off his beard and wore a larger fake one. The next day Allen hated the large beard and asked what happened to the smaller one he liked! Both Throne and Windom need to write books!
It was a pretty enthusiastic crowd and the dealer tables were buzzing all day with everything from dvds and books to posters and action figures for sale. Everyone seemed to be having fun and ready for the next convention.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Dark Water has Creepy Moments
Koji Suzuki has enjoyed recent popularity through his minimalist horror stories told with more atmosphere, psychological brooding and menace than big budget effects. His first big hit, The Ring, has been serialized in multiple sequels in Japan and redone successfully in the U.S. In Dark Water, he has fabricated another tale involving restless souls and unexplained events that go bump in the night. The result, while reasonably spooky, is an adequate mood piece with a few effective scares and revelations.
Dahlia (Jennifer Connelly) is in an emotionally draining custody battle with ex husband Kyle (Dougray Scott) over their young daughter Ceci (Ariel Gade). Forced to find affordable housing, mother and daughter move into a low rent apartment presided over by the desk clerk/custodian, Veeck (Pete Postlethwaite) and an unreliable building manager, Mr. Murray (John C. Reilly). Upon moving in their drab, dreary unit, strange things begin to happen. Elevator doors close and open mysteriously on the wrong floors and black water seeps in from the floor above in increasingly grotesque amounts. Ceci attends school and begins to talk to an imaginary friend with alarming frequency. And whose backpack was left on the roof of the building? Add to this Dahlia’s constant battles with her ex-husband and her own dysfunctional childhood with a hateful mother and a father who abandoned the family. She becomes paranoid and frightened especially when she visits the tenant’s who lived above in room 10F. It seems the family that lived there had a father who abandoned them, and the mother was unable to take care of her daughter, Natasha, who is the same age as Ceci. As Dahlia fights her own sanity to discover the truth, the past will haunt her in a terrifying climax.
As an atmospheric, eerie, ghost story, Dark Water does succeed. The steady, methodical pacing works in the story’s favor. Think of horror master Val Lewton, whose gothic B-movies of the 1940’s are memorable e.g. the original Cat People. But for those looking for a shocking, intense payoff, there will be mild disappointment. Recent horror entries, The Ring and The Others have fared better in delivering the goods. There just isn’t a powerful, knockout scene or sufficiently startling surprises. The parallels between Dahlia’s life and the mysterious family above her apartment are not fully exploited or defined as they should be. The film tries to develop the psychologically tortuous journey of Dahlia as the happenings in room 10F are brewing, and somehow the two plotlines don’t quite mesh into an intelligent, coherent storyline. This is perhaps more a fault of the script adaptation by Rafael Yglesias and the source material from its Japanese authors including Suzuki, Takashige Ichise and Hideo Nakata. Director Walter Salles, fresh from a solid turn with The Motorcycle Diaries, does a decent job but takes the film’s story as far as his script will allow him. At times the film feels like a Hitchcock piece with its female protagonist going against difficult circumstances with little or no support from others. The visuals especially the water effects are unnerving at times and photographed starkly by Affonso Beato, and the somber score by Angelo Badalamenti reminds one of his previous collaborations (Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks) with David Lynch.
Jennifer Connelly is fairly convincing as the mother who struggles with her own demons while protecting her daughter from unknown forces. Visually, her ethereal beauty is ideally suited for the subject matter. Gade is quite good as Ceci, and we are mesmerized by her actions and reactions from beginning to end. She and Connelly work well together and do a good job of setting up their close relationship which drives the storyline. John C. Reilly is amusing as an irresponsible building manager. His early scenes trying to rent the apartment to Connelly’s character are downright funny. Tim Roth as her sympathetic lawyer is almost unrecognizable in a role reminiscent of Charles Durning’s in Sisters. While it is good support, it ultimately goes nowhere. Postlethwaite scores as a bizarre character whose background is insufficiently explored.
What hurts this film is also the knowledge of previous haunted films like The Other, Don’t Look Now, The Changeling, and Audrey Rose, all from the 1970’s. Some moviegoers, particularly fans of The Ring will have an easy time figuring out the hidden meanings in the plotline. When you think about it, Dark Water is a deceptively simple tale told with a minimum of characters in a confined setting. Like a mildly scary ghost story read at night, it comes and goes but does not stay very long.
**1/2 of **** stars
Dahlia (Jennifer Connelly) is in an emotionally draining custody battle with ex husband Kyle (Dougray Scott) over their young daughter Ceci (Ariel Gade). Forced to find affordable housing, mother and daughter move into a low rent apartment presided over by the desk clerk/custodian, Veeck (Pete Postlethwaite) and an unreliable building manager, Mr. Murray (John C. Reilly). Upon moving in their drab, dreary unit, strange things begin to happen. Elevator doors close and open mysteriously on the wrong floors and black water seeps in from the floor above in increasingly grotesque amounts. Ceci attends school and begins to talk to an imaginary friend with alarming frequency. And whose backpack was left on the roof of the building? Add to this Dahlia’s constant battles with her ex-husband and her own dysfunctional childhood with a hateful mother and a father who abandoned the family. She becomes paranoid and frightened especially when she visits the tenant’s who lived above in room 10F. It seems the family that lived there had a father who abandoned them, and the mother was unable to take care of her daughter, Natasha, who is the same age as Ceci. As Dahlia fights her own sanity to discover the truth, the past will haunt her in a terrifying climax.
As an atmospheric, eerie, ghost story, Dark Water does succeed. The steady, methodical pacing works in the story’s favor. Think of horror master Val Lewton, whose gothic B-movies of the 1940’s are memorable e.g. the original Cat People. But for those looking for a shocking, intense payoff, there will be mild disappointment. Recent horror entries, The Ring and The Others have fared better in delivering the goods. There just isn’t a powerful, knockout scene or sufficiently startling surprises. The parallels between Dahlia’s life and the mysterious family above her apartment are not fully exploited or defined as they should be. The film tries to develop the psychologically tortuous journey of Dahlia as the happenings in room 10F are brewing, and somehow the two plotlines don’t quite mesh into an intelligent, coherent storyline. This is perhaps more a fault of the script adaptation by Rafael Yglesias and the source material from its Japanese authors including Suzuki, Takashige Ichise and Hideo Nakata. Director Walter Salles, fresh from a solid turn with The Motorcycle Diaries, does a decent job but takes the film’s story as far as his script will allow him. At times the film feels like a Hitchcock piece with its female protagonist going against difficult circumstances with little or no support from others. The visuals especially the water effects are unnerving at times and photographed starkly by Affonso Beato, and the somber score by Angelo Badalamenti reminds one of his previous collaborations (Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks) with David Lynch.
Jennifer Connelly is fairly convincing as the mother who struggles with her own demons while protecting her daughter from unknown forces. Visually, her ethereal beauty is ideally suited for the subject matter. Gade is quite good as Ceci, and we are mesmerized by her actions and reactions from beginning to end. She and Connelly work well together and do a good job of setting up their close relationship which drives the storyline. John C. Reilly is amusing as an irresponsible building manager. His early scenes trying to rent the apartment to Connelly’s character are downright funny. Tim Roth as her sympathetic lawyer is almost unrecognizable in a role reminiscent of Charles Durning’s in Sisters. While it is good support, it ultimately goes nowhere. Postlethwaite scores as a bizarre character whose background is insufficiently explored.
What hurts this film is also the knowledge of previous haunted films like The Other, Don’t Look Now, The Changeling, and Audrey Rose, all from the 1970’s. Some moviegoers, particularly fans of The Ring will have an easy time figuring out the hidden meanings in the plotline. When you think about it, Dark Water is a deceptively simple tale told with a minimum of characters in a confined setting. Like a mildly scary ghost story read at night, it comes and goes but does not stay very long.
**1/2 of **** stars
Monday, July 04, 2005
War of the Worlds has 'Meaner', 'Rougher' Aliens
War of the Worlds is quite a powerful, intense tale guided by master director, Steven Spielberg, who knows how to move things along so fast that you barely notice any inconsistencies in the plot. As summer entertainment, it serves a tasty dish. It shows wunderkind director still at the top of his game.
A father, Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise), gets to keep his two kids for the weekend as his exwife visits Boston. He barely knows his rebellious teenage son Robbie (Justin Chatwin) and is not much better with his younger daughter Rachel (an adorable Dakota Fanning). Strange phenomena begin to occur over New Jersey as mysterious sounds, lightning, clouds, and wind emanate from the skies. What follows is the shocking appearance of an alien machine from beneath the ground that shows incredible power and fires deadly rays that disintegrate humans. Curiosity turns into panic as the machines begin a reign of terror that will destroy the community. Ray switches to survival mode and thus begins a desperate flight to safety. What started out as an estranged, dysfunctional group, becomes a frightened, desperate family whose members begin to rely on one another for survival and hope. And there is not much hope as the aliens are invincible to any military force that can be leveled at them. Soon it becomes clear that the aliens are also using humans as a living resource. When they lose contact with Robbie, Ray and Rachel seek refuge in the basement of a farmhouse where a mysterious loner, Ogilvy (Tim Robbins), is willing to make a last stand. There, they play hide and seek with the aliens. Eventually Ray and Rachel come face to face with an alien machine, and what Ray does to save his girl and himself leads to the film’s climax as it shifts locations to Boston. .
Spielberg pays generous homage to War of the Worlds’ three previous incarnations including the original H.G. Wells novel (with its eerie horn-like sounds that precede the aliens, the crazed Ogilvy, the look of the alien machines, and the ending), the Orson Welles 1938 radio broadcast (also set in New Jersey with its unseen news reports and dark mood), and George Pal’s 1953 cold war film adaptation (with its apocalyptic destruction and farmhouse sequence).
An antithesis of his kinder, gentler alien epics, Close Encounter of the Third Kind and E.T., this film features an evil menace that gives no reason or explanation as to why but rather how quickly the human race can be exterminated. There are obvious parallels with the Holocaust in the mass extermination of humans which has influenced Spielberg in recent years (Schindler’s List). This has the meanness of his early television movie, Duel, with its relentless enemy. While there are thematic similarities with Independence Day, by focusing on the one family from beginning to end as opposed to a half dozen groups of characters, Spielberg draws a more intimate portrait of people we care about.
What is good about this film is that Spielberg wastes no time and gives enough exposition of Ray’s fragmented family before the alien terror begins. He shows how good he is at suggesting violence. You get teased with glimpses and sounds of something unusual and frightening before the real threat reveals itself. Sometimes we only see evidence of massive destruction and death without having the event played out. It is as if we are standing on the sidelines catching enough of the event to know what is happening. The film’s pacing is very good, and the production values are outstanding. Of significant note, this mega-budgeted film took only seven months to make, an incredibly efficient shoot! Spielberg knows how to utilize state-of-the-art special effects in an organic, believable way without being artificial or self-conscious of its technique. The effects, spearheaded by veteran Dennis Muren (Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park), are extremely impressive, and they all look convincing. Nothing looks phony, and anything that is an effect looks like it is really happening.
The acting is strong, and Cruise and Fanning are delightful in their energetic, emotional performances. Robbins registers in a creepy supporting role, and Miranda Otto (Lord of the Rings:The Return of the King) is effective as Cruise’s exwife. Chatwin (reminding one of a young Jake Gyllenhaal) seems weak and doesn’t show enough of his character while interacting with Cruise, but this may be a fault of the script.
Surprisingly, the strong emotional ties that characterized E.T. and Close Encounters are not as evident here. We see Fanning’s character traumatized by her surroundings and we see Cruise’s character trying to connect with his kids as he fights to save them at every turn. Spielberg needed a bit more interplay and meaningful dialogue between father and daughter, and it would have been a perfect realization of paternal bonding.
The final scene, however, does not ring true regarding the fate of Ray’s family-the only glaring fault of the film that seems unrealistic given all that has transpired. Its resolution seems almost a nod to the classic western, The Searchers. There are also other film references like a brief scene from The Greatest Show on Earth or a familiar sound effect from the 1953 War of the Worlds. Watch for cameos of Gene Barry and Anne Robinson near the end; they starred in the 1953 classic.
War of the Worlds is a tense, exciting amusement park ride through a scary funhouse, and when it ends, you are glad to have survived the event.
***1/2 of **** stars (until the unrealistic ending)
A father, Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise), gets to keep his two kids for the weekend as his exwife visits Boston. He barely knows his rebellious teenage son Robbie (Justin Chatwin) and is not much better with his younger daughter Rachel (an adorable Dakota Fanning). Strange phenomena begin to occur over New Jersey as mysterious sounds, lightning, clouds, and wind emanate from the skies. What follows is the shocking appearance of an alien machine from beneath the ground that shows incredible power and fires deadly rays that disintegrate humans. Curiosity turns into panic as the machines begin a reign of terror that will destroy the community. Ray switches to survival mode and thus begins a desperate flight to safety. What started out as an estranged, dysfunctional group, becomes a frightened, desperate family whose members begin to rely on one another for survival and hope. And there is not much hope as the aliens are invincible to any military force that can be leveled at them. Soon it becomes clear that the aliens are also using humans as a living resource. When they lose contact with Robbie, Ray and Rachel seek refuge in the basement of a farmhouse where a mysterious loner, Ogilvy (Tim Robbins), is willing to make a last stand. There, they play hide and seek with the aliens. Eventually Ray and Rachel come face to face with an alien machine, and what Ray does to save his girl and himself leads to the film’s climax as it shifts locations to Boston. .
Spielberg pays generous homage to War of the Worlds’ three previous incarnations including the original H.G. Wells novel (with its eerie horn-like sounds that precede the aliens, the crazed Ogilvy, the look of the alien machines, and the ending), the Orson Welles 1938 radio broadcast (also set in New Jersey with its unseen news reports and dark mood), and George Pal’s 1953 cold war film adaptation (with its apocalyptic destruction and farmhouse sequence).
An antithesis of his kinder, gentler alien epics, Close Encounter of the Third Kind and E.T., this film features an evil menace that gives no reason or explanation as to why but rather how quickly the human race can be exterminated. There are obvious parallels with the Holocaust in the mass extermination of humans which has influenced Spielberg in recent years (Schindler’s List). This has the meanness of his early television movie, Duel, with its relentless enemy. While there are thematic similarities with Independence Day, by focusing on the one family from beginning to end as opposed to a half dozen groups of characters, Spielberg draws a more intimate portrait of people we care about.
What is good about this film is that Spielberg wastes no time and gives enough exposition of Ray’s fragmented family before the alien terror begins. He shows how good he is at suggesting violence. You get teased with glimpses and sounds of something unusual and frightening before the real threat reveals itself. Sometimes we only see evidence of massive destruction and death without having the event played out. It is as if we are standing on the sidelines catching enough of the event to know what is happening. The film’s pacing is very good, and the production values are outstanding. Of significant note, this mega-budgeted film took only seven months to make, an incredibly efficient shoot! Spielberg knows how to utilize state-of-the-art special effects in an organic, believable way without being artificial or self-conscious of its technique. The effects, spearheaded by veteran Dennis Muren (Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park), are extremely impressive, and they all look convincing. Nothing looks phony, and anything that is an effect looks like it is really happening.
The acting is strong, and Cruise and Fanning are delightful in their energetic, emotional performances. Robbins registers in a creepy supporting role, and Miranda Otto (Lord of the Rings:The Return of the King) is effective as Cruise’s exwife. Chatwin (reminding one of a young Jake Gyllenhaal) seems weak and doesn’t show enough of his character while interacting with Cruise, but this may be a fault of the script.
Surprisingly, the strong emotional ties that characterized E.T. and Close Encounters are not as evident here. We see Fanning’s character traumatized by her surroundings and we see Cruise’s character trying to connect with his kids as he fights to save them at every turn. Spielberg needed a bit more interplay and meaningful dialogue between father and daughter, and it would have been a perfect realization of paternal bonding.
The final scene, however, does not ring true regarding the fate of Ray’s family-the only glaring fault of the film that seems unrealistic given all that has transpired. Its resolution seems almost a nod to the classic western, The Searchers. There are also other film references like a brief scene from The Greatest Show on Earth or a familiar sound effect from the 1953 War of the Worlds. Watch for cameos of Gene Barry and Anne Robinson near the end; they starred in the 1953 classic.
War of the Worlds is a tense, exciting amusement park ride through a scary funhouse, and when it ends, you are glad to have survived the event.
***1/2 of **** stars (until the unrealistic ending)
Cinderella Man is a Crowning Achievement
For a quarter century, director Ron Howard has shown consistent filmmaking prowess in a wide range of genres. In Cinderella Man, he goes back to real life (previously he did the fact-based A Beautiful Mind and Apollo 13) and recreates the boxing hero, James Braddock, whose life parallels the fortunes of Depression-era New York. It is one of Howard’s best films.
A talented boxer, Jim Braddock, ascends the ranks of boxing in the late 1920’s and finds his career is jeopardized by a chance injury which cuts short any championship aspirations. Furthermore, he shows a limited boxing style that favored one arm over the other. When his boxing license is stripped and the Great Depression hits, Braddock must literally struggle to keep his family afloat as even the poorest paying jobs on the loading docks are scarce. Love and sacrifice might not be enough until a fateful opportunity comes knocking in the form of a last minute substitute in a boxing match. It seems that Braddock has become a more complete fighter by working on the docks and strengthening both of his arms.
What follows is an improbable series of bouts that leads to a heavyweight championship fight with Max Baer, a legendary giant. This is Braddock’s second chance, and although he has everything to gain, he knows it is the biggest risk of his life; Baer has killed two opponents in the ring. Braddock becomes a symbol of hope as the nation begins to embrace him. As the whole country hangs on every punch via radio broadcast, Braddock is in the fight of his life.
What is basically a boxing movie is also a touching love story. You grow to understand Braddock and his wife as partners and lovers whose plight during the Depression adds resonance to the climactic bout. It is also noteworthy how the film depicts the reverence with which the populace embraced Braddock amid troubled economic times. Just as the horse, Seabiscuit, inspired a nation, so did Braddock.
Russell Crowe (A Beautiful Mind and Gladiator) is such a chameleon of an actor; he seems to effortlessly embody this legendary fighter by demonstrating tremendous physical abilities in the boxing ring while maintaining focus as the everyman who has to live by his wits. Not only did Crowe severely trim down in weight and train to be a convincing fighter (he looks to be in incredible condition), he effortlessly inflects a New Jersey accent and inhabits a proud family man whose love for his wife and three children is matched only by his heart and desire in the boxing ring.
Renée Zellweger (Cold Mountain and Chicago) does a serviceable job as Braddock’s wife, Mae. A better written character would have given the actress more to work with. Her shining moment comes during a fateful meeting with Max Baer at a posh restaurant where she more than holds her own. Paul Giamatti (Sideways and American Splendor) takes his role as Braddock’s trainer and owns it. He breathes three-dimensional life into what could have been a cardboard, supporting role. Particularly in the last fight, he gives Braddock advice and suggestions to the point you actually believe he knows what he is talking about. It is surely an Oscar caliber performance.
There is a subplot involving Braddock’s friend from the docks named Mike Wilson (Paddy Considine) who is involved in soliciting union support which culminates in violence in Hooverville. It would have been interesting to have explored this world a bit more, but instead, it is given relatively short shrift. One minor controversy is the portrayal of Baer (Craig Bierko is quite menacing) as an unsympathetic brute of a fighter which was probably done to contrast him with Braddock. Also unfortunate is the timing of the film’s release on the heels of a sleeper like Million Dollar Baby which surely invited comparisons in subject matter and Oscar pedigree.
Kudos go to the production staff for vividly reconstructing the period as costumers and set decorators reimagine a dark period of history. The infamous tents and shacks that became Hooverville are depicted faithfully. The film never drags or seems padded. It is as lean as Crowe. The boxing scenes are well shot and edited in a refreshing way. It is so easy to fall into clichés, but these fights are staged with great care and realism. When the punches connect, there are stunningly brief, close-up frames of the impact. Howard also employs split second flashback imagery to illustrate Braddock’s thought processes whether it be the funeral of a close friend or remembrance of a small apartment without heat or electricity. Editing transitions are done with good effect.
Ron Howard (working off a well written screenplay by Cliff Hollingsworth and Akiva Goldsman) does such a good job that the film doesn’t feel like it is being directed but rather, it feels like it just happens as in real life. While not quite as good as A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man is a well made film about an amazing comeback story with real life people that gets better as it goes along until its gutsy ending.
***1/2 out of ****
A talented boxer, Jim Braddock, ascends the ranks of boxing in the late 1920’s and finds his career is jeopardized by a chance injury which cuts short any championship aspirations. Furthermore, he shows a limited boxing style that favored one arm over the other. When his boxing license is stripped and the Great Depression hits, Braddock must literally struggle to keep his family afloat as even the poorest paying jobs on the loading docks are scarce. Love and sacrifice might not be enough until a fateful opportunity comes knocking in the form of a last minute substitute in a boxing match. It seems that Braddock has become a more complete fighter by working on the docks and strengthening both of his arms.
What follows is an improbable series of bouts that leads to a heavyweight championship fight with Max Baer, a legendary giant. This is Braddock’s second chance, and although he has everything to gain, he knows it is the biggest risk of his life; Baer has killed two opponents in the ring. Braddock becomes a symbol of hope as the nation begins to embrace him. As the whole country hangs on every punch via radio broadcast, Braddock is in the fight of his life.
What is basically a boxing movie is also a touching love story. You grow to understand Braddock and his wife as partners and lovers whose plight during the Depression adds resonance to the climactic bout. It is also noteworthy how the film depicts the reverence with which the populace embraced Braddock amid troubled economic times. Just as the horse, Seabiscuit, inspired a nation, so did Braddock.
Russell Crowe (A Beautiful Mind and Gladiator) is such a chameleon of an actor; he seems to effortlessly embody this legendary fighter by demonstrating tremendous physical abilities in the boxing ring while maintaining focus as the everyman who has to live by his wits. Not only did Crowe severely trim down in weight and train to be a convincing fighter (he looks to be in incredible condition), he effortlessly inflects a New Jersey accent and inhabits a proud family man whose love for his wife and three children is matched only by his heart and desire in the boxing ring.
Renée Zellweger (Cold Mountain and Chicago) does a serviceable job as Braddock’s wife, Mae. A better written character would have given the actress more to work with. Her shining moment comes during a fateful meeting with Max Baer at a posh restaurant where she more than holds her own. Paul Giamatti (Sideways and American Splendor) takes his role as Braddock’s trainer and owns it. He breathes three-dimensional life into what could have been a cardboard, supporting role. Particularly in the last fight, he gives Braddock advice and suggestions to the point you actually believe he knows what he is talking about. It is surely an Oscar caliber performance.
There is a subplot involving Braddock’s friend from the docks named Mike Wilson (Paddy Considine) who is involved in soliciting union support which culminates in violence in Hooverville. It would have been interesting to have explored this world a bit more, but instead, it is given relatively short shrift. One minor controversy is the portrayal of Baer (Craig Bierko is quite menacing) as an unsympathetic brute of a fighter which was probably done to contrast him with Braddock. Also unfortunate is the timing of the film’s release on the heels of a sleeper like Million Dollar Baby which surely invited comparisons in subject matter and Oscar pedigree.
Kudos go to the production staff for vividly reconstructing the period as costumers and set decorators reimagine a dark period of history. The infamous tents and shacks that became Hooverville are depicted faithfully. The film never drags or seems padded. It is as lean as Crowe. The boxing scenes are well shot and edited in a refreshing way. It is so easy to fall into clichés, but these fights are staged with great care and realism. When the punches connect, there are stunningly brief, close-up frames of the impact. Howard also employs split second flashback imagery to illustrate Braddock’s thought processes whether it be the funeral of a close friend or remembrance of a small apartment without heat or electricity. Editing transitions are done with good effect.
Ron Howard (working off a well written screenplay by Cliff Hollingsworth and Akiva Goldsman) does such a good job that the film doesn’t feel like it is being directed but rather, it feels like it just happens as in real life. While not quite as good as A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man is a well made film about an amazing comeback story with real life people that gets better as it goes along until its gutsy ending.
***1/2 out of ****
Friday, May 27, 2005
Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith Is a Welcome Return to the Dark Side
George Lucas has come full circle by completing his Star Wars mega epic with Revenge of the Sith, a marked improvement on the earlier prequels and paving the way to the storylines of the classic trilogy. Sith is really the episode where most filmgoers could start and not miss too much storyline. Previously, The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, were padded with exposition on the Anakin Skywalker’s formative years, and there is no doubt Sith is better than both prequels combined. While this comeback film isn’t quite as good as any of the original trilogy, it is a successful realization of Anakin’s descent into the Dark side as Darth Vader.
Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and mentor, Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor), rescue kidnapped Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) from warring Separatists led by Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) and General Grievous, a humanoid robot whose features foreshadow Darth Vader. As Anakin returns home to his now pregnant wife, Senator Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman), he has recurring nightmares of her impending death. Desperate for any means to protect his love, he comes under the influence of the Chancellor who has continued to consolidate his control of the Senate. Palpatine describes the powers of the Dark side as a means to help Anakin save his wife. Anakin’s ambitions are also frustrated by a denial to join the Jedi Council headed by Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) and Yoda (voiced by the winning Frank Oz). As Obi-Wan pursues Grievous, the Jedi Knights, supported by massive Clone armies, are spread thin in the galaxy. Anakin searches his emotions even as he suspects an ultimate evil is among them in the form of Darth Sidious. Alerted by Anakin of possible treachery by Palpatine, Windu and a handful of Jedi Knights come calling in what proves to be a major turning point that severely tests Anakin’s loyalties. Subsequently, the Jedi Knights are vanquished through a series of calculated moves and directives to the Clone troops as Darth Sidious grows stronger and Anakin becomes his deadly enforcer. This young man who is prophesied to be “the chosen one who will bring balance to the force” is instead the one who brings darkness to the Republic (at least until the next generation). While Obi-Wan and Yoda are among the few to survive, each must face their Dark side counterparts, and the formation of Darth Vader and the future of the Republic in the newly born Luke and Leia foreshadow the next film, A New Hope.
The story opens with so much eye candy that the screen becomes one busy video arcade. Industrial Light and Magic does a smashing job of effects work as always, but the problem is that while the technology is vastly improved, the screen becomes almost too busy. The dramatic scenes do not complement the action because there is a lack of emotional involvement for the audience. The pacing at times is a bit jarring in jumping from scene to scene.
The main theme rests on depicting Anakin’s fall to the Dark side. At times the transformation is unconvincing. Although Portman and Christensen are talented stars, they lack the experience and directorial support to overcome a simplistic script littered with pedestrian dialogue. Ian McDiarmid comes off best as the subversive Senator Palpatine who may not be who he seems. Ewan McGregor lends a distinguished turn as a mature Obi-Wan with a twinkle of Alec Guinness. An effective Samuel L. Jackson preferred his character to go out in a blaze of glory, and it is his action scene where the entire movie pivots and the tone of the story takes a decidedly menacing turn.
Speaking of acting, one only has to look at the original trilogy to appreciate the chemistry of Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford whose acting skills improved with each film not coincidentally as Lucas began to employ strong directors (Irvin Kershner and Richard Marquand) to compliment his visual production style.
The last hour, which is the best, has a Francis Coppola (Lucas’ mentor) influence as sequences alternate in operatic grandeur similar to the climaxes in the Godfather films. These concluding set pieces elevate the film to dramatic heights and recall Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in which sequences cut back-and-forth between life changing events. Yoda’s battle with Sidious (whose appearance is not unlike the devil of The Exorcist) and Anakin and Obi-Wan’s duel with Anakin alternate in epic grandeur. Also, Vader’s Frankenstein-like ‘birth’ and Padme’s child bearing contrast with almost mythic proportions.
The colorful musical score by John Williams links many familiar themes with an updated edge, and the choral background is effective in the climax. The set designs and costumes are top notch. Some of the camera shots are striking particularly in an overhead view as Anakin enters the Jedi temple.
The film is certainly more intense and violent than any previous Star Wars film and earns its PG13 rating. It is ironic that Lucas (and Spielberg), who almost single handedly forced the MPAA to create a niche rating with PG13, now returns to that territory.
Lucas has propelled his original trilogy into new territory. By playing on the audience’s emotional attachment to the characters and story, the original trilogy takes on a wholly different context. Now and forevermore, lines of dialogue and subtle nuances will take on deeper layers of meaning, and that makes these originals more interesting to watch all over again! Lucas also does a good job of matching and referencing links between Sith and A New Hope right down to the hairstyles, spaceships, and costumes. Even old favorites like a young Chewbacca make a brief, but memorable appearance. Through it all in every episode are robots C-3PO and R2-D2 (who acquits himself well). It would be interesting to see audience reactions watching the series chronologically as intended. Perhaps, Lucas may show the films on television with restored footage as a colossal event like Coppola’s Godfather Saga. How about The Star Wars Saga?
Certainly, moviegoers have put Lucas on a higher standard than most filmmakers, perhaps unfairly. Because we want the film to be perfect, it suffers from the lofty standards set by the original films. Without a doubt, Lucas was on the right track with Sith. If only he trusted a strong director of actors and a top screenwriter to improve the dialogue, he would have the makings of a classic to rival The Empire Strikes Back. Was Lawrence Kasdan (who wrote these characters in the original trilogy) too busy to lend a hand?
*** out of **** stars (add ½ * for the last half hour)
Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) and mentor, Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor), rescue kidnapped Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) from warring Separatists led by Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) and General Grievous, a humanoid robot whose features foreshadow Darth Vader. As Anakin returns home to his now pregnant wife, Senator Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman), he has recurring nightmares of her impending death. Desperate for any means to protect his love, he comes under the influence of the Chancellor who has continued to consolidate his control of the Senate. Palpatine describes the powers of the Dark side as a means to help Anakin save his wife. Anakin’s ambitions are also frustrated by a denial to join the Jedi Council headed by Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) and Yoda (voiced by the winning Frank Oz). As Obi-Wan pursues Grievous, the Jedi Knights, supported by massive Clone armies, are spread thin in the galaxy. Anakin searches his emotions even as he suspects an ultimate evil is among them in the form of Darth Sidious. Alerted by Anakin of possible treachery by Palpatine, Windu and a handful of Jedi Knights come calling in what proves to be a major turning point that severely tests Anakin’s loyalties. Subsequently, the Jedi Knights are vanquished through a series of calculated moves and directives to the Clone troops as Darth Sidious grows stronger and Anakin becomes his deadly enforcer. This young man who is prophesied to be “the chosen one who will bring balance to the force” is instead the one who brings darkness to the Republic (at least until the next generation). While Obi-Wan and Yoda are among the few to survive, each must face their Dark side counterparts, and the formation of Darth Vader and the future of the Republic in the newly born Luke and Leia foreshadow the next film, A New Hope.
The story opens with so much eye candy that the screen becomes one busy video arcade. Industrial Light and Magic does a smashing job of effects work as always, but the problem is that while the technology is vastly improved, the screen becomes almost too busy. The dramatic scenes do not complement the action because there is a lack of emotional involvement for the audience. The pacing at times is a bit jarring in jumping from scene to scene.
The main theme rests on depicting Anakin’s fall to the Dark side. At times the transformation is unconvincing. Although Portman and Christensen are talented stars, they lack the experience and directorial support to overcome a simplistic script littered with pedestrian dialogue. Ian McDiarmid comes off best as the subversive Senator Palpatine who may not be who he seems. Ewan McGregor lends a distinguished turn as a mature Obi-Wan with a twinkle of Alec Guinness. An effective Samuel L. Jackson preferred his character to go out in a blaze of glory, and it is his action scene where the entire movie pivots and the tone of the story takes a decidedly menacing turn.
Speaking of acting, one only has to look at the original trilogy to appreciate the chemistry of Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford whose acting skills improved with each film not coincidentally as Lucas began to employ strong directors (Irvin Kershner and Richard Marquand) to compliment his visual production style.
The last hour, which is the best, has a Francis Coppola (Lucas’ mentor) influence as sequences alternate in operatic grandeur similar to the climaxes in the Godfather films. These concluding set pieces elevate the film to dramatic heights and recall Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in which sequences cut back-and-forth between life changing events. Yoda’s battle with Sidious (whose appearance is not unlike the devil of The Exorcist) and Anakin and Obi-Wan’s duel with Anakin alternate in epic grandeur. Also, Vader’s Frankenstein-like ‘birth’ and Padme’s child bearing contrast with almost mythic proportions.
The colorful musical score by John Williams links many familiar themes with an updated edge, and the choral background is effective in the climax. The set designs and costumes are top notch. Some of the camera shots are striking particularly in an overhead view as Anakin enters the Jedi temple.
The film is certainly more intense and violent than any previous Star Wars film and earns its PG13 rating. It is ironic that Lucas (and Spielberg), who almost single handedly forced the MPAA to create a niche rating with PG13, now returns to that territory.
Lucas has propelled his original trilogy into new territory. By playing on the audience’s emotional attachment to the characters and story, the original trilogy takes on a wholly different context. Now and forevermore, lines of dialogue and subtle nuances will take on deeper layers of meaning, and that makes these originals more interesting to watch all over again! Lucas also does a good job of matching and referencing links between Sith and A New Hope right down to the hairstyles, spaceships, and costumes. Even old favorites like a young Chewbacca make a brief, but memorable appearance. Through it all in every episode are robots C-3PO and R2-D2 (who acquits himself well). It would be interesting to see audience reactions watching the series chronologically as intended. Perhaps, Lucas may show the films on television with restored footage as a colossal event like Coppola’s Godfather Saga. How about The Star Wars Saga?
Certainly, moviegoers have put Lucas on a higher standard than most filmmakers, perhaps unfairly. Because we want the film to be perfect, it suffers from the lofty standards set by the original films. Without a doubt, Lucas was on the right track with Sith. If only he trusted a strong director of actors and a top screenwriter to improve the dialogue, he would have the makings of a classic to rival The Empire Strikes Back. Was Lawrence Kasdan (who wrote these characters in the original trilogy) too busy to lend a hand?
*** out of **** stars (add ½ * for the last half hour)
Friday, May 06, 2005
Real People Collide in Crash
Based on his screenplay with Robert Moresco, Paul Haggis makes what is essentially his feature film debut with a thoroughly involving drama of disparate characters in a series of seemingly unrelated events in and around Los Angeles
One evening culminates in a car accident being investigated by police and a grim discovery for one of the detectives. Flashback to the day before as a dozen characters deal with urban survival. A couple of idealistic, black youths carjack an upper class couple who turn out to be the district attorney and his shallow wife. A proud, Persian shop keeper and his wife struggle to keep their business open and safe. A locksmith, who is Hispanic, is also a loving, protective father to his precious five year old daughter. A repressed movie director and his combative wife are pulled over by an aggressive, angry cop and his younger, moral partner. These are people who are haunted by guilt and fear as they strive for some kind of happiness. As events unfold, each set of characters is affected by an apparently random act by another group which has long lasting consequences for all of them.
To detail exactly what happens will spoil a delicate web of plotlines that are mutually supporting one another in almost operatic fashion. Haggis, who adapted the heartbreaking gem, “Million Dollar Baby” (and honed his writing skills on many a television series), has devised an intricate, multi-layered morality play on a grand scale. Borrowing liberally from the story structures of his contemporaries like Paul Thomas Anderson (“Magnolia”) and veterans like Robert Altman (“Nashville”), he masters the form with surprising ease and to the audience’s edification. He does not dumb down the script but rather treats his audience with intelligence. The dialogue is on occasion wordy and blatant commentary while other times the words carry a bite and sting as they ring true to the human condition. Any edgier dialogue would start to become Tarantino like. Although there are several references to racial intolerance and conflict, these serve as more of a springboard to broader ideas and relationships.
Haggis wisely avoids clichés thus keeping the events and actions fresh and original. When a scene looks like it will end expectedly, something different happens to change its direction in interesting ways. None of the characters is truly good or evil; instead they are full blooded characters who yearn for a better life while tarnished by their current affliction be it economic, physical, or emotional. Just when you think the film will go down a dark path with tragic results, it throws another wrinkle to keep you guessing and pleasantly surprise you. And when tragedy does strike, it happens in an unexpected, ironic way.
Don Cheadle is part of a well cast group of emsemble players, many of whom reduced their payscales to take on what amounted to be supporting work. It doesn’t hurt if the script is as strong and well conceived as this one. Cheadle is excellent as the detective who tries to help his mother and his often absent brother. Brandon Fraser and Sandra Bullock play the D.A. and his wife. Terrence Dashon Howard and Thandie Newton play a glamorous Hollywood couple who must confront racial and emotional issues. Matt Dillon and Ryan Phillippe are the policemen whose portrayals begin on opposite ends of the moral spectrum and wind up switching places. Special mention goes to Michael Pena as the locksmith.
The city scenes are photographed with a gritty realism and the music, predominantly led by New Age composer Mark Isham, lends a dreamlike, aura to the film’s mood. All the major storylines are followed through by movie’s end with hardly a loose end. It is ironic that the film is reminiscent of a lesser, 1970’s made-for television drama, “Smashup on Interstate 5”.
There are times early in the film that one thinks it will degenerate into a racially charged statement, but it never loses course. The roles both large and small seem more than sketches after awhile. You care about what happens to all of them, even the more criminal elements because they are real people. The film plays like a mosaic or puzzle of fragments and pieces that slowly but satisfyingly come together. Although there are more than a couple of coincidental events and incidents including car accidents that link many of the characters, the improbable happenings are easy to forgive since we are in the hands of a good storyteller. These chance encounters serve as a catalyst or storytelling device to propel the story further.
Crash is an ambitious film with lofty goals that it attains with great frequency. Haggis should be commended for weaving an ambitious tapestry of lives and fate without resorting to easy, simplistic answers.
***1/2 out of **** stars
One evening culminates in a car accident being investigated by police and a grim discovery for one of the detectives. Flashback to the day before as a dozen characters deal with urban survival. A couple of idealistic, black youths carjack an upper class couple who turn out to be the district attorney and his shallow wife. A proud, Persian shop keeper and his wife struggle to keep their business open and safe. A locksmith, who is Hispanic, is also a loving, protective father to his precious five year old daughter. A repressed movie director and his combative wife are pulled over by an aggressive, angry cop and his younger, moral partner. These are people who are haunted by guilt and fear as they strive for some kind of happiness. As events unfold, each set of characters is affected by an apparently random act by another group which has long lasting consequences for all of them.
To detail exactly what happens will spoil a delicate web of plotlines that are mutually supporting one another in almost operatic fashion. Haggis, who adapted the heartbreaking gem, “Million Dollar Baby” (and honed his writing skills on many a television series), has devised an intricate, multi-layered morality play on a grand scale. Borrowing liberally from the story structures of his contemporaries like Paul Thomas Anderson (“Magnolia”) and veterans like Robert Altman (“Nashville”), he masters the form with surprising ease and to the audience’s edification. He does not dumb down the script but rather treats his audience with intelligence. The dialogue is on occasion wordy and blatant commentary while other times the words carry a bite and sting as they ring true to the human condition. Any edgier dialogue would start to become Tarantino like. Although there are several references to racial intolerance and conflict, these serve as more of a springboard to broader ideas and relationships.
Haggis wisely avoids clichés thus keeping the events and actions fresh and original. When a scene looks like it will end expectedly, something different happens to change its direction in interesting ways. None of the characters is truly good or evil; instead they are full blooded characters who yearn for a better life while tarnished by their current affliction be it economic, physical, or emotional. Just when you think the film will go down a dark path with tragic results, it throws another wrinkle to keep you guessing and pleasantly surprise you. And when tragedy does strike, it happens in an unexpected, ironic way.
Don Cheadle is part of a well cast group of emsemble players, many of whom reduced their payscales to take on what amounted to be supporting work. It doesn’t hurt if the script is as strong and well conceived as this one. Cheadle is excellent as the detective who tries to help his mother and his often absent brother. Brandon Fraser and Sandra Bullock play the D.A. and his wife. Terrence Dashon Howard and Thandie Newton play a glamorous Hollywood couple who must confront racial and emotional issues. Matt Dillon and Ryan Phillippe are the policemen whose portrayals begin on opposite ends of the moral spectrum and wind up switching places. Special mention goes to Michael Pena as the locksmith.
The city scenes are photographed with a gritty realism and the music, predominantly led by New Age composer Mark Isham, lends a dreamlike, aura to the film’s mood. All the major storylines are followed through by movie’s end with hardly a loose end. It is ironic that the film is reminiscent of a lesser, 1970’s made-for television drama, “Smashup on Interstate 5”.
There are times early in the film that one thinks it will degenerate into a racially charged statement, but it never loses course. The roles both large and small seem more than sketches after awhile. You care about what happens to all of them, even the more criminal elements because they are real people. The film plays like a mosaic or puzzle of fragments and pieces that slowly but satisfyingly come together. Although there are more than a couple of coincidental events and incidents including car accidents that link many of the characters, the improbable happenings are easy to forgive since we are in the hands of a good storyteller. These chance encounters serve as a catalyst or storytelling device to propel the story further.
Crash is an ambitious film with lofty goals that it attains with great frequency. Haggis should be commended for weaving an ambitious tapestry of lives and fate without resorting to easy, simplistic answers.
***1/2 out of **** stars
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy translates badly
One of the pleasures of seeing the filmic adaptation of a popular novel is the realization of the original source material while successfully functioning as a seemingly original movie. Although fans of cult favorite The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy may find reason to rejoice at the faithful rendition of their treasured classic, the film just does not work on its own.
In present day Earth, Arthur Dent, an ordinary Englishman, finds his house about to be demolished by bulldozers sent to pave a highway. As Arthur frets over the imminent demise of his home, he is given solace by his buddy, Ford Perfect who has a secret to tell him. It seems that Ford isn’t the person he says he is. In fact, humans aren’t the most intelligent species on earth. Dolphins are ranked second while extraterrestrials are number one. And it seems that earth is about to be destroyed as Ford and Arthur are whisked away to safety by hitching onto an alien craft where Ford introduces his friend to a reference book, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. As Arthur is plopped into an unworldly environment, he waxes nostalgic over a previous chance encounter on earth with free spirited Tricia who ran off with another man. It turns out that it wasn’t just any ordinary man. Suffice it to say that the story centers on a galactic cowboy, Zaphod, who is also a galactic president. Arthur and Ford later hitch a ride with Zaphod’s spaceship. Space travel into untold worlds and dimensions are just the start of a wild ride that searches for the meaning of life and its paradoxical questions. In the midst of it all is poor Arthur. Homeless, will he find happiness and true love amid the vast wasteland of space?
For decades, filmmakers have unsuccessfully attempted to translate Douglas Adams’ phenomenon novel until right before his untimely death recently. Despite cowriting credits between Adams and Karey Kirkpatrick, it feels like many scribes had a hand in the monumental task of making the story cinematic. Director Garth Jennings does have a talent for imaginative visuals having come from a music video and documentary background. What he misses is the essence of what makes stories dear to the soul and yet have that hip, sophisticated fascination with the universe at large, no easy feat. He does not demonstrate an ability to balance intimate moments amid the grander, eye popping visuals. Even such British entrees of the sixties like Bedazzled held a personal charm amid its superficial glitz and stylized chic.
The cast is able, but it labors under erratic direction, continuity, and pacing. Martin Freeman (Shaun of the Dead) is a likeable actor and destined for much better roles. His Arthur recalls an early Dudley Moore. He is capable of humor and romance but is not allowed to fully develop his sketch of a character. Sam Rockwell (so much better in a similar genre film, Galaxy Quest), overacts as Zaphod, an intergalactic free spirit. His character (which could easily have been portrayed by Luke Wilson) is just not very interesting. Other supporting roles are likewise superficial and lacking in much depth. Zooey Deschanel (Elf) as Tricia is cute and sorely limited in what she has to do. Rapper Mos Def (The Woodsman) plays Ford, and he almost triumphs in a part that quickly degenerates into a caricature. Alan Rickman is wasted as the increasingly tired voice of a manic depressive robot named Marvin as is John Malkovich in a throwaway role of Humma Kavula, Zaphod’s chief rival. The film is filled with odd and unusual creatures but nothing moviegoers haven’t already seen in any number of George Lucas’ Star Wars cantinas.
The film begins with an amusing song foreshadowing what is to come and sets the proper mood. The mistake the filmmakers made was to try to cater to the readers religiously and simultaneously forgetting to make sure that the film could stand on its own. It doesn’t. While all the celestial concepts and vistas are important, they should have concentrated on the relationship of Arthur and his love, Tricia, so that there would be more emotional resonance and payoff toward the end. You feel little or nothing fulfilling at the finale. The film glosses over events and moments seemingly to make sure as much of the novel is included. Instead of a magically hip, psychedelic, intellectually hypothesizing journey into the time space continuum in search of meaning and love, it starts to feel like a jumble of scenes not unlike the sci-fi cult film Barbarella, but at least the latter had a groovy musical score and Jane Fonda. There’s almost a Monty Python tone as a narrator describes the proceedings. Ah, but if only Terry Gilliam had done this!
The best moments throughout the story are the graphic, animations that illustrate the guidelines, factoids, and rules of the universe. These mini cartoons illustrate the concepts in an amusing manner, and could easily have formed a stand alone film. To be successful, the film should have appealed to fans of the book and the uninitiated alike. Every time, you begin to want to give the film a chance to develop into something special, it jumps quickly and without punctuation to the next scene. Because it just does not resonate on its own and relies more so on its literary pedigree, it will have a hard time attracting general audiences. Perhaps true fans of the book will enjoy this long awaited adaptation of the beloved novel, but the rest of the populace will wonder what the fuss was really all about.
** of **** stars (add * star for fans of the book)
In present day Earth, Arthur Dent, an ordinary Englishman, finds his house about to be demolished by bulldozers sent to pave a highway. As Arthur frets over the imminent demise of his home, he is given solace by his buddy, Ford Perfect who has a secret to tell him. It seems that Ford isn’t the person he says he is. In fact, humans aren’t the most intelligent species on earth. Dolphins are ranked second while extraterrestrials are number one. And it seems that earth is about to be destroyed as Ford and Arthur are whisked away to safety by hitching onto an alien craft where Ford introduces his friend to a reference book, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. As Arthur is plopped into an unworldly environment, he waxes nostalgic over a previous chance encounter on earth with free spirited Tricia who ran off with another man. It turns out that it wasn’t just any ordinary man. Suffice it to say that the story centers on a galactic cowboy, Zaphod, who is also a galactic president. Arthur and Ford later hitch a ride with Zaphod’s spaceship. Space travel into untold worlds and dimensions are just the start of a wild ride that searches for the meaning of life and its paradoxical questions. In the midst of it all is poor Arthur. Homeless, will he find happiness and true love amid the vast wasteland of space?
For decades, filmmakers have unsuccessfully attempted to translate Douglas Adams’ phenomenon novel until right before his untimely death recently. Despite cowriting credits between Adams and Karey Kirkpatrick, it feels like many scribes had a hand in the monumental task of making the story cinematic. Director Garth Jennings does have a talent for imaginative visuals having come from a music video and documentary background. What he misses is the essence of what makes stories dear to the soul and yet have that hip, sophisticated fascination with the universe at large, no easy feat. He does not demonstrate an ability to balance intimate moments amid the grander, eye popping visuals. Even such British entrees of the sixties like Bedazzled held a personal charm amid its superficial glitz and stylized chic.
The cast is able, but it labors under erratic direction, continuity, and pacing. Martin Freeman (Shaun of the Dead) is a likeable actor and destined for much better roles. His Arthur recalls an early Dudley Moore. He is capable of humor and romance but is not allowed to fully develop his sketch of a character. Sam Rockwell (so much better in a similar genre film, Galaxy Quest), overacts as Zaphod, an intergalactic free spirit. His character (which could easily have been portrayed by Luke Wilson) is just not very interesting. Other supporting roles are likewise superficial and lacking in much depth. Zooey Deschanel (Elf) as Tricia is cute and sorely limited in what she has to do. Rapper Mos Def (The Woodsman) plays Ford, and he almost triumphs in a part that quickly degenerates into a caricature. Alan Rickman is wasted as the increasingly tired voice of a manic depressive robot named Marvin as is John Malkovich in a throwaway role of Humma Kavula, Zaphod’s chief rival. The film is filled with odd and unusual creatures but nothing moviegoers haven’t already seen in any number of George Lucas’ Star Wars cantinas.
The film begins with an amusing song foreshadowing what is to come and sets the proper mood. The mistake the filmmakers made was to try to cater to the readers religiously and simultaneously forgetting to make sure that the film could stand on its own. It doesn’t. While all the celestial concepts and vistas are important, they should have concentrated on the relationship of Arthur and his love, Tricia, so that there would be more emotional resonance and payoff toward the end. You feel little or nothing fulfilling at the finale. The film glosses over events and moments seemingly to make sure as much of the novel is included. Instead of a magically hip, psychedelic, intellectually hypothesizing journey into the time space continuum in search of meaning and love, it starts to feel like a jumble of scenes not unlike the sci-fi cult film Barbarella, but at least the latter had a groovy musical score and Jane Fonda. There’s almost a Monty Python tone as a narrator describes the proceedings. Ah, but if only Terry Gilliam had done this!
The best moments throughout the story are the graphic, animations that illustrate the guidelines, factoids, and rules of the universe. These mini cartoons illustrate the concepts in an amusing manner, and could easily have formed a stand alone film. To be successful, the film should have appealed to fans of the book and the uninitiated alike. Every time, you begin to want to give the film a chance to develop into something special, it jumps quickly and without punctuation to the next scene. Because it just does not resonate on its own and relies more so on its literary pedigree, it will have a hard time attracting general audiences. Perhaps true fans of the book will enjoy this long awaited adaptation of the beloved novel, but the rest of the populace will wonder what the fuss was really all about.
** of **** stars (add * star for fans of the book)
Friday, April 08, 2005
Fever Pitch throws a nice changeup
Looking for a date film that adds a bit of cheer to your day? Then go no further than Fever Pitch, a pleasant comedy set in baseball adoring Boston. The latest directorial effort from brothers Bobby and Peter Farrelly, this conventional comedy marks an appealing course correction for the notorious pair, known primarily for their crude humor.
A young boy, Ben, learns to love and even worship the Boston Red Sox through his maniacal uncle. As a young man, Ben (Jimmy Fallon) is a grade school math teacher who meets corporate executive and math expert, Lindsey Meeks (Drew Barrymore), who in turn finds herself attracted to Ben. Pretty soon, the two begin a promising relationship that seems headed for bliss until Fallon reveals a deep seeded issue. Inheriting his uncle’s passion for and season tickets to the Red Sox home games will do that. It seems that Ben is a crazed, frenzied Bosox fan to the bitter end despite their history of near championship misses courtesy, they say, of the Bambino’s (Babe Ruth) curse. He plays a ‘man-boy’ who has never quite grown when it comes to the baseball season. As Lindsey vies for an important promotion, her schedule and Fallon’s summer schedules are at odds. While she does attend a number of home games with her beau, it puts a strain on her work, and things come to a head. Will she lose her promotion or will he give up baseball? Will true love win out?
The script by Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel (Splash and A League of Their Own) is solid considering it was almost done from scratch by only taking the theme of fan obsession to soccer originally written by Nick Hornby and transplanting it from Europe to America’s pastime. The film does a good job of briefly skimming over Red Sox lore and bringing the uninitiated up to date on the Red Sox saga and of the excitement and frenzy that is baseball. Although we get a cursory sketch of Lindsey’s work place, Ben’s fandom is legend as his close friends and stadium section form a sort of family and ‘safe’ area for him. You know his apartment is brimming with Red Sox souvenirs and paraphernalia. It is amusing how real life baseball faces are interspersed throughout the story. We see Ben as a kid watching an older version of the Sox team, and there is Dennis Eckersley before he will go on to glory with the Oakland A’s. Later we see cameos by the current crop of players like Johnny Damon and Trot Nixon. Even news broadcasts features recognizable reporters from ESPN, and an amusing broadcast booth featuring rival anchors, Tim McCarver and Harold Reynolds.
For a decade, the Farrelly brothers specialized in outrageous, popular comedies such as There’s Something About Mary, Dumb and Dumber, and the underrated Shallow Hal. Just as the Weitz brothers have graduated from the raunchy American Pie films to such legitimate projects as About a Boy (coincidentally another Hornby source novel), The Farrelly brothers have attempted a similar transition. Their style is actually suited for this type of comedy. They are adept as visual humor and are able to instill some nice sight gags along the way. The Farrelly trademark themes are still in place-protagonists who have apparent, physical limitations who are trying to find themselves. In this case, the defect or aberration is being a hardcore sports fan. (It could easily be any obsession or passion.) The protagonist has friends who chastise and criticize him, but ultimately care and will come to his aid. That helps make this a better film than standard comedies. Even the smallest of relationships add a little bit to this film. As always, the Farrellys make good use of pop oldies in the soundtrack.
Jimmy Fallon has found the perfect vehicle for his talents. He fares better here than his embarrassing turn in Taxi. It proves that when given good material and competent direction, he is actually entertaining. At first you think his performance may stumble and fall, but that never happens. In a climactic scene with Barrymore, he shows a bit more range; he can act! It has been suggested that Adam Sandler could easily have done this role, and while that is true, Fallon and Barrymore have good onscreen chemistry and make a cute couple. Drew has mined this territory before, but she does romantic comedies well. She is a natural. James Sikking (late of tv’s Hill Street Blues) plays her quirky dad, and Jo Beth Williams plays her mom, and what a difference a decade or two makes! Has it been that long since she starred in The Big Chill and Poltergeist?
By now, it is well documented that the film changed its ending because of the against all odds, surprising World Series win by the Red Sox in 2004. It really is hard to write a script that mirrors the Red Sox improbable return from oblivion, but the film is strong enough not to suffer from this comparison. The theatrical release is quite timely as the 2005 baseball season begins, and memories of the Red Sox comeback are still fresh. Scenes of actual baseball games are interspersed throughout the film and serve as a background as title cards mark each month with a subtitle on the season’s fortunes. The Farrellys know this territory well being true Red Sox fans. Ironically Fallon is a Yankees fan.
This is not highbrow material, but the kind of uplifting, romantic comedy that usually does well. As the heavyweight blockbusters of summer approach, Fever Pitch is a modest, ideal vehicle to ring in the spring movie season.
*** of **** stars
A young boy, Ben, learns to love and even worship the Boston Red Sox through his maniacal uncle. As a young man, Ben (Jimmy Fallon) is a grade school math teacher who meets corporate executive and math expert, Lindsey Meeks (Drew Barrymore), who in turn finds herself attracted to Ben. Pretty soon, the two begin a promising relationship that seems headed for bliss until Fallon reveals a deep seeded issue. Inheriting his uncle’s passion for and season tickets to the Red Sox home games will do that. It seems that Ben is a crazed, frenzied Bosox fan to the bitter end despite their history of near championship misses courtesy, they say, of the Bambino’s (Babe Ruth) curse. He plays a ‘man-boy’ who has never quite grown when it comes to the baseball season. As Lindsey vies for an important promotion, her schedule and Fallon’s summer schedules are at odds. While she does attend a number of home games with her beau, it puts a strain on her work, and things come to a head. Will she lose her promotion or will he give up baseball? Will true love win out?
The script by Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel (Splash and A League of Their Own) is solid considering it was almost done from scratch by only taking the theme of fan obsession to soccer originally written by Nick Hornby and transplanting it from Europe to America’s pastime. The film does a good job of briefly skimming over Red Sox lore and bringing the uninitiated up to date on the Red Sox saga and of the excitement and frenzy that is baseball. Although we get a cursory sketch of Lindsey’s work place, Ben’s fandom is legend as his close friends and stadium section form a sort of family and ‘safe’ area for him. You know his apartment is brimming with Red Sox souvenirs and paraphernalia. It is amusing how real life baseball faces are interspersed throughout the story. We see Ben as a kid watching an older version of the Sox team, and there is Dennis Eckersley before he will go on to glory with the Oakland A’s. Later we see cameos by the current crop of players like Johnny Damon and Trot Nixon. Even news broadcasts features recognizable reporters from ESPN, and an amusing broadcast booth featuring rival anchors, Tim McCarver and Harold Reynolds.
For a decade, the Farrelly brothers specialized in outrageous, popular comedies such as There’s Something About Mary, Dumb and Dumber, and the underrated Shallow Hal. Just as the Weitz brothers have graduated from the raunchy American Pie films to such legitimate projects as About a Boy (coincidentally another Hornby source novel), The Farrelly brothers have attempted a similar transition. Their style is actually suited for this type of comedy. They are adept as visual humor and are able to instill some nice sight gags along the way. The Farrelly trademark themes are still in place-protagonists who have apparent, physical limitations who are trying to find themselves. In this case, the defect or aberration is being a hardcore sports fan. (It could easily be any obsession or passion.) The protagonist has friends who chastise and criticize him, but ultimately care and will come to his aid. That helps make this a better film than standard comedies. Even the smallest of relationships add a little bit to this film. As always, the Farrellys make good use of pop oldies in the soundtrack.
Jimmy Fallon has found the perfect vehicle for his talents. He fares better here than his embarrassing turn in Taxi. It proves that when given good material and competent direction, he is actually entertaining. At first you think his performance may stumble and fall, but that never happens. In a climactic scene with Barrymore, he shows a bit more range; he can act! It has been suggested that Adam Sandler could easily have done this role, and while that is true, Fallon and Barrymore have good onscreen chemistry and make a cute couple. Drew has mined this territory before, but she does romantic comedies well. She is a natural. James Sikking (late of tv’s Hill Street Blues) plays her quirky dad, and Jo Beth Williams plays her mom, and what a difference a decade or two makes! Has it been that long since she starred in The Big Chill and Poltergeist?
By now, it is well documented that the film changed its ending because of the against all odds, surprising World Series win by the Red Sox in 2004. It really is hard to write a script that mirrors the Red Sox improbable return from oblivion, but the film is strong enough not to suffer from this comparison. The theatrical release is quite timely as the 2005 baseball season begins, and memories of the Red Sox comeback are still fresh. Scenes of actual baseball games are interspersed throughout the film and serve as a background as title cards mark each month with a subtitle on the season’s fortunes. The Farrellys know this territory well being true Red Sox fans. Ironically Fallon is a Yankees fan.
This is not highbrow material, but the kind of uplifting, romantic comedy that usually does well. As the heavyweight blockbusters of summer approach, Fever Pitch is a modest, ideal vehicle to ring in the spring movie season.
*** of **** stars
Monday, April 04, 2005
Off the Map loses its way
This is looking like a strong year for actress Joan Allen as she has two major films for 2005 with The Upside of Anger and Off the Map. The latter is less a commercial film as a character study that can’t shake its theatrical feel.
Told in flashback by an adult female, Bo (Amy Brenneman), it is a story mostly viewed through the eyes of herself as an eleven year old (Valentina de Angelis). Set in the Southwest, her parents live ‘off the grid’ by barely scraping by on modest income and surviving off the land through hunting and gardening, and oh yes, the kindness of a friend, George (J.K. Simmons). Not even possessing a telephone, they resort to a basic living situation and haven’t paid taxes in seven years. Led by a resourceful mother, Arlene (Joan Allen), the family must deal with the recent, unshakable depression of the father, Charley (Sam Elliott).
One day, a stranger visits from the IRS and his appearance will forever affect the family and himself in years to come. As the family attempts to cope with Charley’s silence and inaction, the taxman, William Gibbs (Jim True-Frost), begins to understand these simple people, and he eventually learns to admire them. Young Bo, who is a bright and clever girl, eagerly yearns for a life beyond her limited world. This group of damaged souls struggle through their emotions amid the painted landscape.
Adapted from her own play, writer Joan Ackerman just doesn’t break free from the theatrical confines of her material. Although the seductive, natural scenery makes for almost a character unto itself, the film still feels stagy. The storyline is not structured in linear fashion which can be frustrating to an audience. It is essentially an experimental character study. Even the characters are such a pathetically sad bunch to the point of making one feel sorry for them. Talk about depression!
It’s too bad, because some decent performances are lost in the randomness of the plot. They deserve better. Stronger direction (by director Campbell Scott) and improved pacing would have helped. Sam Elliott, who has been sorely underutilized in film (We Were Soldier, The Contender), has the unfortunate task of being nearly catatonic through much of the story. Joan Allen shows good range and nearly escapes the film unscathed. Jim True-Frost performs adequately As the taxman but does not have that extra magic for what is essentially a catalyst type of role. Valentina de Angelis is a child of talent worth noting. Her character may be the most developed as we learn her desires and fears. Young Bo is so resourceful, she even gets free food and products through her aggressive complaint-mailing campaign to manufacturers. And wait until you see what she ultimately does with a certain credit card.
In the end, we don’t care about these folks as much as we would like or should, and that’s a shame. Audiences are likely to be turned off by the random nature of this film and its unhappy denizens. Unfortunately, by its depiction of a sensitive subject such as depression, the makers of Off the Map may have unintentionally wreaked havoc by making the audience depressed.
**1/2 of **** stars
Told in flashback by an adult female, Bo (Amy Brenneman), it is a story mostly viewed through the eyes of herself as an eleven year old (Valentina de Angelis). Set in the Southwest, her parents live ‘off the grid’ by barely scraping by on modest income and surviving off the land through hunting and gardening, and oh yes, the kindness of a friend, George (J.K. Simmons). Not even possessing a telephone, they resort to a basic living situation and haven’t paid taxes in seven years. Led by a resourceful mother, Arlene (Joan Allen), the family must deal with the recent, unshakable depression of the father, Charley (Sam Elliott).
One day, a stranger visits from the IRS and his appearance will forever affect the family and himself in years to come. As the family attempts to cope with Charley’s silence and inaction, the taxman, William Gibbs (Jim True-Frost), begins to understand these simple people, and he eventually learns to admire them. Young Bo, who is a bright and clever girl, eagerly yearns for a life beyond her limited world. This group of damaged souls struggle through their emotions amid the painted landscape.
Adapted from her own play, writer Joan Ackerman just doesn’t break free from the theatrical confines of her material. Although the seductive, natural scenery makes for almost a character unto itself, the film still feels stagy. The storyline is not structured in linear fashion which can be frustrating to an audience. It is essentially an experimental character study. Even the characters are such a pathetically sad bunch to the point of making one feel sorry for them. Talk about depression!
It’s too bad, because some decent performances are lost in the randomness of the plot. They deserve better. Stronger direction (by director Campbell Scott) and improved pacing would have helped. Sam Elliott, who has been sorely underutilized in film (We Were Soldier, The Contender), has the unfortunate task of being nearly catatonic through much of the story. Joan Allen shows good range and nearly escapes the film unscathed. Jim True-Frost performs adequately As the taxman but does not have that extra magic for what is essentially a catalyst type of role. Valentina de Angelis is a child of talent worth noting. Her character may be the most developed as we learn her desires and fears. Young Bo is so resourceful, she even gets free food and products through her aggressive complaint-mailing campaign to manufacturers. And wait until you see what she ultimately does with a certain credit card.
In the end, we don’t care about these folks as much as we would like or should, and that’s a shame. Audiences are likely to be turned off by the random nature of this film and its unhappy denizens. Unfortunately, by its depiction of a sensitive subject such as depression, the makers of Off the Map may have unintentionally wreaked havoc by making the audience depressed.
**1/2 of **** stars
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Sin City is a triumph for hardcore fans
Frank Miller, the lord of graphic comic novels, has been given his just due in a sumptuously stylized film version of his Sin City. Lovingly brought to the screen by Robert Rodriguez with an assist by buddy Quentin Tarantino, this tale of vengeance and lust in a dark metropolis is unlike any movie in recent years in terms of consistent technique and visuals serving a group of interconnected stories in which the outcasts of civilization engage in urban survival while attempting to maintain a sense of honor and love. It is also an extremely violent film.
On a dark, rainy night, three major stories parallel each other. The first story has Detective John Hartigan (Bruce Willis) search for a missing girl before a serial killer strikes again. With his unsavory partner, Bob (Michael Madsen), he finally tracks down the killer in a bang-up finish, or is it? A separate story has a brutish exconvict, Marv (Mickey Rourke), who seeks revenge for the murder of a hooker. He is befriended by a parole officer, Lucille (Carla Gugino), a waitress, Shellie (Britanny Murphy), a stripper, Nancy (Jessica Alba), and a hooker, Gail (Rosario Dawson). His search for the killer pulls him into a grisly world of murder led by psychopaths, dirty cops, and corrupt, political leaders. Another story has a loner, Dwight (Clive Owen), protect his waitress girlfriend from a gang led by Jack (Benicio Del Toro) and a mob boss, Manute (Michael Clark Duncan). Things come full circle once events unfold, and surprises are unveiled with seemingly unrelated events and characters linked together.
To say more would spoil a smorgasbord of film noir and stylized action. There are some clever plot twists and surprises along the way. People’s loyalties are constantly in question, and the three male leads are surrogate avengers for justice, redemption and salvation. The film’s structure is reminiscent of Tarantino’s own Pulp Fiction and even P. T. Anderson’s Magnolia where various people meet in a series of vignettes and affect others who are seemingly unconnected. There are moments that seem influenced by past films. Certainly Sam Raimi’s (Spiderman) earlier Darkman was a direct precursor to Sin City. There is a scene with Clive Owen driving with a corpse that is a sort of homage to the 1945 horror classic The Body Snatchers. Rutger Hauer plays a religious leader in a scene not unlike the scene in Blade Runner where ironically Hauer reversed roles as an assassin in that film. A marvelous action piece with a female samurai warrior has all the earmarks of Tarantino who picks up where Kill Bill left off.
It is fascinating to watch what is essentially a pre-storyboarded film with the graphic novel serving as a blueprint for the film. ‘Shot and cut’ by Rodriguez himself, the film feels very consistent with a true auteur’s vision. Frank Miller imagined it, and Rodriguez made it happen. This is Rodriguez’ most assured film thus far, and it is a living, breathing comic book in the best sense. Despite the wide commercial appeal of successful comic adaptations of Spiderman and X-Men, Sin City is perhaps the most authentic and uncompromising transfer of such material. Much of what is depicted onscreen is predominantly a fabrication of computer generated special effects and trendsetting photography within which the actors interact. The black and white photography is at times gorgeous and downright nightmarish with the strategically accented color schemes similar to the best shots in Pleasantville and Schindler’s List. There is no doubt that the visuals of this film have been achieved with painstaking detail and success.
A dream cast features a wealth of actors and actresses, any two of whom could have front lined separate features on their own. Willis and Owen are quite effective as heroic, yet flawed personas, but it is Mickey Rourke who is a standout in what amounts to a comeback film. Even under his Frankenstein-like makeup, his humanity and toughness shine through. He makes the most of a potentially ridiculous role. In addition, while the males are mostly rugged, disheveled hulks, the females are beautiful and extremely sexy (sleazy?) to say the least. Jessica Alba, Brittany Murphy, Rosario Dawson, and Carla Gugino, (sorely missed from her brief Karen Sisko tv series) sizzle on the screen as they crossover different storylines. The performances are all fairly convincing once you excuse the occasional, awkward voice over narration.
Some things are left hanging plot wise. Many characters are almost caricatures; we have to accept them at face value without much depth. We never fully understand the psychopathic monster that is played by Elijah Wood. Where did he come from and why is he purely evil? Likewise, a partnership, betrayal, and reconciliation at the beginning of the film are never fully explored. The dialogue is a bit Jekyll and Hyde with some hokey lines followed by a series of sharp, humorous ones.
This is a film superficially filled with nudity, explicit language, taboo subject matter, and buckets of bloody violence. This is going to be offensive to many people who are put off by intense scenes of mayhem, but to those who thrive on the film noir of adult comic books, it is a dream come true.
If this adaptation is a one shot deal, the filmmakers gave it their best efforts. It is entirely plausible to have a sequel with an entirely different cast (even though a number of the principles survive this entry.) This movie is a splendid exercise in look and mood with emotional substance, no mean feat. It is definitely not for the faint of heart, but for those who are game, just hang on and enjoy the ride. Ironically, although Sin City is a graphic film in every sense of the word, this tale of haunted characters in an amoral world is ultimately a moral film.
***1/2 out of **** stars mainly for action comic fans
On a dark, rainy night, three major stories parallel each other. The first story has Detective John Hartigan (Bruce Willis) search for a missing girl before a serial killer strikes again. With his unsavory partner, Bob (Michael Madsen), he finally tracks down the killer in a bang-up finish, or is it? A separate story has a brutish exconvict, Marv (Mickey Rourke), who seeks revenge for the murder of a hooker. He is befriended by a parole officer, Lucille (Carla Gugino), a waitress, Shellie (Britanny Murphy), a stripper, Nancy (Jessica Alba), and a hooker, Gail (Rosario Dawson). His search for the killer pulls him into a grisly world of murder led by psychopaths, dirty cops, and corrupt, political leaders. Another story has a loner, Dwight (Clive Owen), protect his waitress girlfriend from a gang led by Jack (Benicio Del Toro) and a mob boss, Manute (Michael Clark Duncan). Things come full circle once events unfold, and surprises are unveiled with seemingly unrelated events and characters linked together.
To say more would spoil a smorgasbord of film noir and stylized action. There are some clever plot twists and surprises along the way. People’s loyalties are constantly in question, and the three male leads are surrogate avengers for justice, redemption and salvation. The film’s structure is reminiscent of Tarantino’s own Pulp Fiction and even P. T. Anderson’s Magnolia where various people meet in a series of vignettes and affect others who are seemingly unconnected. There are moments that seem influenced by past films. Certainly Sam Raimi’s (Spiderman) earlier Darkman was a direct precursor to Sin City. There is a scene with Clive Owen driving with a corpse that is a sort of homage to the 1945 horror classic The Body Snatchers. Rutger Hauer plays a religious leader in a scene not unlike the scene in Blade Runner where ironically Hauer reversed roles as an assassin in that film. A marvelous action piece with a female samurai warrior has all the earmarks of Tarantino who picks up where Kill Bill left off.
It is fascinating to watch what is essentially a pre-storyboarded film with the graphic novel serving as a blueprint for the film. ‘Shot and cut’ by Rodriguez himself, the film feels very consistent with a true auteur’s vision. Frank Miller imagined it, and Rodriguez made it happen. This is Rodriguez’ most assured film thus far, and it is a living, breathing comic book in the best sense. Despite the wide commercial appeal of successful comic adaptations of Spiderman and X-Men, Sin City is perhaps the most authentic and uncompromising transfer of such material. Much of what is depicted onscreen is predominantly a fabrication of computer generated special effects and trendsetting photography within which the actors interact. The black and white photography is at times gorgeous and downright nightmarish with the strategically accented color schemes similar to the best shots in Pleasantville and Schindler’s List. There is no doubt that the visuals of this film have been achieved with painstaking detail and success.
A dream cast features a wealth of actors and actresses, any two of whom could have front lined separate features on their own. Willis and Owen are quite effective as heroic, yet flawed personas, but it is Mickey Rourke who is a standout in what amounts to a comeback film. Even under his Frankenstein-like makeup, his humanity and toughness shine through. He makes the most of a potentially ridiculous role. In addition, while the males are mostly rugged, disheveled hulks, the females are beautiful and extremely sexy (sleazy?) to say the least. Jessica Alba, Brittany Murphy, Rosario Dawson, and Carla Gugino, (sorely missed from her brief Karen Sisko tv series) sizzle on the screen as they crossover different storylines. The performances are all fairly convincing once you excuse the occasional, awkward voice over narration.
Some things are left hanging plot wise. Many characters are almost caricatures; we have to accept them at face value without much depth. We never fully understand the psychopathic monster that is played by Elijah Wood. Where did he come from and why is he purely evil? Likewise, a partnership, betrayal, and reconciliation at the beginning of the film are never fully explored. The dialogue is a bit Jekyll and Hyde with some hokey lines followed by a series of sharp, humorous ones.
This is a film superficially filled with nudity, explicit language, taboo subject matter, and buckets of bloody violence. This is going to be offensive to many people who are put off by intense scenes of mayhem, but to those who thrive on the film noir of adult comic books, it is a dream come true.
If this adaptation is a one shot deal, the filmmakers gave it their best efforts. It is entirely plausible to have a sequel with an entirely different cast (even though a number of the principles survive this entry.) This movie is a splendid exercise in look and mood with emotional substance, no mean feat. It is definitely not for the faint of heart, but for those who are game, just hang on and enjoy the ride. Ironically, although Sin City is a graphic film in every sense of the word, this tale of haunted characters in an amoral world is ultimately a moral film.
***1/2 out of **** stars mainly for action comic fans
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Millions is a film of value
A small, lonely boy’s world is turned upside down in Millions, the latest from director Danny Boyle, whose striking visual style is not unlike his contemporaries, Tim Burton and Steven Soderbegh. While he has had his share of misses like The Beach, he has also struck gold with definitive genre films like Trainspotting and 28 Days Later. Here, he continues his success with this family oriented gem based on a fine screenplay by Frank Cottrell Boyce (Hilary and Jackie).
After the death of his mother, Damian and his family move to a new English suburb. There, he and older brother, Anthony, go to school and begin a new life with their father, Ronnie. As Damian struggles to fit into this new existence, he is also fascinated by historic saints. One day as he plays by the railroad tracks in his cardboard box of a playhouse, he is visited by a saint who foreshadows a gift. Suddenly a bag comes tumbling down and destroys his paper home. Within the bag is a very, very large sum of money. What to do with this windfall from the heavens? Damian begins to do the right thing, namely to help the poor as he is counseled by numerous saints while his brother is more interested in using the money to buy things and better his life. Damian’s charity giving begins to attract unwanted attention when he makes a rather hefty donation to a school sponsored charity event. The charity’s female representative, Dorothy, takes a liking to Damian and his father who takes a romantic interest in her. Meanwhile, a mysterious stranger appears by the railroad tracks looking for the money. It turns out that the money may not have been from the heavens but from a more, shall we say, illicit venture. The stranger becomes a viable threat as soon Ronnie and Dorothy learn of the boys’ loot. All of this occurs as England is ready to convert to the Euro dollar which means the money will become useless unless it circulates or gets exchanged. As the family decides how to properly dispense or dispose of the money, the stranger is ready to collect. Such is the stuff of good storytelling with a moral bent.
Alexander Nathan Etel is quite a find as Damian with his portrayal of the pure soul of a young boy who not only misses his mother, but wants to help the world. Lewis Owen McGibbon is equally good as the older but not necessarily wiser brother. A good supporting cast lends credence to the unusual proceedings. The various saints are all well depicted without seeming to be silly.
The film feels almost like a fairy tale with touches of fantasy and longing. It is intimately told from a child’s point of view. It is intriguing how the story could easily have focused on different threads such as the female charity rep who becomes involved with the father. But because this is Damian’s story, the film wisely stays on course. The saints who chat with Damien throughout the story serve as his advisers, mentors, and even protectors. Are they real or a figment of his imagination? It really doesn’t matter as the story does indeed move forward and the sense of urgency is never lost. There is an elaborate action scene told in flashback which could have been a film unto itself, but Boyle uses it as exposition without losing sight of his protagonists. In fact, the story never loses sight about the importance of love and family.
One sore point for American moviegoers will be trying to understand the dialogue. Once you get acclimated to the thick British accents, you can enjoy the film in earnest. The depiction and use of saints as part of the storytelling may draw some to accuse the film of a deliberate religious slant, but it really is a kind of fairy godmother or angel multiplied into several sainthoods. There is nary a preaching of theology or church when you come down to it. Although a child’s tale at its core, there is a threatening presence (by PG standards) from the stranger who lends a dark mood once he appears half way through the film.
Although it contains its share of drama and sentiment, it also has some genuinely funny moments without being cheap. There is also a climactic moment of connection and resolution that will resound in every viewer’s heart. It is interesting to note that Boyle’s thinly disguised altruism and politics are on display with his subplot on providing water relief for an African village. But that does not take away from the innocence and purity of a boy’s vision. This is a film that, despite its family themes, does not fall for easy sentiment. It earns its feelings and emotions. This special little film about a small boy and simple themes has a very large heart.
***1/2 of **** stars
After the death of his mother, Damian and his family move to a new English suburb. There, he and older brother, Anthony, go to school and begin a new life with their father, Ronnie. As Damian struggles to fit into this new existence, he is also fascinated by historic saints. One day as he plays by the railroad tracks in his cardboard box of a playhouse, he is visited by a saint who foreshadows a gift. Suddenly a bag comes tumbling down and destroys his paper home. Within the bag is a very, very large sum of money. What to do with this windfall from the heavens? Damian begins to do the right thing, namely to help the poor as he is counseled by numerous saints while his brother is more interested in using the money to buy things and better his life. Damian’s charity giving begins to attract unwanted attention when he makes a rather hefty donation to a school sponsored charity event. The charity’s female representative, Dorothy, takes a liking to Damian and his father who takes a romantic interest in her. Meanwhile, a mysterious stranger appears by the railroad tracks looking for the money. It turns out that the money may not have been from the heavens but from a more, shall we say, illicit venture. The stranger becomes a viable threat as soon Ronnie and Dorothy learn of the boys’ loot. All of this occurs as England is ready to convert to the Euro dollar which means the money will become useless unless it circulates or gets exchanged. As the family decides how to properly dispense or dispose of the money, the stranger is ready to collect. Such is the stuff of good storytelling with a moral bent.
Alexander Nathan Etel is quite a find as Damian with his portrayal of the pure soul of a young boy who not only misses his mother, but wants to help the world. Lewis Owen McGibbon is equally good as the older but not necessarily wiser brother. A good supporting cast lends credence to the unusual proceedings. The various saints are all well depicted without seeming to be silly.
The film feels almost like a fairy tale with touches of fantasy and longing. It is intimately told from a child’s point of view. It is intriguing how the story could easily have focused on different threads such as the female charity rep who becomes involved with the father. But because this is Damian’s story, the film wisely stays on course. The saints who chat with Damien throughout the story serve as his advisers, mentors, and even protectors. Are they real or a figment of his imagination? It really doesn’t matter as the story does indeed move forward and the sense of urgency is never lost. There is an elaborate action scene told in flashback which could have been a film unto itself, but Boyle uses it as exposition without losing sight of his protagonists. In fact, the story never loses sight about the importance of love and family.
One sore point for American moviegoers will be trying to understand the dialogue. Once you get acclimated to the thick British accents, you can enjoy the film in earnest. The depiction and use of saints as part of the storytelling may draw some to accuse the film of a deliberate religious slant, but it really is a kind of fairy godmother or angel multiplied into several sainthoods. There is nary a preaching of theology or church when you come down to it. Although a child’s tale at its core, there is a threatening presence (by PG standards) from the stranger who lends a dark mood once he appears half way through the film.
Although it contains its share of drama and sentiment, it also has some genuinely funny moments without being cheap. There is also a climactic moment of connection and resolution that will resound in every viewer’s heart. It is interesting to note that Boyle’s thinly disguised altruism and politics are on display with his subplot on providing water relief for an African village. But that does not take away from the innocence and purity of a boy’s vision. This is a film that, despite its family themes, does not fall for easy sentiment. It earns its feelings and emotions. This special little film about a small boy and simple themes has a very large heart.
***1/2 of **** stars
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Be Cool is groovy, sort of
Elmore Leonard has been the source of Hollywood films for decades, but not until recently have filmmakers translated his prose into true success. With the triumvirate of Out of Sight, Jackie Brown, and Get Shorty, Leonard’s characters have had a new lease on life. The latter was particularly adept at mixing interesting people in a clever plot with just the right dash of humor and edginess. How to follow up that one? Take the star, John Travolta, from that film and remix with a new, supporting cast behind and in front of the camera. What you get is Be Cool, a spry, ‘wannabe’ sequel that has its moments but doesn’t feel quite as fresh as Get Shorty.
Chili Palmer (Travolta) is still out of the rackets and getting bored with the movie business. When a music producer buddy is murdered by Russian mobsters, Chili decides to take matters in his own hands and teams with widowed producer Edie Athens (Uma Thurman). His first project is Linda Moon, a talented singer wasting away in a retro club. Unfortunately Moon is under contract to sleazy producer Nick Carr (Harvey Keitel) whose right hand man Raji (Vince Vaughn) and bodyguard Elliot (The Rock) are trying to kill Chili. Add to this mix an angry rap producer (Cedric the Entertainer) with his gang of thugs and police detectives on surveillance, and you get a story that’s a might convoluted. Pretty soon double crosses abound as everyone begins to point fingers at one another in a way that reminds one of …..Oh yeah, Get Shorty. You just know that Chili will somehow find a way to save the day in an ingenious manner, and that justice will be meted out. How he gets to that point is the half the fun.
John Travolta is getting a tad old for his role (which along with Pulp Fiction rejuvenated his career), but he succeeds in rekindling that suave, ultra confident Chili. Uma Thurman is light years from her Kill Bill success and really has an uninteresting character here. Each supporting actor is given his or her chance to shine, and for the most part they do just that and perhaps go over the top. Cedric the Entertainer is effective as a sophisticated rap producer whose entourage of ‘gangstas’ are out for blood. Harvey Keitel (whose amusing cameo concluded Get Shorty) gets a meaty role as the unscrupulous producer. Robert Pastorelli passed away last year, but his turn as a hitman is a brief reminder of his versatility. Vince Vaughn is a hoot as Raji, who acts like he can walk the walk and talk the talk of a rapper. But it is The Rock (in a mere supporting part no less) who steals the film as the insecure bodyguard who yearns to be an actor performer. Just as Get Shorty boasted an assortment of cameos by movie industry stars, this film reveals the occasional cameo of musical names as well. Furthermore, featured player Danny DeVito (who also produced) has nothing more than what amounts to be a cameo and doesn’t figure in the major plot thread.
Of course you can’t have a Travolta film without a featured dance number which, in this case reunites him with Thurman in a cute but unimaginative number that won’t make you forget the rug-cutting moments in Saturday Night Fever, Urban Cowboy or Pulp Fiction. The soundtrack is thoroughly laced with a mixture of 1970’s pop tunes and current rap. Closing credits have an amusing sequence of the principals strutting their stuff to rap music.
There was always going to be a little breath holding to see if a new director (F. Gary Gray) and new screenwriter (Peter Steinfeld) could duplicate Get Shorty’s success by Barry Sonnenfeld and Scott Frank respectively. In fact, Be Cool was held back from release in summer, 2004, which is often an ominous sign. The film is hit and miss especially in the first half. The musical performances go on much too long including the Aerosmith concert. A little trimming here and there would have been in order. When it finally hits its stride in the last portion, it coasts to a cute ending. At times the dialogue is downright clever and the plot does become intriguing. The film is reasonably successful in its own right but suffers from the high expectations of the previous film. In fact, when the story is over, it is not too far fetched to imagine Chili and gang making a nostalgic return when he is ready to conquer another phase of entertainment business like sports perhaps? Although Be Cool is a harmless bit of fun, it makes you respect the charms of its predecessor even more.
**1/2 of **** stars mostly for The Rock
Chili Palmer (Travolta) is still out of the rackets and getting bored with the movie business. When a music producer buddy is murdered by Russian mobsters, Chili decides to take matters in his own hands and teams with widowed producer Edie Athens (Uma Thurman). His first project is Linda Moon, a talented singer wasting away in a retro club. Unfortunately Moon is under contract to sleazy producer Nick Carr (Harvey Keitel) whose right hand man Raji (Vince Vaughn) and bodyguard Elliot (The Rock) are trying to kill Chili. Add to this mix an angry rap producer (Cedric the Entertainer) with his gang of thugs and police detectives on surveillance, and you get a story that’s a might convoluted. Pretty soon double crosses abound as everyone begins to point fingers at one another in a way that reminds one of …..Oh yeah, Get Shorty. You just know that Chili will somehow find a way to save the day in an ingenious manner, and that justice will be meted out. How he gets to that point is the half the fun.
John Travolta is getting a tad old for his role (which along with Pulp Fiction rejuvenated his career), but he succeeds in rekindling that suave, ultra confident Chili. Uma Thurman is light years from her Kill Bill success and really has an uninteresting character here. Each supporting actor is given his or her chance to shine, and for the most part they do just that and perhaps go over the top. Cedric the Entertainer is effective as a sophisticated rap producer whose entourage of ‘gangstas’ are out for blood. Harvey Keitel (whose amusing cameo concluded Get Shorty) gets a meaty role as the unscrupulous producer. Robert Pastorelli passed away last year, but his turn as a hitman is a brief reminder of his versatility. Vince Vaughn is a hoot as Raji, who acts like he can walk the walk and talk the talk of a rapper. But it is The Rock (in a mere supporting part no less) who steals the film as the insecure bodyguard who yearns to be an actor performer. Just as Get Shorty boasted an assortment of cameos by movie industry stars, this film reveals the occasional cameo of musical names as well. Furthermore, featured player Danny DeVito (who also produced) has nothing more than what amounts to be a cameo and doesn’t figure in the major plot thread.
Of course you can’t have a Travolta film without a featured dance number which, in this case reunites him with Thurman in a cute but unimaginative number that won’t make you forget the rug-cutting moments in Saturday Night Fever, Urban Cowboy or Pulp Fiction. The soundtrack is thoroughly laced with a mixture of 1970’s pop tunes and current rap. Closing credits have an amusing sequence of the principals strutting their stuff to rap music.
There was always going to be a little breath holding to see if a new director (F. Gary Gray) and new screenwriter (Peter Steinfeld) could duplicate Get Shorty’s success by Barry Sonnenfeld and Scott Frank respectively. In fact, Be Cool was held back from release in summer, 2004, which is often an ominous sign. The film is hit and miss especially in the first half. The musical performances go on much too long including the Aerosmith concert. A little trimming here and there would have been in order. When it finally hits its stride in the last portion, it coasts to a cute ending. At times the dialogue is downright clever and the plot does become intriguing. The film is reasonably successful in its own right but suffers from the high expectations of the previous film. In fact, when the story is over, it is not too far fetched to imagine Chili and gang making a nostalgic return when he is ready to conquer another phase of entertainment business like sports perhaps? Although Be Cool is a harmless bit of fun, it makes you respect the charms of its predecessor even more.
**1/2 of **** stars mostly for The Rock
Monday, February 21, 2005
OSCAR PREDICTIONS 2004
Here is my annual Oscar picks (2004) and they are earlier than usual because I am going from the gut and seeing how I fare. I have not had the pleasure of seeing some of the acting and writing and tech categories. Apologies for missing out on Vera Drake, Lemony Snicket, Being Julia, Closer, and a couple others. I did see what I think will cop most of the major awards. Here are my picks in BOLD for the major categories. Enjoy the show on Sunday!
PICTURE-MILLION DOLLAR BABY is my heartfelt pick. The Aviator is the prestige pick but I feel momentum swing emotionally.
DIRECTOR-CLINT EASTWOOD should win for moving our souls. Martin Scorsese is deserving for The Aviator but I don' t think this will be his year.
ACTRESS-HILLARY SWANK in Million Dollar Baby proves she is no fluke. I understand Annette Bening for Being Julia and Imelda Staunton for Vera Drake are great but they get edged out.
ACTOR-JAMIE FOXX for Ray, period.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS- CATE BLANCHETT in The Aviator was a key factor in that movie. Virginia Madsen in Sideways was also crucial for that film. There could be a surprise category winner.
SUPPORTING ACTOR-MORGAN FREEMAN gets his due. Thomas Haden Church in Sideways doesn't quite make it.
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND was bold and daring. Hotel Rwanda and The Aviator are strong contenders too.
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-SIDEWAYS was a model of excellence. No competition here.
FOREIGN -THE SEA INSIDE should beat out The Chorus. Where the heck is House of Flying Daggers and Bad Education?
ANIMATED-THE INCREDIBLES, period.
CINEMATOGRAPHY-A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT was breath taking although The Aviator has a good shot.
EDITING-AVIATOR may nudge Million Dollar Baby out.
COSTUME DESIGN-LEMONY SNICKET could win but The Aviator is a distinct possibility.
VISUAL EFFECTS-SPIDERMAN 2 was so good, it ought to win.
ORIGINAL SCORE-FINDING NEVERLAND may get its only award here.
DOCUMENTARY-BORN INTO BROTHELS has been getting kudos but Super Size Me could be the popular upset.
(MOST AWARDS COULD BE MILLION DOLLAR BABY WITH FOUR OSCARS with The Aviator trialing or tying with one major award and the rest technical ones.)
PICTURE-MILLION DOLLAR BABY is my heartfelt pick. The Aviator is the prestige pick but I feel momentum swing emotionally.
DIRECTOR-CLINT EASTWOOD should win for moving our souls. Martin Scorsese is deserving for The Aviator but I don' t think this will be his year.
ACTRESS-HILLARY SWANK in Million Dollar Baby proves she is no fluke. I understand Annette Bening for Being Julia and Imelda Staunton for Vera Drake are great but they get edged out.
ACTOR-JAMIE FOXX for Ray, period.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS- CATE BLANCHETT in The Aviator was a key factor in that movie. Virginia Madsen in Sideways was also crucial for that film. There could be a surprise category winner.
SUPPORTING ACTOR-MORGAN FREEMAN gets his due. Thomas Haden Church in Sideways doesn't quite make it.
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND was bold and daring. Hotel Rwanda and The Aviator are strong contenders too.
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-SIDEWAYS was a model of excellence. No competition here.
FOREIGN -THE SEA INSIDE should beat out The Chorus. Where the heck is House of Flying Daggers and Bad Education?
ANIMATED-THE INCREDIBLES, period.
CINEMATOGRAPHY-A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT was breath taking although The Aviator has a good shot.
EDITING-AVIATOR may nudge Million Dollar Baby out.
COSTUME DESIGN-LEMONY SNICKET could win but The Aviator is a distinct possibility.
VISUAL EFFECTS-SPIDERMAN 2 was so good, it ought to win.
ORIGINAL SCORE-FINDING NEVERLAND may get its only award here.
DOCUMENTARY-BORN INTO BROTHELS has been getting kudos but Super Size Me could be the popular upset.
(MOST AWARDS COULD BE MILLION DOLLAR BABY WITH FOUR OSCARS with The Aviator trialing or tying with one major award and the rest technical ones.)
Thursday, February 17, 2005
The Sea Inside explores humanity
Ramon Sampedro (Javier Bardem) was a man who had his whole life in front of him until a freak accident transformed him into a bed ridden quadriplegic whose lasting wish is to die with dignity. So begins a true story of an exceptional individual whose mission in life is thwarted and aided at various turns in The Sea Inside.
After nearly three decades of living as a physically inept victim of a diving accident, Ramon meets a lawyer who he hopes will help him win a court judgment to allow him death. His only stipulation is that the lawyer be afflicted with a degenerative condition if only to understand his similar plight. The lawyer, Julia (Belen Rueda), is physically crippled, but that does not prevent her from trying to help Ramon. In fact, the married lawyer comes to know her client as an intelligent, witty soul whose only misfortune is his lame body. She grows to love him through conversation and his poetry which will figure prominently as time progresses. At the same time, a local, single mother, Rosa (Lola Duenas), is attracted to Ramon from watching his television interviews. The two women have their own affections for Ramon, and through him, they are enlightened and rediscover their own purpose and feelings. This is a man who wishes to die, but he is clearly in full control of his mental faculties. Ramon has been nursed for years by his brother, sister-in law, and nephew. This is a family that loves and cares for their helpless kin and is torn by the notion that he wants to end his life. As court battles are appealed to the highest level, Ramon must decide if he is to take matters in his own hands and with the help of loved ones.
Director Alejandro Amenabar (The Others) has tackled a story that could have been utterly depressing and claustrophobic in its setting, but, instead, has depicted a compassionate study in dignity and truth. The difficulties in dealing with a controversial subject like euthanasia are dealt with in a well written script by Amenabar and Mateo Gil. In fact, the screenplay addresses the subject by contrasting Ramon’s choice as being his individual right even though he does not begrudge others in similar conditions who wish to live. He does not judge them just as they should not judge him. He even has his own means of escaping his empty existence by living out fantasies that carry him by flight to the beach where his life changed forever. It is the sea that begins and ends the film appropriately enough. The sea took away his life, and it is the sea into which he retreats. In these dreams of fancy, he can walk and even romance an unafflicted Julia. Reality and fantasy meld in ethereal imagery. It is fascinating throughout the film to observe the contrast of his middle aged form with his former, strikingly handsome, younger man. The film utilizes flashback cuts to great effect as it connects these moments. One instant, he is dreaming and the next he is drowning.
Javier Bardem (Before Night Falls, Collateral) is proving to be a chameleon of an actor as he is utterly convincing in his portrayal even in mimicking the warped physical state of Ramon’s body and its gnarled limbs. In any other year, he would rate an Oscar nomination. In fact a case could easily be made in a year deep with great male lead performances that an alternate list of nominees could have included Bardem, Kevin Spacey, Kevin Bacon, Paul Giamatti, and Liam Neeson. As his two female admirers, actresses Rueda and Duenas are quite good.
Although the film can never quite escape the limited theatrical nature of the plot, it does a good job of opening up the scenery and allowing its characters to grow. One may wish to learn more about Julia’s relationship with her husband, and perhaps a little more background on Ramon’s brother would have filled out the story better. There is also the feeling of inevitability given the story’s premise.
Audiences may not agree with the movie’s themes, but the film certainly earns a good deal of respect for its point of view. While some may be turned off, those who are curious about the subject matter or want to understand more about this real life person will find this to be a good character study about a man of conviction and the love that surrounded him. The Sea Inside is in Spanish with English subtitles.
*** of **** stars
After nearly three decades of living as a physically inept victim of a diving accident, Ramon meets a lawyer who he hopes will help him win a court judgment to allow him death. His only stipulation is that the lawyer be afflicted with a degenerative condition if only to understand his similar plight. The lawyer, Julia (Belen Rueda), is physically crippled, but that does not prevent her from trying to help Ramon. In fact, the married lawyer comes to know her client as an intelligent, witty soul whose only misfortune is his lame body. She grows to love him through conversation and his poetry which will figure prominently as time progresses. At the same time, a local, single mother, Rosa (Lola Duenas), is attracted to Ramon from watching his television interviews. The two women have their own affections for Ramon, and through him, they are enlightened and rediscover their own purpose and feelings. This is a man who wishes to die, but he is clearly in full control of his mental faculties. Ramon has been nursed for years by his brother, sister-in law, and nephew. This is a family that loves and cares for their helpless kin and is torn by the notion that he wants to end his life. As court battles are appealed to the highest level, Ramon must decide if he is to take matters in his own hands and with the help of loved ones.
Director Alejandro Amenabar (The Others) has tackled a story that could have been utterly depressing and claustrophobic in its setting, but, instead, has depicted a compassionate study in dignity and truth. The difficulties in dealing with a controversial subject like euthanasia are dealt with in a well written script by Amenabar and Mateo Gil. In fact, the screenplay addresses the subject by contrasting Ramon’s choice as being his individual right even though he does not begrudge others in similar conditions who wish to live. He does not judge them just as they should not judge him. He even has his own means of escaping his empty existence by living out fantasies that carry him by flight to the beach where his life changed forever. It is the sea that begins and ends the film appropriately enough. The sea took away his life, and it is the sea into which he retreats. In these dreams of fancy, he can walk and even romance an unafflicted Julia. Reality and fantasy meld in ethereal imagery. It is fascinating throughout the film to observe the contrast of his middle aged form with his former, strikingly handsome, younger man. The film utilizes flashback cuts to great effect as it connects these moments. One instant, he is dreaming and the next he is drowning.
Javier Bardem (Before Night Falls, Collateral) is proving to be a chameleon of an actor as he is utterly convincing in his portrayal even in mimicking the warped physical state of Ramon’s body and its gnarled limbs. In any other year, he would rate an Oscar nomination. In fact a case could easily be made in a year deep with great male lead performances that an alternate list of nominees could have included Bardem, Kevin Spacey, Kevin Bacon, Paul Giamatti, and Liam Neeson. As his two female admirers, actresses Rueda and Duenas are quite good.
Although the film can never quite escape the limited theatrical nature of the plot, it does a good job of opening up the scenery and allowing its characters to grow. One may wish to learn more about Julia’s relationship with her husband, and perhaps a little more background on Ramon’s brother would have filled out the story better. There is also the feeling of inevitability given the story’s premise.
Audiences may not agree with the movie’s themes, but the film certainly earns a good deal of respect for its point of view. While some may be turned off, those who are curious about the subject matter or want to understand more about this real life person will find this to be a good character study about a man of conviction and the love that surrounded him. The Sea Inside is in Spanish with English subtitles.
*** of **** stars
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
House of Flying Daggers is a colorful adventure
Love is the basis for the visually stunning epic, House of Flying Daggers. This beautifully shot tale of warriors and lovers is the latest from Chinese director, Yimou Zhang (Hero).
Set in 7th Century China as the Tang Dynasty was fading and the leadership was weak, a rebel alliance, House of Flying Daggers, is battling the deputies of the government. Jin, one of those deputies, is sent by his fellow deputy, Leo, to investigate a local brothel for a connection to the traitors. There, he finds Mei, a blind songstress who has a remarkable talent with athleticism and even martial arts acumen. Mei is not who she appears to be, and upon her arrest, she escapes with Jin’s help. It seems that Jin is rebelling too and wants to help the House rebels. Pursued relentlessly by government troops, the pair fight side by side and begin to form a bond and even affection for each other. Mei displays an incredible ability to trade blows and swordplay with the enemy. It’s a pretty amazing feat for a blind woman. As the two are cornered in a bamboo forest by dozens of troops and certain death is about to be dealt, fate intervenes and the truth is revealed setting up a new set of plot dynamics.
Is Mei really the blind daughter of the former leader of the Flying Daggers? Then again, is Jin the real deal or merely pretending to be her ally? And does Mei have a former love whose identity is a secret? If this all sounds like a soap opera, then the storyline belies Zhang’s theatrical background and his penchant for dramas. The film plays like a Greek tragedy. In fact, much of the film has a staged feel to it which is not bad since this is keeping with the style of previous sword epics. The film’s strength lies in strong characters that are in constant emotional and physical conflict. Loyalty and honor are concurrent themes amid a time of turmoil and change.
Zhang paints such a vivid tapestry of cinematic dazzle with his deliberate color schemes; the colors take on a character unto themselves. In fact, the rich visuals seduce the audience into the story. The set design and costumes are brilliant while the camera work is gorgeous. It may be the most beautiful film of the year.
Ziyi Zhang (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon) is very good as the blind girl, a role which requires good acting skills and athleticism. She is very credible in her performance, but it is her martial arts prowess that is phenomenal. Takeshi Kaneshiro as Jin lends a very magnetic male presence. He combines just the right mix of humor, angst and physical work to make his roguish warrior believable. Finally, veteran Andy Lau as the troubled Leo shows more acting range and just enough fighting technique. It is of note that veteran actress Anita Mui was to have a supporting role but died before she could start filming.
It is the action scenes that are the best part of this ambitious story. The highlight is certainly the bamboo forest sequence which melds expert fighting with stunt work, editing, and special effects. Don’t forget the film’s namesake, ‘daggers’, which figure at key junctures in the story with deadly accuracy. Just think of the daggers as a cross between knives and boomerangs and you get the idea.
Although the story falters toward the end, and some hokey acting seems out of place at the conclusion, the only glaring problem with the story is the lack of an overall perspective as to what happened when the House of Flying Daggers clashed with the government troops.
While not quite the perfect love story/action flick one would have hoped for, House of Flying Daggers is a distinct improvement on Zhang’s previous action film, Hero. It is a major accomplishment in telling a classical story with jaw-dropping spectacle.
***1/2 of **** stars
Set in 7th Century China as the Tang Dynasty was fading and the leadership was weak, a rebel alliance, House of Flying Daggers, is battling the deputies of the government. Jin, one of those deputies, is sent by his fellow deputy, Leo, to investigate a local brothel for a connection to the traitors. There, he finds Mei, a blind songstress who has a remarkable talent with athleticism and even martial arts acumen. Mei is not who she appears to be, and upon her arrest, she escapes with Jin’s help. It seems that Jin is rebelling too and wants to help the House rebels. Pursued relentlessly by government troops, the pair fight side by side and begin to form a bond and even affection for each other. Mei displays an incredible ability to trade blows and swordplay with the enemy. It’s a pretty amazing feat for a blind woman. As the two are cornered in a bamboo forest by dozens of troops and certain death is about to be dealt, fate intervenes and the truth is revealed setting up a new set of plot dynamics.
Is Mei really the blind daughter of the former leader of the Flying Daggers? Then again, is Jin the real deal or merely pretending to be her ally? And does Mei have a former love whose identity is a secret? If this all sounds like a soap opera, then the storyline belies Zhang’s theatrical background and his penchant for dramas. The film plays like a Greek tragedy. In fact, much of the film has a staged feel to it which is not bad since this is keeping with the style of previous sword epics. The film’s strength lies in strong characters that are in constant emotional and physical conflict. Loyalty and honor are concurrent themes amid a time of turmoil and change.
Zhang paints such a vivid tapestry of cinematic dazzle with his deliberate color schemes; the colors take on a character unto themselves. In fact, the rich visuals seduce the audience into the story. The set design and costumes are brilliant while the camera work is gorgeous. It may be the most beautiful film of the year.
Ziyi Zhang (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon) is very good as the blind girl, a role which requires good acting skills and athleticism. She is very credible in her performance, but it is her martial arts prowess that is phenomenal. Takeshi Kaneshiro as Jin lends a very magnetic male presence. He combines just the right mix of humor, angst and physical work to make his roguish warrior believable. Finally, veteran Andy Lau as the troubled Leo shows more acting range and just enough fighting technique. It is of note that veteran actress Anita Mui was to have a supporting role but died before she could start filming.
It is the action scenes that are the best part of this ambitious story. The highlight is certainly the bamboo forest sequence which melds expert fighting with stunt work, editing, and special effects. Don’t forget the film’s namesake, ‘daggers’, which figure at key junctures in the story with deadly accuracy. Just think of the daggers as a cross between knives and boomerangs and you get the idea.
Although the story falters toward the end, and some hokey acting seems out of place at the conclusion, the only glaring problem with the story is the lack of an overall perspective as to what happened when the House of Flying Daggers clashed with the government troops.
While not quite the perfect love story/action flick one would have hoped for, House of Flying Daggers is a distinct improvement on Zhang’s previous action film, Hero. It is a major accomplishment in telling a classical story with jaw-dropping spectacle.
***1/2 of **** stars
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Million Dollar Baby is rich in emotion
20 January 2005
Clint Eastwood's latest directorial effort, Million Dollar Baby, is a drama that starts in the boxing ring and ends in the heart. It is a poignant tale about hope, failure, and old ghosts. It is also the best film Eastwood has ever made.Frankie Dunn is an aging owner of a boxing gym who trains a boxer to the brink of a title fight only to miss a timely opportunity. When an aspiring female boxer, Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank), approaches him for training, he rebuffs her as just a girl boxer and too old at 31 years. Maggie is a waitress whose desire to fight is her ultimate dream as she attempts to make something of her life that has been a rural, backwoods existence. Dunn's best friend, Eddie Dupris (Morgan Freeman), takes a liking to the boxer's heart and work ethic, and eventually the two win Frankie over. Frankie's rules are to never question him in training and to always protect oneself in the ring. A slow but gradual learning curve ensues as Maggie becomes a polished boxer who displays a stunning record of wins, mostly by knockouts. Meanwhile, Frankie takes a liking to his protégé and begins to become attached to her. Their relationship is a contrast to his personal demons. His soul struggles with doubt and guilt as he attends church with constant regularity and the letters he sends to his estranged daughter are always returned unopened.Maggie becomes the focal point of Frankie's world as she attracts boxing matches from top competition which leads to a possible championship in Las Vegas. It is at this point that the story takes a path that is unexpected and startling. It is here that two lives are changed forever and boxing seems trivial in light of subsequent events. And it is here that hard choices and decisions are made.Based on a group of stories by the late F. X. Toole, Paul Haggis's screenplay is a beauty, filled with memorable dialogue and a story arc that takes its audience on a journey of humanity. The leading cast makes the most of the material. The scenes between Eastwood and Freeman ring true and validate two characters that go way back. Most actors pale in comparison to these two consummate pros at the height of their powers. Morgan Freeman, whose character narrates the story much as he did in Shawshank Redemption, lends strong support. Hilary Swank, who won an Oscar in Boys Don't Cry, is outstanding in a role which required rigorous training while etching a vivid character whose life takes a dramatic shift. Eastwood has always been a solid director and producer. While his early films took advantage of his tough guy image and did not require much thespian range, he filled those roles quite successfully. In recent years, he has grown as director and as a performer by allowing himself some choice dramatic projects (Unforgiven and Bridges of Madison County). But this is without a doubt his greatest piece of acting. He has allowed himself to let go and get to his inner self, and the results are touching and impressive.As a director, Eastwood has proved with films like Unforgiven and Mystic River that he has a strong, disciplined vision. His work here is most assured and it is very evident that he has matched if not surpassed his previous highs. He is patient and methodical in how he adds layers upon layers of dialogue and scenes to develop his characters into full blooded people. When Maggie approaches Frankie at first, he has no interest in training her, but you know these two will somehow end up working together. Eastwood does not go for easy clichés as she tries to win him over with help from Eddie. Even when he uses tried and true formulas, he does them well. And when Frankie decides to give her a chance, the journey is earned believably. Eastwood's direction is economic and lean. In fact, the pacing is deliberate and there is really no extraneous material (as in earlier good efforts like The Outlaw Josie Wales) to cut or trim. It may be the best job of directing this past year.Technical categories are strong particularly in cinematography with the darkly lit scenes that add so much to the mood and texture of the moment, and the editing which lends much urgency to the fights and offers unique transitions in the dramatic scenes. (It is interesting that as Maggie ascends to bigger fight venues, the crowds are more affluent and better dressed by the costume department.) Eastwood does a pretty good job of composing some eloquent music. What a multitalented threat he is becoming! There is not much to quibble with this film. Sure, Maggie's white trash family is a bit too stereotypical and one dimensional. We don't get to the bottom of Frankie's family background as much as we'd like. Some of the fights are bloody and violent but not particularly gratuitous or self serving as in Raging Bull.What ostensibly starts out as a pretty darn good boxing story becomes transformed into a powerful human drama that eschews even its fighting pedigree. Boxing is just a pretext for a much larger canvas. There is the drama of individual struggle and achievement, yet the story aims much higher and raises the ante in tone and direction in ways the audience can't quite anticipate. Eastwood challenges himself and the audience with a story that is not easy and pat. It is a movie that dares to go to areas that are controversial and gut wrenching. While audiences may have a tough time sitting through Million Dollar Baby a second or third time, they sure as hell will be grateful they did just once.**** out of ****
Clint Eastwood's latest directorial effort, Million Dollar Baby, is a drama that starts in the boxing ring and ends in the heart. It is a poignant tale about hope, failure, and old ghosts. It is also the best film Eastwood has ever made.Frankie Dunn is an aging owner of a boxing gym who trains a boxer to the brink of a title fight only to miss a timely opportunity. When an aspiring female boxer, Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank), approaches him for training, he rebuffs her as just a girl boxer and too old at 31 years. Maggie is a waitress whose desire to fight is her ultimate dream as she attempts to make something of her life that has been a rural, backwoods existence. Dunn's best friend, Eddie Dupris (Morgan Freeman), takes a liking to the boxer's heart and work ethic, and eventually the two win Frankie over. Frankie's rules are to never question him in training and to always protect oneself in the ring. A slow but gradual learning curve ensues as Maggie becomes a polished boxer who displays a stunning record of wins, mostly by knockouts. Meanwhile, Frankie takes a liking to his protégé and begins to become attached to her. Their relationship is a contrast to his personal demons. His soul struggles with doubt and guilt as he attends church with constant regularity and the letters he sends to his estranged daughter are always returned unopened.Maggie becomes the focal point of Frankie's world as she attracts boxing matches from top competition which leads to a possible championship in Las Vegas. It is at this point that the story takes a path that is unexpected and startling. It is here that two lives are changed forever and boxing seems trivial in light of subsequent events. And it is here that hard choices and decisions are made.Based on a group of stories by the late F. X. Toole, Paul Haggis's screenplay is a beauty, filled with memorable dialogue and a story arc that takes its audience on a journey of humanity. The leading cast makes the most of the material. The scenes between Eastwood and Freeman ring true and validate two characters that go way back. Most actors pale in comparison to these two consummate pros at the height of their powers. Morgan Freeman, whose character narrates the story much as he did in Shawshank Redemption, lends strong support. Hilary Swank, who won an Oscar in Boys Don't Cry, is outstanding in a role which required rigorous training while etching a vivid character whose life takes a dramatic shift. Eastwood has always been a solid director and producer. While his early films took advantage of his tough guy image and did not require much thespian range, he filled those roles quite successfully. In recent years, he has grown as director and as a performer by allowing himself some choice dramatic projects (Unforgiven and Bridges of Madison County). But this is without a doubt his greatest piece of acting. He has allowed himself to let go and get to his inner self, and the results are touching and impressive.As a director, Eastwood has proved with films like Unforgiven and Mystic River that he has a strong, disciplined vision. His work here is most assured and it is very evident that he has matched if not surpassed his previous highs. He is patient and methodical in how he adds layers upon layers of dialogue and scenes to develop his characters into full blooded people. When Maggie approaches Frankie at first, he has no interest in training her, but you know these two will somehow end up working together. Eastwood does not go for easy clichés as she tries to win him over with help from Eddie. Even when he uses tried and true formulas, he does them well. And when Frankie decides to give her a chance, the journey is earned believably. Eastwood's direction is economic and lean. In fact, the pacing is deliberate and there is really no extraneous material (as in earlier good efforts like The Outlaw Josie Wales) to cut or trim. It may be the best job of directing this past year.Technical categories are strong particularly in cinematography with the darkly lit scenes that add so much to the mood and texture of the moment, and the editing which lends much urgency to the fights and offers unique transitions in the dramatic scenes. (It is interesting that as Maggie ascends to bigger fight venues, the crowds are more affluent and better dressed by the costume department.) Eastwood does a pretty good job of composing some eloquent music. What a multitalented threat he is becoming! There is not much to quibble with this film. Sure, Maggie's white trash family is a bit too stereotypical and one dimensional. We don't get to the bottom of Frankie's family background as much as we'd like. Some of the fights are bloody and violent but not particularly gratuitous or self serving as in Raging Bull.What ostensibly starts out as a pretty darn good boxing story becomes transformed into a powerful human drama that eschews even its fighting pedigree. Boxing is just a pretext for a much larger canvas. There is the drama of individual struggle and achievement, yet the story aims much higher and raises the ante in tone and direction in ways the audience can't quite anticipate. Eastwood challenges himself and the audience with a story that is not easy and pat. It is a movie that dares to go to areas that are controversial and gut wrenching. While audiences may have a tough time sitting through Million Dollar Baby a second or third time, they sure as hell will be grateful they did just once.**** out of ****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)