The Oscar winning shorts headlining inventor Wallace and his loyal dog Gromit are expanded to a feature film in Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. The results are a splendidly entertaining 85 minutes of fun, excitement, comedy, and escapism that put most live-action films to shame.
Wallace and his canine pal, Gromit, have a thriving business as Anti-Pestos who hunt down and capture rabbits that are eating the vegetable yards of the neighborhood. Meanwhile, Wallace, who is constantly inventing new contraptions and devices, is experimenting with a mind altering machine that will brainwash a rabbit into not wanting veggies. But of course an accident occurs and later, under the full moon, a strange series of attacks by a large, mysterious creature ravages the vegetable gardens of many a neighbor. Meanwhile, Wallace is attracted to a woman, Lady Tottington, whose vegetables are part of the annual Great Vegetable Convention. At the same time, a lecherous man named Victor Quartermaine is on the make for her riches. As the vegetable competition is ready to begin, all the entrants are threatened by the giant veggie eating creature. Who is this strange creature and how can it be stopped? It falls on the loyal, resourceful Gromit to try to save the day even as danger threatens Wallace and the vegetable gathering.
Wallace and Gromit remind you of comedians Penn and Teller, where one is a straight man to the other’s silent pantomimes. Speaking of Gromit, his character clearly pays homage to the silent characters of Chaplin, Keaton, and even France’s Monsieur Hulot. Voice work by Ralph Fiennes (The Constant Gardener) and Helena Bonham Carter (The Corpse Bride) as Victor and Lady Tottington respectively is quite convincing. Although the characters are made from claymation, they take on a life of their own, and pretty soon you forget that you are watching clay and instead care about the characters as if they were real people.
Clever puns aside, and there are many of them that whiz by at a steady clip, the sight gags are delightfully amusing and inventive. The humorous situations are never stale or run out of steam but are consistently inspired. The title is a giveaway to the plot as it alludes to the werewolf mythology and the full moon. The transformation that serves as a major plot point is played for laughs and not horrific, Wolfman inspired though it may be. The identity of the creature is a playful parody of every werewolf movie ever made with a nod to such staples as King Kong and Frankenstein. The filmmakers even throw a couple of red herrings to keep you guessing until the big revelation. There are scary moments however, without needing to be graphic or terrifying. All this is from a G-rated film?
The pacing is very good and the mood goes from simple comedy to suspense to a hint of romance. Not only is the animation effective with its expressive characters emoting believably, but the overall production is strong even in areas one might not expect in an animated film, namely the cinematography and editing. Even the rousing musical score done by committee is heroically inventive and inspired.
Made by the creative team (Directors Steve Box and Nick Park) which scored big on the recent Chicken Run, ‘Wallace and Gromit’ soars even higher in terms of overall excellence. It works for kids to be sure as the screen is filled with a smorgasbord of colorful and imaginative sets, characters, and effects. What is special is how the film plays for adults in equal measure as the simple storyline is played straight and the jokes are rapid and clever. A great deal of care and time (five years) went into making every scene work, no small feat. This marks another high point this past year in animation as the art form has enjoyed a surge in popularity and creativity. Not only is Wallace and Gromit one of the best animated films of the year (surely giving The Corpse Bride a run for its money), it’s one of the best films of 2005. So when is the sequel coming out?
***1/2 of **** stars
Vertigo
Vertigo
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Life as a Math PROOF
Director John Madden and Gwyneth Paltrow reteam (Shakespeare in Love) in this film adaptation of the multi-award winning play, Proof. This tale of the bond between a mathematics student and her brilliant but mentally ill father is touching at times but can be a bit of a downer despite some strong performances by a terrific cast.
Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) lives with her father, Robert (Anthony Hopkins), a brilliant mathematician whose psychological bouts with mental illness undermine a genius of scholarly writings and formulas. The story begins as her father has died recently, and she sees herself talking to him and fantasizing about their past relationship. Pleasant memories give way to painful ones as her father begins to slip away from sanity. Catherine, herself, is a bright mathematics student who is befriended by one of her father’s pupils, Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal). Enter her sister, Claire, (Hope Davis) whose compulsively organized, sanitized lifestyle is counterpoint to the bohemian spirit of her troubled sister. As Claire attempts to convince Catherine to move back to New York and leave the house that their father occupied, strong bonds are tested and old wounds exposed. Meanwhile, Hal has been studying Robert’s journals and eventually stumbles onto a potentially significant discovery courtesy of Catherine. This revelation has serious scholarly implications and generates a potential controversy that intertwines Catherine’s self doubts about her own sanity with her father’s memory. The question remains, “Like father, like daughter?”
It doesn’t quite shed its stagy and talky origins but the basic material seems intact as adapted by Rebecca Miller and David Auburn from his Tony Award and Pulitzer Prize winning play. Cinematically, the film flashes back and forth over a period of a few years to depict Robert’s decline and its effect on the emotionally distraught Catherine. Time is periodically fragmented and memories are linked in an almost stream of consciousness. It is at times hard to distinguish what is reality or a memory or an illusion, and that is perhaps the point of the story to illustrate Catherine’s uncertainties and her own little madness. However, this also serves to confuse the audience.
The film tries to tackle the issue of ‘what is genius’ and ‘what is mental illness’ as if the two might be connected. On the former, we have to take it on faith, and on the latter, there is barely any clinical or medical exposition on Robert’s condition. Are the filmmakers saying that Robert’s genius led to his madness or that it may do the same to Catherine? As an audience, we begin to doubt her sanity and even her mathematic talents. The final flashback scenes with Hopkins as he loses his sanity are heartbreaking but not as powerful as they could have been. It is just not as poignant or powerful when compared to the inspired Shakespeare in Love, granted, a more romantic and comedic film story. Even Catherine’s mad dash at the very end should be emotionally resounding and even uplifting. Rather, it only gives the semblance of hope and an uncertain future for its protagonist.
For Paltrow, this part must have had resonance having just lost her father, producer-director Bruce Paltrow. She is the best thing about this film with her convincing depiction of an emotionally spent daughter who has a guilt ridden conscience. This performance confirms that her Oscar for Shakespeare in Love was no fluke. Hopkins is always fun to watch even though his screen time is rather limited in just flashbacks. Gyllenhaal is pretty good as her friend and confidant. (His career is coming full swing this year with two more high profile films, Brokeback Mountain and Jarhead). Hope Davis (American Splendor, About Schmidt) doesn’t have much to work with in her character, but she proves to be an always dependable supporting actress with each succeeding film.
There will be audiences who note the similarities between this story and A Beautiful Mind. The subject matter may be familiar, but that’s where the connection ends. A Beautiful Mind was adapted from a book and was done with great flamboyance and inspiration. In Proof, we have a more confined space to work from and an even more limited narrative that essentially cannot free itself of its claustrophobic setting. It’s a somewhat downbeat story with good performances especially by Paltrow. For audiences looking for thoughtful introspection on the correlation of genius and mental illness as it affects and perhaps perpetuates through a family, then this is worth your attention. Others will respect the talents involved but may wonder by the end what the fuss was about.
*** of **** stars (mainly for the acting)
Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) lives with her father, Robert (Anthony Hopkins), a brilliant mathematician whose psychological bouts with mental illness undermine a genius of scholarly writings and formulas. The story begins as her father has died recently, and she sees herself talking to him and fantasizing about their past relationship. Pleasant memories give way to painful ones as her father begins to slip away from sanity. Catherine, herself, is a bright mathematics student who is befriended by one of her father’s pupils, Hal (Jake Gyllenhaal). Enter her sister, Claire, (Hope Davis) whose compulsively organized, sanitized lifestyle is counterpoint to the bohemian spirit of her troubled sister. As Claire attempts to convince Catherine to move back to New York and leave the house that their father occupied, strong bonds are tested and old wounds exposed. Meanwhile, Hal has been studying Robert’s journals and eventually stumbles onto a potentially significant discovery courtesy of Catherine. This revelation has serious scholarly implications and generates a potential controversy that intertwines Catherine’s self doubts about her own sanity with her father’s memory. The question remains, “Like father, like daughter?”
It doesn’t quite shed its stagy and talky origins but the basic material seems intact as adapted by Rebecca Miller and David Auburn from his Tony Award and Pulitzer Prize winning play. Cinematically, the film flashes back and forth over a period of a few years to depict Robert’s decline and its effect on the emotionally distraught Catherine. Time is periodically fragmented and memories are linked in an almost stream of consciousness. It is at times hard to distinguish what is reality or a memory or an illusion, and that is perhaps the point of the story to illustrate Catherine’s uncertainties and her own little madness. However, this also serves to confuse the audience.
The film tries to tackle the issue of ‘what is genius’ and ‘what is mental illness’ as if the two might be connected. On the former, we have to take it on faith, and on the latter, there is barely any clinical or medical exposition on Robert’s condition. Are the filmmakers saying that Robert’s genius led to his madness or that it may do the same to Catherine? As an audience, we begin to doubt her sanity and even her mathematic talents. The final flashback scenes with Hopkins as he loses his sanity are heartbreaking but not as powerful as they could have been. It is just not as poignant or powerful when compared to the inspired Shakespeare in Love, granted, a more romantic and comedic film story. Even Catherine’s mad dash at the very end should be emotionally resounding and even uplifting. Rather, it only gives the semblance of hope and an uncertain future for its protagonist.
For Paltrow, this part must have had resonance having just lost her father, producer-director Bruce Paltrow. She is the best thing about this film with her convincing depiction of an emotionally spent daughter who has a guilt ridden conscience. This performance confirms that her Oscar for Shakespeare in Love was no fluke. Hopkins is always fun to watch even though his screen time is rather limited in just flashbacks. Gyllenhaal is pretty good as her friend and confidant. (His career is coming full swing this year with two more high profile films, Brokeback Mountain and Jarhead). Hope Davis (American Splendor, About Schmidt) doesn’t have much to work with in her character, but she proves to be an always dependable supporting actress with each succeeding film.
There will be audiences who note the similarities between this story and A Beautiful Mind. The subject matter may be familiar, but that’s where the connection ends. A Beautiful Mind was adapted from a book and was done with great flamboyance and inspiration. In Proof, we have a more confined space to work from and an even more limited narrative that essentially cannot free itself of its claustrophobic setting. It’s a somewhat downbeat story with good performances especially by Paltrow. For audiences looking for thoughtful introspection on the correlation of genius and mental illness as it affects and perhaps perpetuates through a family, then this is worth your attention. Others will respect the talents involved but may wonder by the end what the fuss was about.
*** of **** stars (mainly for the acting)
Antique Show is a Pleasant Visit
Recently, I attended the Antique Show in Gaithersburg, MD which features older furniture, jewelry, and countless collectibles from around the region. An added feature to these items for sale is the appearance of a few noteworthy film and television stars of the past. This time it was Anson Williams and Donnie Most who were prominent supporting players in the 1970’s sitcom Happy Days. Among the other guests was Marta Kristen who played Judy Robinson, the older daughter in the 1960’s scifi cult classic Lost in Space, a favorite from my childhood. Her striking features stood out and she was such a sweet person who exuded good vibes. I asked if she was doing any current acting and she said that she was pretty much taking a vacation and returning to take care of her family. She did say she had done numerous commercial spots in the past year. It was a pleasure to meet her.
THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN is Naughty Fun
Steve Carell has been a fixture on Comedy Central for years and had scene stealing minor roles in feature films like Anchorman and Bruce Almighty, but with his first starring role as The 40 Year Old Virgin, he has struck pay dirt. Although crude in its humor and at times graphic in its display of sexual conduct, the film has a core story that elevates it above most gross out comedies and does keep the funny lines coming fast enough to amuse most.
Andy Stitzer, a painfully shy 40 year old, works as a service tech at an electronic entertainment showroom. He is friends with three salesmen who soon find during a poker game that Andy is a virgin, never having had sex with a woman before. It seems Andy never got around to that experience although his attempts are hilariously recalled. Because Andy is humiliated and embarrassed at the barbs and jokes at his expense, his buddies band together to help their fledgling. The aid comes in the forms of speed dating, roaming the singles bars, hitting on book store clerks, and propositioning the showroom’s customers where Andy meets an attractive woman, Trish (Catherine Keener), a single mother who has a small business. The two instantly hit it off, but when it comes time to consummate the relationship, things go awry and Andy becomes more despondent when he cannot bear to reveal his deep secret to the woman he loves. It’s time for a momentous decision in Andy’s life.
Carell co produced and stars in what is his pet project. Judd Apatow (The Larry Sanders Show) directs the script he cowrote with Carell. True, some of the jokes crash and burn badly or misfire and fizzle, but enough keeps coming to raise some good roaring fun. As Andy, Carell plays an everyman kind of role, and his friends who on surface seem like chauvinistic frat boys, do care and come to his aid in an endearing spirit. He is so adept at the nuances and exaggerated movements of physical comedy that he needs to exploit them further (as he will in the big screen remake of the TV spy show, Get Smart). Among the numerous scenes, the standout and most talked about one is the infamous hair removal at a waxing clinic where Andy attempts to make himself more physically appealing. The results are disastrous, and it is well known that Carell performed the scene for real and suffered for his ‘art’. Catherine Keener is a breath of fresh air and quite appealing in her realistic role of a single mother looking for love in the most unlikely of places. The relationship between Trish and Andy develops earnestly and serves to anchor the sillier aspects of the storyline. And there is silly aplenty with some outrageous lines of dialogue and vulgar asides. In some ways, this is about a man who finds his own sense of manhood and maturity after being a boy for a long time. There are subplots involving each of the guys that are amusing but don’t really add anything to the story. Also good is the developing relationship Andy has with Trish’s daughter. The final scene is pretty nutty and clever as the credits roll.
On the surface, this film would appear to have all the ingredients for an over-the-top comedy like Animal House or American Pie. Indeed, there are a couple of scenes that are quite sexually explicit. It takes its R rating seriously. Don’t be misled. This is not a one note comedy but rather a romantic tale. At its heart, it has a well intentioned theme of longing and frustration with some genuine compassion. If you go in knowing you may be grossed out at times but still induced to laughter, then that pretty much sums up the appeal of this energetic film. In a star making turn, Carell is one to watch for quite some time.
*** of **** stars
Andy Stitzer, a painfully shy 40 year old, works as a service tech at an electronic entertainment showroom. He is friends with three salesmen who soon find during a poker game that Andy is a virgin, never having had sex with a woman before. It seems Andy never got around to that experience although his attempts are hilariously recalled. Because Andy is humiliated and embarrassed at the barbs and jokes at his expense, his buddies band together to help their fledgling. The aid comes in the forms of speed dating, roaming the singles bars, hitting on book store clerks, and propositioning the showroom’s customers where Andy meets an attractive woman, Trish (Catherine Keener), a single mother who has a small business. The two instantly hit it off, but when it comes time to consummate the relationship, things go awry and Andy becomes more despondent when he cannot bear to reveal his deep secret to the woman he loves. It’s time for a momentous decision in Andy’s life.
Carell co produced and stars in what is his pet project. Judd Apatow (The Larry Sanders Show) directs the script he cowrote with Carell. True, some of the jokes crash and burn badly or misfire and fizzle, but enough keeps coming to raise some good roaring fun. As Andy, Carell plays an everyman kind of role, and his friends who on surface seem like chauvinistic frat boys, do care and come to his aid in an endearing spirit. He is so adept at the nuances and exaggerated movements of physical comedy that he needs to exploit them further (as he will in the big screen remake of the TV spy show, Get Smart). Among the numerous scenes, the standout and most talked about one is the infamous hair removal at a waxing clinic where Andy attempts to make himself more physically appealing. The results are disastrous, and it is well known that Carell performed the scene for real and suffered for his ‘art’. Catherine Keener is a breath of fresh air and quite appealing in her realistic role of a single mother looking for love in the most unlikely of places. The relationship between Trish and Andy develops earnestly and serves to anchor the sillier aspects of the storyline. And there is silly aplenty with some outrageous lines of dialogue and vulgar asides. In some ways, this is about a man who finds his own sense of manhood and maturity after being a boy for a long time. There are subplots involving each of the guys that are amusing but don’t really add anything to the story. Also good is the developing relationship Andy has with Trish’s daughter. The final scene is pretty nutty and clever as the credits roll.
On the surface, this film would appear to have all the ingredients for an over-the-top comedy like Animal House or American Pie. Indeed, there are a couple of scenes that are quite sexually explicit. It takes its R rating seriously. Don’t be misled. This is not a one note comedy but rather a romantic tale. At its heart, it has a well intentioned theme of longing and frustration with some genuine compassion. If you go in knowing you may be grossed out at times but still induced to laughter, then that pretty much sums up the appeal of this energetic film. In a star making turn, Carell is one to watch for quite some time.
*** of **** stars
A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE Disturbs the Senses
This is not a pleasant film. It is about the nature of violence and how humans are forced into violence and its consequences. Master of visceral angst, David Cronenberg, tackles the subject of the present haunted by the past in small town America in A History of Violence. Although its subject matter is disturbing and the visuals are unnerving, it boasts some of the best acting in any film this year and is the most accomplished of Cronenberg’s cinematic canon.
Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a family man who runs a quiet diner in a small town and has the idyllic life of husband to a beautiful, loving wife, Edie (Maria Bello), and father to an adolescent son, Jack (Ashton Holmes), and younger daughter, Sarah (Heidi Hayes). One fateful day a pair of serial criminals barges into the diner looking for trouble in the worst way, and Tom must protect his patrons and staff. What transpires is a remarkable display of self defense and marksmanship as Tom becomes a local hero for his bravery. Soon after, a mysterious, black car begins to stalk Tom and his family at his diner and home. A hardened looking man named Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) approaches Tom. It seems Tom’s notoriety in the media has attracted Fogarty’s attention leading him to believe Tom is not who he appears to be but rather a man named Joey with a very dark, violent past. Years ago, this Joey had run from the mob after causing a lot of trouble and mutilating one of Fogarty’s eyes. The uneasy tension bubbles over when Fogarty and his men confront Tom at his home as his family watches in terror. What happens then and afterwards leads to traumatic discovery and the reevaluation of relationships that culminates full circle at a mobster’s mansion in Philadelphia.
Adapted by Josh Olson from the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke, director Cronenberg displays a sure hand in his scenes of conflict whether they are emotional or violent. How ironic that the Canadian born director comments on the violence in the U.S. He does a nice job of setting up the scenes and characters methodically as we first see a loving family amid an innocent town. Subsequently, an ominous atmosphere of foreboding hangs over the rest of the film. There are some terrific set pieces that culminate in startling violence, and the confrontation at Tom’s house is quite memorable and results in a moment of truth. Let it be said that the violence is organic. It grows out of necessity and is carried out brutally and swiftly. The scenes have a lingering trauma on the characters and the audience. The visuals are stark and powerful by cinematographer Peter Suschitzky with a brooding score by Howard Shore (ironically a veteran scorer of pervious Cronenberg films and Mortensen’s Lord of the Rings trilogy). In fact the film, with its small, peaceful town contrasted with an evil menace, feels like a David Lynch film, and is thematically very much akin to Blue Velvet or Twin Peaks.
Ed Harris makes a grand entrance early on and he grabs this juicy role and never lets go. It is certainly one of his finest performances. William Hurt makes you realize just how talented an actor he is in the relatively short but brilliant turn as a mobster from the past with an agenda. But it is lead actor Viggo Mortensen who shines as the reluctant hero. He balances just the right amount of paradoxical innocence and cunning. He is a man about to peer over the precipice and lose everything he has. His brooding, quiet but strong avenger is constantly riveting. Maria Bello is quite touching as the affected wife and mother who is confronted by fear and uncertainty. Even Stephen McHattie registers strongly as one of the baddies (very reminiscent of the scum in Natural Born Killers) at the beginning.
Some directors are accused of making movies of interminable length. Not so with Cronenberg as he may be accused of being too economic and concise. While the pacing is tightly edited for maximum impact, some relationships needed to be fleshed out more. During the course of the story, there are two graphic displays of sex between Tom and Edie (one playful and the other angry) which serve as emotional counterpoints to their relationship. We need to understand what is going on in Edie’s mind and how she faces the future with her family. While there is a promising development of the early bonding between Tom and his introverted son Jack, we want more exposition of Jack as he goes from harassed school kid to a coming of age. We just needed a bit more character development, but what we do have is pretty thought provoking and unforgettable. The final scene is memorable.
A far cry from his notorious horror films, this film delves into the true nature of self and identity. This is Cronenberg’s most accessible film since The Fly and The Dead Zone. While his early horror films like Scanners and Videodrome dealt with physical transformation, this film deals with metaphysical transformation. He comes dangerously close to his earlier, notorious cult film, Crash (not to be confused with Paul Haggis’ current film), another film about human behavior dealing with psychological change. His films often deal with ugly, sordid truths and secrets that lie beneath what is perceived superficially. A fascinating study and exploration of human behavior under the most extreme duress, A History of Violence is an intelligent, brutal gem of a film not for all tastes, but for those willing to peer on the other side of sanity and complacency, it’s a dark slice of unsavory life.
***1/2 of **** stars
Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a family man who runs a quiet diner in a small town and has the idyllic life of husband to a beautiful, loving wife, Edie (Maria Bello), and father to an adolescent son, Jack (Ashton Holmes), and younger daughter, Sarah (Heidi Hayes). One fateful day a pair of serial criminals barges into the diner looking for trouble in the worst way, and Tom must protect his patrons and staff. What transpires is a remarkable display of self defense and marksmanship as Tom becomes a local hero for his bravery. Soon after, a mysterious, black car begins to stalk Tom and his family at his diner and home. A hardened looking man named Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) approaches Tom. It seems Tom’s notoriety in the media has attracted Fogarty’s attention leading him to believe Tom is not who he appears to be but rather a man named Joey with a very dark, violent past. Years ago, this Joey had run from the mob after causing a lot of trouble and mutilating one of Fogarty’s eyes. The uneasy tension bubbles over when Fogarty and his men confront Tom at his home as his family watches in terror. What happens then and afterwards leads to traumatic discovery and the reevaluation of relationships that culminates full circle at a mobster’s mansion in Philadelphia.
Adapted by Josh Olson from the graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke, director Cronenberg displays a sure hand in his scenes of conflict whether they are emotional or violent. How ironic that the Canadian born director comments on the violence in the U.S. He does a nice job of setting up the scenes and characters methodically as we first see a loving family amid an innocent town. Subsequently, an ominous atmosphere of foreboding hangs over the rest of the film. There are some terrific set pieces that culminate in startling violence, and the confrontation at Tom’s house is quite memorable and results in a moment of truth. Let it be said that the violence is organic. It grows out of necessity and is carried out brutally and swiftly. The scenes have a lingering trauma on the characters and the audience. The visuals are stark and powerful by cinematographer Peter Suschitzky with a brooding score by Howard Shore (ironically a veteran scorer of pervious Cronenberg films and Mortensen’s Lord of the Rings trilogy). In fact the film, with its small, peaceful town contrasted with an evil menace, feels like a David Lynch film, and is thematically very much akin to Blue Velvet or Twin Peaks.
Ed Harris makes a grand entrance early on and he grabs this juicy role and never lets go. It is certainly one of his finest performances. William Hurt makes you realize just how talented an actor he is in the relatively short but brilliant turn as a mobster from the past with an agenda. But it is lead actor Viggo Mortensen who shines as the reluctant hero. He balances just the right amount of paradoxical innocence and cunning. He is a man about to peer over the precipice and lose everything he has. His brooding, quiet but strong avenger is constantly riveting. Maria Bello is quite touching as the affected wife and mother who is confronted by fear and uncertainty. Even Stephen McHattie registers strongly as one of the baddies (very reminiscent of the scum in Natural Born Killers) at the beginning.
Some directors are accused of making movies of interminable length. Not so with Cronenberg as he may be accused of being too economic and concise. While the pacing is tightly edited for maximum impact, some relationships needed to be fleshed out more. During the course of the story, there are two graphic displays of sex between Tom and Edie (one playful and the other angry) which serve as emotional counterpoints to their relationship. We need to understand what is going on in Edie’s mind and how she faces the future with her family. While there is a promising development of the early bonding between Tom and his introverted son Jack, we want more exposition of Jack as he goes from harassed school kid to a coming of age. We just needed a bit more character development, but what we do have is pretty thought provoking and unforgettable. The final scene is memorable.
A far cry from his notorious horror films, this film delves into the true nature of self and identity. This is Cronenberg’s most accessible film since The Fly and The Dead Zone. While his early horror films like Scanners and Videodrome dealt with physical transformation, this film deals with metaphysical transformation. He comes dangerously close to his earlier, notorious cult film, Crash (not to be confused with Paul Haggis’ current film), another film about human behavior dealing with psychological change. His films often deal with ugly, sordid truths and secrets that lie beneath what is perceived superficially. A fascinating study and exploration of human behavior under the most extreme duress, A History of Violence is an intelligent, brutal gem of a film not for all tastes, but for those willing to peer on the other side of sanity and complacency, it’s a dark slice of unsavory life.
***1/2 of **** stars
Monday, September 26, 2005
Real Emotions Breathe Life in THE CORPSE BRIDE
Don’t let the creepy title of this animated, musical tale throw you off. In the tradition of other excellent, animated features of recent years, The Corpse Bride will surely rank as one of the best. Granted, this kind of film may not be for all tastes, but if you can get past the title and are game for a wondrous, haunting world of fantasy and love, then this is your meal ticket.
Victor and his parents meet Victoria and her family to attend a wedding rehearsal. Unbeknownst to Victor’s family, it seems Victoria’s parents are broke and desperately need the marriage to secure their future. Yet, marriage is new to the nervous Victor, and when he gets jittery at the church, he runs off and into the woods to collect his thoughts. There, he jokingly recites his wedding vows and slips his wedding band on a finger shaped piece of what appears to be wood. The next thing he knows, the wooden finger is a real finger belonging to a former bride, and she has sprung ‘alive’ to his offer of marriage. As Victor reels in horror and confusion at his ‘corpse bride’, he is whisked away to another world of people who have died. While the corpse bride is partly decomposed, she retains much of her former beauty. Yet others in this strange land are mere skeletons and rotted flesh. It turns out that the corpse bride was to be married, but her groom had evil plans for her. She has been waiting for her true love ever since her demise. Meanwhile, Victoria’s parents are approached by a mysterious, handsome suitor who wants to marry Victoria. Victor must make a fateful decision and choose between the two brides even as the dead descend on the land of the living for a wedding ceremony like none other. One groom and two brides-what to do?
This is Tim Burton’s latest foray into stop motion animation, and he and Mike Johnson direct with economy from a relatively simple screenplay by John August, Pamela Pettler, and Caroline Thompson. The characters, especially Victor and the corpse bride, are well etched and create an emotional bond with the audience. Although we want Victor to marry his love Victoria, we grow to feel sympathy and attachment to the corpse bride as well. As for the images of the dead, Burton and company do a delightful job of making what, on the outset, could be grotesque and turning them into energized, playful souls. There is a terrific Peter Lorre homage with a worm who keeps popping in and out of the bride’s eye socket. After a short time, the skeletal limbs and discolored dead no longer seem frightening or gross. Ironically the most colorful sequences involve the world of the dead while the living are painted in austere, lifeless mutes of gray.
Much of the production team are veterans of other Burton films. Longtime collaborator Danny Elfman again provides an atmospheric score and a handful of nifty, little songs to move things along. Even the voices of the principals are Burton alumni, Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter (Burton’s significant other). Give Depp credit for voicing a British sounding character convincingly while others like Emily Watson, Albert Finney, Christopher Lee and Tracey Ullman, to name a few, are quite effective at bringing their figures to life. It’s a testament to Burton’s imaginative appeal that twice the usual number of major acting talents contributed to this work.
For all those who loved Burton’s earlier produced efforts, The Nightmare Before Christmas (whose ghoulish nature is quite similar) and James and the Giant Peach, this is a worthy followup. The animation itself is virtually seamless, and the characters and figures move as in real life. It is a far cry from the Rankin-Bass Christmas specials of the 1960’s. The set designs and costumes are very much gothic in style. It seems that Burton is drawing from his own films or is perpetuating his influences as evidenced in his previous films like Beetlejuice, Batman, and Edward Scissorhands particularly in his obsession with the good and evil in man. It also delves into the perception of life versus death. Who is really alive and who acts like the nonliving? It is evident that the true antecedent of The Corpse Bride is Burton’s own version of Washington Irving’s Sleepy Hollow with a nod toward Dickens (with its contrast in class distinction and its unsavory characters), especially the Miss Havisham character in Great Expectations.
The Corpse Bride marks a continuing peak in the current revival of animated feature films which was signaled by Toy Story a decade earlier and has been raised to new heights with such recent triumphs as Shrek and Finding Nemo. The final shot is a wondrous, memorable end that recalls the transformation scene in Disney’s classic, Beauty and the Beast. In fact, so good is its animation and technique that it is easy to forgive any shortcomings in what is basically a one act, one note story albeit told with sincerity. With just a bit more pathos and storyline, Burton’s team would have had an instant classic. It’s a near miss, but its status as the best animated film of the year is secure.
***1/2 of **** stars (**** for the animation and *** for the story)
Victor and his parents meet Victoria and her family to attend a wedding rehearsal. Unbeknownst to Victor’s family, it seems Victoria’s parents are broke and desperately need the marriage to secure their future. Yet, marriage is new to the nervous Victor, and when he gets jittery at the church, he runs off and into the woods to collect his thoughts. There, he jokingly recites his wedding vows and slips his wedding band on a finger shaped piece of what appears to be wood. The next thing he knows, the wooden finger is a real finger belonging to a former bride, and she has sprung ‘alive’ to his offer of marriage. As Victor reels in horror and confusion at his ‘corpse bride’, he is whisked away to another world of people who have died. While the corpse bride is partly decomposed, she retains much of her former beauty. Yet others in this strange land are mere skeletons and rotted flesh. It turns out that the corpse bride was to be married, but her groom had evil plans for her. She has been waiting for her true love ever since her demise. Meanwhile, Victoria’s parents are approached by a mysterious, handsome suitor who wants to marry Victoria. Victor must make a fateful decision and choose between the two brides even as the dead descend on the land of the living for a wedding ceremony like none other. One groom and two brides-what to do?
This is Tim Burton’s latest foray into stop motion animation, and he and Mike Johnson direct with economy from a relatively simple screenplay by John August, Pamela Pettler, and Caroline Thompson. The characters, especially Victor and the corpse bride, are well etched and create an emotional bond with the audience. Although we want Victor to marry his love Victoria, we grow to feel sympathy and attachment to the corpse bride as well. As for the images of the dead, Burton and company do a delightful job of making what, on the outset, could be grotesque and turning them into energized, playful souls. There is a terrific Peter Lorre homage with a worm who keeps popping in and out of the bride’s eye socket. After a short time, the skeletal limbs and discolored dead no longer seem frightening or gross. Ironically the most colorful sequences involve the world of the dead while the living are painted in austere, lifeless mutes of gray.
Much of the production team are veterans of other Burton films. Longtime collaborator Danny Elfman again provides an atmospheric score and a handful of nifty, little songs to move things along. Even the voices of the principals are Burton alumni, Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter (Burton’s significant other). Give Depp credit for voicing a British sounding character convincingly while others like Emily Watson, Albert Finney, Christopher Lee and Tracey Ullman, to name a few, are quite effective at bringing their figures to life. It’s a testament to Burton’s imaginative appeal that twice the usual number of major acting talents contributed to this work.
For all those who loved Burton’s earlier produced efforts, The Nightmare Before Christmas (whose ghoulish nature is quite similar) and James and the Giant Peach, this is a worthy followup. The animation itself is virtually seamless, and the characters and figures move as in real life. It is a far cry from the Rankin-Bass Christmas specials of the 1960’s. The set designs and costumes are very much gothic in style. It seems that Burton is drawing from his own films or is perpetuating his influences as evidenced in his previous films like Beetlejuice, Batman, and Edward Scissorhands particularly in his obsession with the good and evil in man. It also delves into the perception of life versus death. Who is really alive and who acts like the nonliving? It is evident that the true antecedent of The Corpse Bride is Burton’s own version of Washington Irving’s Sleepy Hollow with a nod toward Dickens (with its contrast in class distinction and its unsavory characters), especially the Miss Havisham character in Great Expectations.
The Corpse Bride marks a continuing peak in the current revival of animated feature films which was signaled by Toy Story a decade earlier and has been raised to new heights with such recent triumphs as Shrek and Finding Nemo. The final shot is a wondrous, memorable end that recalls the transformation scene in Disney’s classic, Beauty and the Beast. In fact, so good is its animation and technique that it is easy to forgive any shortcomings in what is basically a one act, one note story albeit told with sincerity. With just a bit more pathos and storyline, Burton’s team would have had an instant classic. It’s a near miss, but its status as the best animated film of the year is secure.
***1/2 of **** stars (**** for the animation and *** for the story)
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Director Robert Wise-An Appreciation
The passing of legendary film director Robert Wise last week marks the end of Hollywood’s golden age. Virtually all of the great directors who made their mark before 1950 are now gone. A few veterans like Stanley Donen (On the Town) remain, but with the passing of Wise, Hollywood has lost a true giant of movie history. From his horror classic, The Body Snatchers (1945), to the dream team boardroom of Executive Suite (1954), to a graphic depiction of capital punishment in I Want To Live (1958), to a politically charged indictment of war in The Sand Pebbles (1966), Wise has traversed the cinematic landscape with stunning achievement and success. His was that rare combination of critical acclaim, award recognition, and box office triumph. For years, his 1965 musical, The Sound of Music, was one of the most successful films of all time.
I met Robert Wise at the University of Maryland in College Park when I was still involved in the film program at the student union some 25 years ago. A guy named Mike and I picked up Wise and his wife from the airport and drove them to a hotel room near the campus. He had white hair, glasses, and spoke with a soft tone. En route, I had a chance to talk to him about his movies, and he was very open to answering questions and discussing his stellar career. It was amusing how his wife kept asking us to drive her to Monticello during their stay because she wanted to take a side trip to visit that historic landmark. We never did go but she was persistent and stubborn. When we arrived at their hotel and got them settled, I asked for Wise’s autograph and he obliged. I felt like such a groupie but I had to ask.
I was a fan of his films growing up having been raised on staples like The Sound of Music and West Side Story. I didn’t realize that I had already seen many of his other films and was impressed by what a versatile director he was by delving into a wide array of film genres. For example, his science fiction films like The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Andromeda Strain are now considered classics. It is astonishing how his career spanned a half century of film and that he had worked with some of the top talents in Hollywood whether it be Orson Welles on Citizen Kane (where Wise was a film editor), Val Lewton the king of B movie horror, Clark Gable in Run Silent Run Deep, George C Scott in The Hindenberg, or Steve McQueen in The Sand Pebbles. He won four Oscars as producer and director of West Side Story and The Sound of Music.
Whatever Wise did, he did well. Although he did not do any pure comedies, he had in all his films a gritty realism and authenticity which only served to enhance his subject matter. As a result, his films stand the test of time and seem relevant and watchable even today while other contemporaries seem very dated and phony. A good example of his attention to detail is the chase at the end of The Day the Earth Stood Still as the military read off actual street names in Washington D.C. Would anyone else have known the difference or even cared? Wise did, and his penchant for accuracy has paid handsomely over the years. I told him that I was thoroughly impressed by the meticulous sets in The Andromeda Strain, and he was flattered saying how he strove for great realism because it would enhance the credibility and believability of the movie. Watch the climactic countdown in the quarantine unit and see if any other film comes close to matching the intensity of suspense. The film holds up well to this day. He even told me how he was rushed to meet an impossible deadline for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and while the film was decent enough, it seemed bloated and overlong. Wise said that he did not have time to trim the film down to a good pace and running time. He has since been able to rectify that shortcoming with the recent DVD release of his director’s cut.
Wise spoke to a crowd of students and general public at the student union theater, and many of his films were shown that week. My friend Murray and I drove him to the airport to catch a flight back to the west coast. Its funny how every time I would see an interview of him since then, he seemed exactly the same way he had been on campus-a distinguished, classy veteran of film who loved to talk celluloid and was receptive to the students. I was fortunate to have known a great director and good guy.
I met Robert Wise at the University of Maryland in College Park when I was still involved in the film program at the student union some 25 years ago. A guy named Mike and I picked up Wise and his wife from the airport and drove them to a hotel room near the campus. He had white hair, glasses, and spoke with a soft tone. En route, I had a chance to talk to him about his movies, and he was very open to answering questions and discussing his stellar career. It was amusing how his wife kept asking us to drive her to Monticello during their stay because she wanted to take a side trip to visit that historic landmark. We never did go but she was persistent and stubborn. When we arrived at their hotel and got them settled, I asked for Wise’s autograph and he obliged. I felt like such a groupie but I had to ask.
I was a fan of his films growing up having been raised on staples like The Sound of Music and West Side Story. I didn’t realize that I had already seen many of his other films and was impressed by what a versatile director he was by delving into a wide array of film genres. For example, his science fiction films like The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Andromeda Strain are now considered classics. It is astonishing how his career spanned a half century of film and that he had worked with some of the top talents in Hollywood whether it be Orson Welles on Citizen Kane (where Wise was a film editor), Val Lewton the king of B movie horror, Clark Gable in Run Silent Run Deep, George C Scott in The Hindenberg, or Steve McQueen in The Sand Pebbles. He won four Oscars as producer and director of West Side Story and The Sound of Music.
Whatever Wise did, he did well. Although he did not do any pure comedies, he had in all his films a gritty realism and authenticity which only served to enhance his subject matter. As a result, his films stand the test of time and seem relevant and watchable even today while other contemporaries seem very dated and phony. A good example of his attention to detail is the chase at the end of The Day the Earth Stood Still as the military read off actual street names in Washington D.C. Would anyone else have known the difference or even cared? Wise did, and his penchant for accuracy has paid handsomely over the years. I told him that I was thoroughly impressed by the meticulous sets in The Andromeda Strain, and he was flattered saying how he strove for great realism because it would enhance the credibility and believability of the movie. Watch the climactic countdown in the quarantine unit and see if any other film comes close to matching the intensity of suspense. The film holds up well to this day. He even told me how he was rushed to meet an impossible deadline for Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and while the film was decent enough, it seemed bloated and overlong. Wise said that he did not have time to trim the film down to a good pace and running time. He has since been able to rectify that shortcoming with the recent DVD release of his director’s cut.
Wise spoke to a crowd of students and general public at the student union theater, and many of his films were shown that week. My friend Murray and I drove him to the airport to catch a flight back to the west coast. Its funny how every time I would see an interview of him since then, he seemed exactly the same way he had been on campus-a distinguished, classy veteran of film who loved to talk celluloid and was receptive to the students. I was fortunate to have known a great director and good guy.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
THE CONSTANT GARDENER Is a Well Tended Tale
There have been nifty thrillers over the years with conspiracy attached, and many of them have been good like The Parallax View and JFK. Yet few of these have been able to rise above the visceral angst of suspense and intrigue to attain another level of human emotion. One good example is the recent adaptation of John Le Carre’s novel, The Constant Gardener. Adapted by Jeffrey Caine and directed by Fernando Meirelles, this is a superior cinematic rendition of a good, moral suspense yarn told with methodical precision and emotional resonance.
Tessa (Rachel Weisz) is a volunteer-activist who marries timid diplomat, Justin Qualye (Ralph Fiennes) and follows him to Kenya in Africa. When his wife goes missing, Justin decides to follow his wife’s trail and find out what really happened and why. The clues lead to a pharmaceutical drug corporation that is testing tuberculosis drugs on the lower class population. What Justin finds is a shocking conspiracy of secrets and lies reaching up to the British government and a corporate entity that will stop at nothing to release its money making windfall. As Justin discovers the truth, he begins to understand the ruthless nature of conspirators even as he begins to uncover the truth about his marriage.
This is a chilling mystery story that is at its heart a tale of romantic love between a man and a wife he really doesn’t know. Although not perfect, it does endeavor to be many things, and it integrates the love story that forms the soul of the film with an elaborate detective story that touches upon morality, fear, hope, and redemption and achieves them quite well. It’s like reading a long, complex novel. That a film could be filled with so many attributes is quite an achievement and a testament to the source material by Le Carre, a constant source of complex, filmic material ever since the breakout adaptation of his The Spy Who Came in From the Cold in the 1960’s. It is also a tribute to director Meirelles who has a sure hand in every scene and edit while never losing track of his many themes and maintaining strong performances from his talented cast.
At first Justin is oblivious to the insidious forces around him. The garden that he tends to is a metaphor of sorts to a basic, uncomplicated view of his world that is suddenly shaken. The backgrounds in many scenes show a rural countryside with poor people struggling to survive. Life is hard for the people in a harsh landscape. There are always incidental shots of children usually in the background as casual bystanders or observers; they are the innocent ones. This story and its people are distant cousins of the drug gangs in Meirelles’ previous, breakthrough film, City of God. It is in this setting that Justin retraces Tessa’s footsteps which lead to a dirty secret and a rediscovery of their love. Throughout it all, there is an almost inevitable, hopeless feeling, like a stacked deck against Justin. Then there is the question of trust. Who to trust? It seems everyone is either partly involved with the bad guys or reluctant to get involved. There are different levels of trust. There is the hint of marital infidelity and the questioning of loyalty. In this respect, The Constant Gardener reminds one of the underrated Under Fire.
The narrative fluidly flashes back and forth at will to show the beginnings of Justin and Tessa’s relationship amid the intrigue in Kenya. There’s also lots of handheld camera work (Cesar Charlone) that gives the film a semi documentary feel. While the look is raw and primitive, the editing (by Oliver Stone alumni Claire Simpson) is sophisticated and clever as various bits of associative imagery are connected to great emotional and informative effect. A great deal of thought and planning went into this story and its adaptation to connect the dots.
Fiennes is excellent as the beleaguered husband who seeks the truth about his wife. He has a knack for playing tragic characters (Quiz Show, The English Patient), and he has never been better than in this role. You feel his confusion and pain as he goes against difficult odds. Rachel Weisz is terrific as the brave crusader of the African people who risks harm and her marriage by digging for the truth. You feel her passion in Tessa’s character and the free spirit that dominates every scene she is in. You just know that Tessa’s own hard-headed agenda will get her in trouble. It is a far cry from Weisz’s days in action blockbusters like The Mummy, and it is her best role to date. The rest of the uniformly strong cast is excellent particularly Bill Nighy as the slimy Pellegrin.
If you are a conspiracy buff, then this is your kind of film. Although it is a bit of a downer, ultimately it is a haunting fable with memorable imagery, and it is a film that stays with you long after it is over. It should stay with Oscar voters for the long term as well.
***1/2 of **** stars
Tessa (Rachel Weisz) is a volunteer-activist who marries timid diplomat, Justin Qualye (Ralph Fiennes) and follows him to Kenya in Africa. When his wife goes missing, Justin decides to follow his wife’s trail and find out what really happened and why. The clues lead to a pharmaceutical drug corporation that is testing tuberculosis drugs on the lower class population. What Justin finds is a shocking conspiracy of secrets and lies reaching up to the British government and a corporate entity that will stop at nothing to release its money making windfall. As Justin discovers the truth, he begins to understand the ruthless nature of conspirators even as he begins to uncover the truth about his marriage.
This is a chilling mystery story that is at its heart a tale of romantic love between a man and a wife he really doesn’t know. Although not perfect, it does endeavor to be many things, and it integrates the love story that forms the soul of the film with an elaborate detective story that touches upon morality, fear, hope, and redemption and achieves them quite well. It’s like reading a long, complex novel. That a film could be filled with so many attributes is quite an achievement and a testament to the source material by Le Carre, a constant source of complex, filmic material ever since the breakout adaptation of his The Spy Who Came in From the Cold in the 1960’s. It is also a tribute to director Meirelles who has a sure hand in every scene and edit while never losing track of his many themes and maintaining strong performances from his talented cast.
At first Justin is oblivious to the insidious forces around him. The garden that he tends to is a metaphor of sorts to a basic, uncomplicated view of his world that is suddenly shaken. The backgrounds in many scenes show a rural countryside with poor people struggling to survive. Life is hard for the people in a harsh landscape. There are always incidental shots of children usually in the background as casual bystanders or observers; they are the innocent ones. This story and its people are distant cousins of the drug gangs in Meirelles’ previous, breakthrough film, City of God. It is in this setting that Justin retraces Tessa’s footsteps which lead to a dirty secret and a rediscovery of their love. Throughout it all, there is an almost inevitable, hopeless feeling, like a stacked deck against Justin. Then there is the question of trust. Who to trust? It seems everyone is either partly involved with the bad guys or reluctant to get involved. There are different levels of trust. There is the hint of marital infidelity and the questioning of loyalty. In this respect, The Constant Gardener reminds one of the underrated Under Fire.
The narrative fluidly flashes back and forth at will to show the beginnings of Justin and Tessa’s relationship amid the intrigue in Kenya. There’s also lots of handheld camera work (Cesar Charlone) that gives the film a semi documentary feel. While the look is raw and primitive, the editing (by Oliver Stone alumni Claire Simpson) is sophisticated and clever as various bits of associative imagery are connected to great emotional and informative effect. A great deal of thought and planning went into this story and its adaptation to connect the dots.
Fiennes is excellent as the beleaguered husband who seeks the truth about his wife. He has a knack for playing tragic characters (Quiz Show, The English Patient), and he has never been better than in this role. You feel his confusion and pain as he goes against difficult odds. Rachel Weisz is terrific as the brave crusader of the African people who risks harm and her marriage by digging for the truth. You feel her passion in Tessa’s character and the free spirit that dominates every scene she is in. You just know that Tessa’s own hard-headed agenda will get her in trouble. It is a far cry from Weisz’s days in action blockbusters like The Mummy, and it is her best role to date. The rest of the uniformly strong cast is excellent particularly Bill Nighy as the slimy Pellegrin.
If you are a conspiracy buff, then this is your kind of film. Although it is a bit of a downer, ultimately it is a haunting fable with memorable imagery, and it is a film that stays with you long after it is over. It should stay with Oscar voters for the long term as well.
***1/2 of **** stars
JUST LIKE HEAVEN Seems a Bit Familiar
Ghost stories involving romance are a recurring subject matter in Hollywood. Case in point, one can look at The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, Heaven Can Wait, Somewhere in Time and the most recent entree, Just Like Heaven, a modest romantic comedy featuring attractive leads, Reese Witherspoon and Mark Ruffalo. While reasonably entertaining and diverting, it doesn’t quite deliver the goods.
Elizabeth (Reese Witherspoon) is a workaholic doctor in San Francisco who drives to meet a blind date on a rainy night and swerves into the path of a truck. Weeks later, we see David (Mark Ruffalo) who is searching for an apartment when a circular, advertising a vacancy, literally finds him. Upon moving in and settling down, David is surprised and spooked by the appearance of Elizabeth who claims she already lives in the newly rented space. She mysteriously vanishes and reappears, and David is convinced that she must be a ghost. Yet she refuses to believe she is really dead. As they figure out the truth, David and Elizabeth find they are attracted to one another. When the reality of what happened to her that rainy night is revealed, David must resort to desperate measures to save the girl he loves before it is too late.
Directed by Mark Waters, who showed promise with comedies like Mean Girls, this is a film that wants to be more than it is. It aspires to be a lighthearted, romantic love story with dramatic and comedic overtones. That’s pretty ambitious for a script (adapted by Peter Tolan and Leslie Dixon from Marc Levy’s novel, If Only It Were True) that would be better off on television. The themes are pretty familiar and have been done before and better. The filmmakers could have tightened the first hour and the pace would have been improved. At times, the plotline comes dangerously close to losing whatever momentum it has. It takes a long while for anything to happen, perhaps too long. However, the climax does pick up steam as the relationship between the two develops, and one just wishes there was more such life in the earlier stages. To be sure, there are nice touches in the story that allude to fate, coincidence, and true love, but the script doesn’t draw the connections as magically as one wishes.
Then there are the technical inconsistencies that even audiences with suspended disbelief may have a hard time to swallow. We see Elizabeth pass through walls and tables but why can we hear her footsteps on the floor or why can she sit in a truck without falling through? Granted, the special effects, while not earth shattering, are interesting and reasonably imaginative. It is also clever how the editing alternates between the ghostly Elizabeth and reality where no one sees or hears her except David. These point of view crosscuts when David is talking to Elizabeth even as the public sees him talking to no one are at times amusing.
The two stars do have nice screen chemistry together. Reese Witherspoon (Legally Blonde, Election) is watchable in almost anything she stars in, but she can only breathe so much life in a standard storyline. If Mark Ruffalo (Collateral, You Can Count on Me) gets hold of a great comedic script, then you’d definitely have something to utilize his versatility. After successful pairings with Witherspoon and Jennifer Garner in 13 Going on 30, how about teaming him with Rachel McAdams or even Drew Barrymore?
Here is an obvious case of star power being enough to overcome an average script. As comedies go, it really doesn’t climb to great heights, but the leads are so appealing, it really doesn’t matter. A sure video rental, it is a pleasant bit of fluff that will certainly appeal to those who believe in true love and fairy tales. To the rest of the audience, just sit still and smile with your date.
**1/2 of **** stars (*** for romantics)
Elizabeth (Reese Witherspoon) is a workaholic doctor in San Francisco who drives to meet a blind date on a rainy night and swerves into the path of a truck. Weeks later, we see David (Mark Ruffalo) who is searching for an apartment when a circular, advertising a vacancy, literally finds him. Upon moving in and settling down, David is surprised and spooked by the appearance of Elizabeth who claims she already lives in the newly rented space. She mysteriously vanishes and reappears, and David is convinced that she must be a ghost. Yet she refuses to believe she is really dead. As they figure out the truth, David and Elizabeth find they are attracted to one another. When the reality of what happened to her that rainy night is revealed, David must resort to desperate measures to save the girl he loves before it is too late.
Directed by Mark Waters, who showed promise with comedies like Mean Girls, this is a film that wants to be more than it is. It aspires to be a lighthearted, romantic love story with dramatic and comedic overtones. That’s pretty ambitious for a script (adapted by Peter Tolan and Leslie Dixon from Marc Levy’s novel, If Only It Were True) that would be better off on television. The themes are pretty familiar and have been done before and better. The filmmakers could have tightened the first hour and the pace would have been improved. At times, the plotline comes dangerously close to losing whatever momentum it has. It takes a long while for anything to happen, perhaps too long. However, the climax does pick up steam as the relationship between the two develops, and one just wishes there was more such life in the earlier stages. To be sure, there are nice touches in the story that allude to fate, coincidence, and true love, but the script doesn’t draw the connections as magically as one wishes.
Then there are the technical inconsistencies that even audiences with suspended disbelief may have a hard time to swallow. We see Elizabeth pass through walls and tables but why can we hear her footsteps on the floor or why can she sit in a truck without falling through? Granted, the special effects, while not earth shattering, are interesting and reasonably imaginative. It is also clever how the editing alternates between the ghostly Elizabeth and reality where no one sees or hears her except David. These point of view crosscuts when David is talking to Elizabeth even as the public sees him talking to no one are at times amusing.
The two stars do have nice screen chemistry together. Reese Witherspoon (Legally Blonde, Election) is watchable in almost anything she stars in, but she can only breathe so much life in a standard storyline. If Mark Ruffalo (Collateral, You Can Count on Me) gets hold of a great comedic script, then you’d definitely have something to utilize his versatility. After successful pairings with Witherspoon and Jennifer Garner in 13 Going on 30, how about teaming him with Rachel McAdams or even Drew Barrymore?
Here is an obvious case of star power being enough to overcome an average script. As comedies go, it really doesn’t climb to great heights, but the leads are so appealing, it really doesn’t matter. A sure video rental, it is a pleasant bit of fluff that will certainly appeal to those who believe in true love and fairy tales. To the rest of the audience, just sit still and smile with your date.
**1/2 of **** stars (*** for romantics)
THE GREATEST GAME EVER PLAYED Is Above Par
For non-golfers, this true story of an ordinary youth who challenges a seasoned champ in the biggest golf match of all time is a stirring piece of history reenacted for the general audience. Seasoned actor turned director Bill Paxton has taken a simple tale and fashioned a mini pearl of a movie that will fit nicely with the other sports films like Remember the Titans and The Rookie.
As a boy, future English champion golfer, Harry Vardon is introduced to the world of golf while dark, mysterious figures begin to build a golf course nearby. Years later in America, another boy, Francis Ouimet, is a caddie at a golf course and is encouraged by adults to pursue his dream of playing competitively. It turns out Francis has a gift for the sport and he practices religiously. Although he is from a poor working class family, he enters an amateur tournament where he must face off seasoned golfers who are from well-to-do backgrounds. After a series of setbacks and the objections of his laborer father, Francis is given a chance opportunity to restart his dream as an amateur entree in the prestigious U.S. Open where he sees his childhood idol, Vardon, again but now as a competitor and rival. Harry is in the States to claim the U.S. golfing crown as he has (Tiger Woods fashion) done for consecutive years in the British Open. As the grueling course thins the ranks of professionals and to the amazement of swelling throngs of spectators and media, Francis and Harry are on a collision course in the most unlikely playoff matchup in the annals of golf.
This is essentially the story of two golfers with contrasting backgrounds. What is good about this film is that even though this story is about golf, it is easily accessible to mainstream audiences because they become involved in Francis’ dreams. The conflict at home between father (Elias Koteas) and Francis is an important plot point that is comparable to the father-son dynamic of The Rookie. There are nice examples of class struggle between the have-nots and the upper crust. The storylines never get too complex and while the plot is easy to follow, the simplicity can be a detriment in other ways.
There are a couple of unexplained subplots and relationships that are never fully explored. We don’t really understand what motivates or affects Vardon from his childhood. Also there seems to be a parallel being drawn between him and Ouimet which is never clearly explained. Likewise, there is a hint of romance in Ouimet’s life, but we never know where that goes.
This unknown cast works because there are no preconceived notions of stars or recognizable faces. For all intents and purposes, we believe Stephen Dillane is Harry Vardon. The performances deserve notice especially Shia LaBeouf (Holes) as Francis Ouimet and Josh Flitter as the diminutive child caddie, Eddie, whose enthusiasm and quips are disarming. Character actor Luke Askew does register in a change of pace role as an unnamed golfing mentor for Francis.
Director Paxton has a very clean sense of narrative, and it certainly didn’t hurt to be under the tutelage of his favorite director, James Cameron. There is a great shot of the audience watching Ouimet driving the ball and turning their collective heads to follow the ball’s path except for Vardon who stays on the young protégé as he knows it is a good shot. Paxton does save the best for last in the climactic playoff. He displays a sure hand in the final scene as he culminates various plot threads in one emotional finale. We never lose sight of our protagonist’s plight and everything is in service of a storyline adapted by Mark Frost (Twin Peaks) from his novel. If this is an example of Paxton’s capability as a director, then I welcome his next project.
Credit the production team for authentic period sets and costumes. The cinematography and special effects are imaginative and perhaps too clever as we witness the many new ways to simulate a ball in flight or rolling on the fairway.
This is the sort of film you would see as a made for television film like Brian’s Song in the 1970’s or as an HBO feature. Now Disney is mining the sports sagas in a consistently entertaining fashion. I would not put NASCAR past them. If you are looking for an inspiring family film, this is a good choice.
*** of **** stars
As a boy, future English champion golfer, Harry Vardon is introduced to the world of golf while dark, mysterious figures begin to build a golf course nearby. Years later in America, another boy, Francis Ouimet, is a caddie at a golf course and is encouraged by adults to pursue his dream of playing competitively. It turns out Francis has a gift for the sport and he practices religiously. Although he is from a poor working class family, he enters an amateur tournament where he must face off seasoned golfers who are from well-to-do backgrounds. After a series of setbacks and the objections of his laborer father, Francis is given a chance opportunity to restart his dream as an amateur entree in the prestigious U.S. Open where he sees his childhood idol, Vardon, again but now as a competitor and rival. Harry is in the States to claim the U.S. golfing crown as he has (Tiger Woods fashion) done for consecutive years in the British Open. As the grueling course thins the ranks of professionals and to the amazement of swelling throngs of spectators and media, Francis and Harry are on a collision course in the most unlikely playoff matchup in the annals of golf.
This is essentially the story of two golfers with contrasting backgrounds. What is good about this film is that even though this story is about golf, it is easily accessible to mainstream audiences because they become involved in Francis’ dreams. The conflict at home between father (Elias Koteas) and Francis is an important plot point that is comparable to the father-son dynamic of The Rookie. There are nice examples of class struggle between the have-nots and the upper crust. The storylines never get too complex and while the plot is easy to follow, the simplicity can be a detriment in other ways.
There are a couple of unexplained subplots and relationships that are never fully explored. We don’t really understand what motivates or affects Vardon from his childhood. Also there seems to be a parallel being drawn between him and Ouimet which is never clearly explained. Likewise, there is a hint of romance in Ouimet’s life, but we never know where that goes.
This unknown cast works because there are no preconceived notions of stars or recognizable faces. For all intents and purposes, we believe Stephen Dillane is Harry Vardon. The performances deserve notice especially Shia LaBeouf (Holes) as Francis Ouimet and Josh Flitter as the diminutive child caddie, Eddie, whose enthusiasm and quips are disarming. Character actor Luke Askew does register in a change of pace role as an unnamed golfing mentor for Francis.
Director Paxton has a very clean sense of narrative, and it certainly didn’t hurt to be under the tutelage of his favorite director, James Cameron. There is a great shot of the audience watching Ouimet driving the ball and turning their collective heads to follow the ball’s path except for Vardon who stays on the young protégé as he knows it is a good shot. Paxton does save the best for last in the climactic playoff. He displays a sure hand in the final scene as he culminates various plot threads in one emotional finale. We never lose sight of our protagonist’s plight and everything is in service of a storyline adapted by Mark Frost (Twin Peaks) from his novel. If this is an example of Paxton’s capability as a director, then I welcome his next project.
Credit the production team for authentic period sets and costumes. The cinematography and special effects are imaginative and perhaps too clever as we witness the many new ways to simulate a ball in flight or rolling on the fairway.
This is the sort of film you would see as a made for television film like Brian’s Song in the 1970’s or as an HBO feature. Now Disney is mining the sports sagas in a consistently entertaining fashion. I would not put NASCAR past them. If you are looking for an inspiring family film, this is a good choice.
*** of **** stars
Friday, August 12, 2005
RED EYE Is Edge of Your Seat Thrills
With the similarly set Flight Plan coming this fall, Red Eye shows that it can compete with the best of them in the thriller category. Director Wes Craven, best known for his popular horror films like Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream, has stretched his muscles into the suspense genre and has succeeded with a modest, effective gem.
Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) is a hotel manager who is flying home from a funeral when she meets a charming stranger, Jackson Ripper (Cillian Murphy), who ends up threatening her on board the flight. He wants her to call the hotel and change a seemingly innocent reservation for a VIP or her father will be killed. With this premise, a terrified Lisa must contemplate a way to save her father and prevent an even larger plot to assassinate the VIP (who is an official of Homeland Security). Despite her every move, Jackson manages to stay one step ahead of her. As the plane arrives at the airport and the VIP arrives at the hotel, Lisa acts out of desperation to protect not only her father but attempt to thwart a convoluted conspiracy.
That’s it! That is the storyline, and Craven makes the most of a simple setup in character and plot. As an exercise in visceral excitement, the film succeeds admirably with a simple, almost TV plotline. There is a good sketch of characters as they are casually introduced at the beginning. Once the setup is established at takeoff, the plot likewise takes a sinister turn. The interplay between Murphy’s hunter and McAdams’ hunted works quite well as they parry and thrust verbally and then figuratively in front of a mostly oblivious compliment of bystanders. It is remarkable how much of the film’s running time takes place in such tight quarters, but that plays to the strengths of the script by Carl Ellsworth. It does not seem stagy, and yet the suspense quotient is heightened in this intriguing mousetrap. And Craven knows that a human monster like Ripper can be just as scary as any movie monster because it is part of a real world.
The screenplay has some interesting subplots like the assassination scenario which by itself is innovative and not far fetched. At times there is Hitchcock feel with its ‘every man’ or in this case ‘every woman’ lead whose actions and thoughts draw the audience into complicity with the nefarious plot. You think, ‘how is she ever going to warn her father and how the heck is she going to prevent this diabolical plan from being executed so to speak.’
There are minor disappointments overall. It could have been a more compelling story had it delved deeper into Lisa’s mysterious past and trauma and how she evolves as a person from her harrowing experience. But that’s what comes from being spoiled by a film that starts out so promisingly. It does come back to earth when the plane touches down leading to a more standard action ending. The pace, however, is well edited for maximum effect.
McAdams shows the appropriate terror and anxiety and is quite believable. After making her mark in films such as the romantic drama The Notebook and comedies like Mean Girls and Wedding Crashers, she is showing a good range of versatility, and by tackling this genre of suspense, she can move on to other subject matter worthy of her growing abilities. Murphy (quite good in Batman Returns) is talented enough to have other memorable roles. He mixes enough maniacal creepiness with cold, ruthless mercenary in guise of a handsome companion. He needs to avoid future psycho roles lest he becomes typecast.
Although it resorts to a conventional ending, the ride is worth it. It is truly refreshing to see a film that knows when not to overstay its welcome as it clocks in at less than 90 minutes. Once the story is over, it’s over. Maybe Mr. Craven might consider staying in this genre a bit longer. Red Eye is one nifty little thriller.
*** of **** stars
Lisa Reisert (Rachel McAdams) is a hotel manager who is flying home from a funeral when she meets a charming stranger, Jackson Ripper (Cillian Murphy), who ends up threatening her on board the flight. He wants her to call the hotel and change a seemingly innocent reservation for a VIP or her father will be killed. With this premise, a terrified Lisa must contemplate a way to save her father and prevent an even larger plot to assassinate the VIP (who is an official of Homeland Security). Despite her every move, Jackson manages to stay one step ahead of her. As the plane arrives at the airport and the VIP arrives at the hotel, Lisa acts out of desperation to protect not only her father but attempt to thwart a convoluted conspiracy.
That’s it! That is the storyline, and Craven makes the most of a simple setup in character and plot. As an exercise in visceral excitement, the film succeeds admirably with a simple, almost TV plotline. There is a good sketch of characters as they are casually introduced at the beginning. Once the setup is established at takeoff, the plot likewise takes a sinister turn. The interplay between Murphy’s hunter and McAdams’ hunted works quite well as they parry and thrust verbally and then figuratively in front of a mostly oblivious compliment of bystanders. It is remarkable how much of the film’s running time takes place in such tight quarters, but that plays to the strengths of the script by Carl Ellsworth. It does not seem stagy, and yet the suspense quotient is heightened in this intriguing mousetrap. And Craven knows that a human monster like Ripper can be just as scary as any movie monster because it is part of a real world.
The screenplay has some interesting subplots like the assassination scenario which by itself is innovative and not far fetched. At times there is Hitchcock feel with its ‘every man’ or in this case ‘every woman’ lead whose actions and thoughts draw the audience into complicity with the nefarious plot. You think, ‘how is she ever going to warn her father and how the heck is she going to prevent this diabolical plan from being executed so to speak.’
There are minor disappointments overall. It could have been a more compelling story had it delved deeper into Lisa’s mysterious past and trauma and how she evolves as a person from her harrowing experience. But that’s what comes from being spoiled by a film that starts out so promisingly. It does come back to earth when the plane touches down leading to a more standard action ending. The pace, however, is well edited for maximum effect.
McAdams shows the appropriate terror and anxiety and is quite believable. After making her mark in films such as the romantic drama The Notebook and comedies like Mean Girls and Wedding Crashers, she is showing a good range of versatility, and by tackling this genre of suspense, she can move on to other subject matter worthy of her growing abilities. Murphy (quite good in Batman Returns) is talented enough to have other memorable roles. He mixes enough maniacal creepiness with cold, ruthless mercenary in guise of a handsome companion. He needs to avoid future psycho roles lest he becomes typecast.
Although it resorts to a conventional ending, the ride is worth it. It is truly refreshing to see a film that knows when not to overstay its welcome as it clocks in at less than 90 minutes. Once the story is over, it’s over. Maybe Mr. Craven might consider staying in this genre a bit longer. Red Eye is one nifty little thriller.
*** of **** stars
FOUR BROTHERS Returns to the 'Hood
Boyz n the Hood was a landmark film in its realistic depiction of gang violence and its effect on families in urban America. Its novice director, John Singleton, has languished in relative obscurity since then and revisits a similar turf with his revenge drama, Four Brothers. While it reconfirms Singleton’s talents, it is an imperfect action drama that leans too heavily on its mean spirited revenge theme.
A middle aged woman, Evelyn Mercer (Fionnula Flanagan), is known for taking wayward boys off the streets and finding them foster homes. Yet, over time, only four boys could not be placed, and she adopted them herself. Years later, when a liquor store robbery goes awry, Evelyn is murdered. This reunites the four brothers who are now grown (Mark Wahlberg, Tyrese Gibson, Andre Benjamin, and Garrett Hedlund). What seems to be a simple crime gone wrong is only the beginning of a tale of conspiracy and betrayal. With police detectives (Terrence Howard and Josh Charles) seemingly a step behind the clues, the brothers decide to find the answers and punish all those involved even if it leads to corrupt officials, crooked cops, or the top crime boss in town. This causes violent confrontations and retribution until the brothers must attempt a daring plan to avenge their family and bring the murderers to their form of justice.
As portrayed by Singleton, this is a tough, violent neighborhood, a sort of distant cousin to the one in Boyz n the Hood. There are some similarities with New Jack City with its family of gangsters and a ruthless leader. The film does contain well directed scenes. The pool hall scene between Howard and Charles is quite good and the dialogue makes this a mini-gem. At times Singleton knows enough to reel back his characters from a pure revenge tale to one of family and connection. There is a good early scene during Thanksgiving at the dinner table where each brother looks upon the memory and visage of his deceased mother in an empty chair and remembers the lessons she instilled in them. It is a clever moment and speaks volumes on what she meant to each son. Perhaps a bit more of this would have balanced the film and kept it from turning into the overwhelmingly vengeful tale it ultimately becomes.
The film feels tough and gritty, and its characters are real people with real conflicts and emotions. The relationship of these brothers forms the backbone of the film no matter what they endure. They stick up for each other and watch each other’s back. These brothers in arms love each other and fight amongst themselves. We anguish when they suffer and cheer when they triumph. There are humorous moments sprinkled throughout the film and some funny lines spoken at the expense of each character. .
The story, written by David Elliot and Paul Lovett, works on a couple of levels. On one level, it is a detective story with twists and turns and some surprises. There are some clues and red herrings along the way, and you don’t quite know the whole story until the end. On another level it functions as a kind of urban western with its revenge tale. In fact the film is essentially structured similarly to fraternal, revenge westerns as The Sons of Katie Elder and Gunfight at the OK Corral. It’s also about the love given by a selfless mother who gave comfort and hope to four wayward rejects when no one wanted them.
The ending is a little like an urban Mission Impossible with its elaborate ruse. Some of it is implausible but on the whole the sequence works marginally. We don’t know much about Jeremiah Mercer’s family which would have added to our attachment to his character.
Mark Wahlberg is an imposing figure who will stop at nothing to find his mother’s killer.
In fact all four leads are quite strong and well cast. Terrence Howard (who has starred in a number of strong films this year and is a star on the rise for sure) has an effective role as a good cop although his character leaves too early as the conspiracy widens. Fionnula Flanagan is seen too briefly and should have been used more which would have grounded the film morally.
The soundtrack is a good mixture of oldies and serves as the pulse of the kinetic action scenes in the Motown setting. Technical credits for what is essentially a low budget film are solid especially in the cinematography and film editing.
It is entirely possible to be shell shocked by the hard hitting nature of this violent melodrama by film’s end. It’s certainly a crowd pleaser and almost manipulative in the way it generates deep feelings. The film succeeds in terms of sheer energy and force. It’s a little rough around the edges but still a welcome return to Singleton’s roots. While Four Brothers proves that his previous abilities were no fluke, he has yet to exceed let alone match the promise of his first film.
**1/2 of **** stars
A middle aged woman, Evelyn Mercer (Fionnula Flanagan), is known for taking wayward boys off the streets and finding them foster homes. Yet, over time, only four boys could not be placed, and she adopted them herself. Years later, when a liquor store robbery goes awry, Evelyn is murdered. This reunites the four brothers who are now grown (Mark Wahlberg, Tyrese Gibson, Andre Benjamin, and Garrett Hedlund). What seems to be a simple crime gone wrong is only the beginning of a tale of conspiracy and betrayal. With police detectives (Terrence Howard and Josh Charles) seemingly a step behind the clues, the brothers decide to find the answers and punish all those involved even if it leads to corrupt officials, crooked cops, or the top crime boss in town. This causes violent confrontations and retribution until the brothers must attempt a daring plan to avenge their family and bring the murderers to their form of justice.
As portrayed by Singleton, this is a tough, violent neighborhood, a sort of distant cousin to the one in Boyz n the Hood. There are some similarities with New Jack City with its family of gangsters and a ruthless leader. The film does contain well directed scenes. The pool hall scene between Howard and Charles is quite good and the dialogue makes this a mini-gem. At times Singleton knows enough to reel back his characters from a pure revenge tale to one of family and connection. There is a good early scene during Thanksgiving at the dinner table where each brother looks upon the memory and visage of his deceased mother in an empty chair and remembers the lessons she instilled in them. It is a clever moment and speaks volumes on what she meant to each son. Perhaps a bit more of this would have balanced the film and kept it from turning into the overwhelmingly vengeful tale it ultimately becomes.
The film feels tough and gritty, and its characters are real people with real conflicts and emotions. The relationship of these brothers forms the backbone of the film no matter what they endure. They stick up for each other and watch each other’s back. These brothers in arms love each other and fight amongst themselves. We anguish when they suffer and cheer when they triumph. There are humorous moments sprinkled throughout the film and some funny lines spoken at the expense of each character. .
The story, written by David Elliot and Paul Lovett, works on a couple of levels. On one level, it is a detective story with twists and turns and some surprises. There are some clues and red herrings along the way, and you don’t quite know the whole story until the end. On another level it functions as a kind of urban western with its revenge tale. In fact the film is essentially structured similarly to fraternal, revenge westerns as The Sons of Katie Elder and Gunfight at the OK Corral. It’s also about the love given by a selfless mother who gave comfort and hope to four wayward rejects when no one wanted them.
The ending is a little like an urban Mission Impossible with its elaborate ruse. Some of it is implausible but on the whole the sequence works marginally. We don’t know much about Jeremiah Mercer’s family which would have added to our attachment to his character.
Mark Wahlberg is an imposing figure who will stop at nothing to find his mother’s killer.
In fact all four leads are quite strong and well cast. Terrence Howard (who has starred in a number of strong films this year and is a star on the rise for sure) has an effective role as a good cop although his character leaves too early as the conspiracy widens. Fionnula Flanagan is seen too briefly and should have been used more which would have grounded the film morally.
The soundtrack is a good mixture of oldies and serves as the pulse of the kinetic action scenes in the Motown setting. Technical credits for what is essentially a low budget film are solid especially in the cinematography and film editing.
It is entirely possible to be shell shocked by the hard hitting nature of this violent melodrama by film’s end. It’s certainly a crowd pleaser and almost manipulative in the way it generates deep feelings. The film succeeds in terms of sheer energy and force. It’s a little rough around the edges but still a welcome return to Singleton’s roots. While Four Brothers proves that his previous abilities were no fluke, he has yet to exceed let alone match the promise of his first film.
**1/2 of **** stars
DEUCE BIGALOW: EUROPEAN GIGOLO is a Loser
Rob Schneider has been an amusing comic from his days as cast regular on TV’s Saturday Night Live. His only real success was a modest one, Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, and now he returns to that character several years later. The results are disastrous. In the tradition of terrible comedies such as John Goldfarb Please Come Home and Which Way to the Front, this R-rated entree is trouble from start to finish.
Deuce Bigalow takes up where he left off as a jinxed widow who travels to Europe to join his pimp friend, T. J. Hicks (Eddie Griffin), who gets in hot water as a mistaken prime suspect in a series of murders of gigolos or ‘man whores’ as they call themselves. Deuce explores the European world of these men and even interviews the last women to see the murder victims alive. This sets up an amusing series of dates with women who have unusual physical attributes. At the same time the police are investigating the crimes, Deuce runs into and falls in love with a beautiful woman, Eva (Hanna Verboom), who is afflicted with a multitude of behavioral ticks due to obsessive compulsive disorder. She is also the niece of the lead detective on the case who has a grudge against these ‘man whores’. The story leads to the Man Whore Awards as Deuce races to save the day while the murderer has planned a final deadly act.
That sums up a simple, silly plot that is flawed in script and execution. The director (who is heck is Mike Bigelow, a pseudonym?) and a committee of writers don’t give the story or the lead actors a chance to succeed. What’s worse is that the skills of most of the people involved appear amateurish at best and may have been reedited and cut severely during post-production. Indeed, the transitions are at times jarring and sloppy. Billy Wilder, Preston Sturges, and Ernest Lubitsch are rolling in their graves.
If only the screenwriters had trusted their story more and sprinkled the jokes sparingly, the film would take on a more structured and involving comedic romance. Instead, what we get is literally toilet humor of the worst kind and repeated gags that are gross and intellectually void of brain matter. It’s one thing to have bawdy sight gags and vulgar humor which can actually spice up a comedic romp like Animal House or American Pie, but the jokes here are terrible to begin with and inserted at awkward times as if the filmmakers didn’t trust the material and threw in the kitchen sink, albeit a dirty one. It’s saying something when the Farrelly brothers (There’s Something About Mary) have more class in any given scene of their comedies than all these jokes put together. A missed opportunity is Schneider’s character falling in love with Eva. It is perhaps the only half-way decent thing the movie has going, and it is never fully developed. It does try to be good hearted and at times there is a glimmer of a decent scene only to be undermined by a sick punchline.
Schneider tries too hard at being funny and seems like he is forcing the jokes which makes it even worse. Griffin fares scarcely better in a cardboard role unworthy of his standup talent. Only Verboom fares adequately as Eva, and she is perhaps the only nice thing about the film. Not even the cameo/bit roles by Saturday Night Live alumni Norm MacDonald, Fred Armisen, and even Adam Sandler can bring life to the proceedings.
It is best to avoid Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo at all costs, and unless you have nothing better to do with your free time, it is still best to sit in a corner and stare at a blank wall; you will be far more entertained. Run for your lives!
* of **** stars mostly for Hanna Verboom
Deuce Bigalow takes up where he left off as a jinxed widow who travels to Europe to join his pimp friend, T. J. Hicks (Eddie Griffin), who gets in hot water as a mistaken prime suspect in a series of murders of gigolos or ‘man whores’ as they call themselves. Deuce explores the European world of these men and even interviews the last women to see the murder victims alive. This sets up an amusing series of dates with women who have unusual physical attributes. At the same time the police are investigating the crimes, Deuce runs into and falls in love with a beautiful woman, Eva (Hanna Verboom), who is afflicted with a multitude of behavioral ticks due to obsessive compulsive disorder. She is also the niece of the lead detective on the case who has a grudge against these ‘man whores’. The story leads to the Man Whore Awards as Deuce races to save the day while the murderer has planned a final deadly act.
That sums up a simple, silly plot that is flawed in script and execution. The director (who is heck is Mike Bigelow, a pseudonym?) and a committee of writers don’t give the story or the lead actors a chance to succeed. What’s worse is that the skills of most of the people involved appear amateurish at best and may have been reedited and cut severely during post-production. Indeed, the transitions are at times jarring and sloppy. Billy Wilder, Preston Sturges, and Ernest Lubitsch are rolling in their graves.
If only the screenwriters had trusted their story more and sprinkled the jokes sparingly, the film would take on a more structured and involving comedic romance. Instead, what we get is literally toilet humor of the worst kind and repeated gags that are gross and intellectually void of brain matter. It’s one thing to have bawdy sight gags and vulgar humor which can actually spice up a comedic romp like Animal House or American Pie, but the jokes here are terrible to begin with and inserted at awkward times as if the filmmakers didn’t trust the material and threw in the kitchen sink, albeit a dirty one. It’s saying something when the Farrelly brothers (There’s Something About Mary) have more class in any given scene of their comedies than all these jokes put together. A missed opportunity is Schneider’s character falling in love with Eva. It is perhaps the only half-way decent thing the movie has going, and it is never fully developed. It does try to be good hearted and at times there is a glimmer of a decent scene only to be undermined by a sick punchline.
Schneider tries too hard at being funny and seems like he is forcing the jokes which makes it even worse. Griffin fares scarcely better in a cardboard role unworthy of his standup talent. Only Verboom fares adequately as Eva, and she is perhaps the only nice thing about the film. Not even the cameo/bit roles by Saturday Night Live alumni Norm MacDonald, Fred Armisen, and even Adam Sandler can bring life to the proceedings.
It is best to avoid Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo at all costs, and unless you have nothing better to do with your free time, it is still best to sit in a corner and stare at a blank wall; you will be far more entertained. Run for your lives!
* of **** stars mostly for Hanna Verboom
BROKEN FLOWERS Has Emotions in Full Bloom
Flowers bloom and wilt just as people grow and age emotionally over time. How a character starts one way and is changed fundamentally in the end is at the heart of Jim Jarmusch’s latest character study, Broken Flowers. It features a pared down performance by comedian/actor Bill Murray, and it may well be his best role to date.
A successful computer entrepreneur and bachelor, Don Johnston (Murray), receives an anonymous letter from a former lover which reveals that he had a child out of wedlock and that the now nineteen year old son may try to contact him. When his current girlfriend, Sherry (Julie Delpy), breaks up with him, Johnston’s neighbor, Winston (Jeffrey Wright), encourages him to make a list of all his girlfriends from that period of time to figure out who the mother may be. As the list is reduced to four (Sharon Stone Frances Conroy, Jessica Lange, and Tilda Swinton), Winston sends a reluctant Johnston on a quest for the truth. Clues abound as Johnston attempts to query each woman to find the connection to the letter. Past and present feelings come welling to the surface, some them pleasant and some painful. Johnston must endure his lumps as he awkwardly tries to obtain any inkling of truth from his mysterious letter writer. There are red herrings too along the way as anticipated resolutions give way to disappointment and emptiness. Or does it? What is the truth and what is reality? These are the sort of questions that crop up during the trip to the end.
The film opens with the departing Sherry telling Johnston that “you’re never going to change.” That is the beginning of a kind of human experiment of travel and reconnecting with fond memories and old wounds. This special road trip film also works as one of Winston’s mystery novels. Only in this case, it’s one big mystery of life. When Murray’s Johnston begins his mission, he is an inert, emotionally spent, world-weary baby boomer. Director Jarmusch, who has marched to his own drummer, has always done personal, character driven pieces (Stranger than Paradise). He does a great job of inhabiting his world with disparate people who don’t always have happy endings. Jarmusch displays a clean, accessible eye for film composition, and his visuals can be striking and supportive of the emptiness Johnston must feel. Although the film appears plot driven, it is most certainly people driven as it explores relationships. His use of offbeat songs and musical score are good counterpoints to an intimate story.
The screenplay, also written by Jarmusch, is lean, yet poignantly effective, a kind of ‘less is more’ scenario. Such humorous lines as when Murray’s character complains, “I’m a stalker in a Taurus,” generate some fine moments. It is ironic that after all these years, Murray has developed into a bona fide dramatic actor whose comedic sensibilities only serve to accent rather than detract from the story. Perhaps he should have waited to the redo the somber material of The Razor’s Edge which he bravely tackled immediately following the successes of Caddyshack and Meatballs. It’s great to see him explore the subtle side of comedy and drama. He has mastered every nuance and economy of expression and is essentially toning his act down to a minimalist level even more so than in Lost in Translation. At times even his lack of reaction says more than words literally could ever say.
The actresses acquit themselves splendidly. We see too little of Delpy (Before Sunset) and Chloe Sevigny (who portrays a receptionist). Tilda Swinton is also too brief but extremely effective in a change of pace role. Frances Conroy (Six Feet Under) has a more substantive part as a repressed realtor. Sharon Stone looks fantastic and an aging Lange still has the acting chops that produced multiple Oscar nods in the past. (Trivia buffs will note this marks the second film featuring both Lange and Murray who previously excelled in Tootsie.) Speaking of Oscar, it would be a crime not to recognize Murray’s measured, controlled performance. Special mention should go to Wright in an amusing supporting role.
As for the ending, let’s just say that Murray’s character has seen all the former girlfriends with varying results and his suspicions that his son is closing in on him may be realized. These events place him at a crossroads of life. It is not an easy resolution to the film as it will not easily conform to standard plotlines. This is where the film deviates from the norm and this is where its theme potentially comes full circle. While it may be Jarmusch’s most accessible film thus far, it contains a cipher conclusion for the audience to interpret. So caught up are we in discovering the past, that we miss the point of the film-it’s all about self discovery. Despite the ending, which will separate the sophisticates from pop audiences, the film is nearly perfect up to that point for all. Those looking for happy, pat endings will be befuddled. The journey is the most important thing, and perceptive viewers will realize the ending tells more than meets the eye. I smell a sleeper here.
***1/2 of **** stars
A successful computer entrepreneur and bachelor, Don Johnston (Murray), receives an anonymous letter from a former lover which reveals that he had a child out of wedlock and that the now nineteen year old son may try to contact him. When his current girlfriend, Sherry (Julie Delpy), breaks up with him, Johnston’s neighbor, Winston (Jeffrey Wright), encourages him to make a list of all his girlfriends from that period of time to figure out who the mother may be. As the list is reduced to four (Sharon Stone Frances Conroy, Jessica Lange, and Tilda Swinton), Winston sends a reluctant Johnston on a quest for the truth. Clues abound as Johnston attempts to query each woman to find the connection to the letter. Past and present feelings come welling to the surface, some them pleasant and some painful. Johnston must endure his lumps as he awkwardly tries to obtain any inkling of truth from his mysterious letter writer. There are red herrings too along the way as anticipated resolutions give way to disappointment and emptiness. Or does it? What is the truth and what is reality? These are the sort of questions that crop up during the trip to the end.
The film opens with the departing Sherry telling Johnston that “you’re never going to change.” That is the beginning of a kind of human experiment of travel and reconnecting with fond memories and old wounds. This special road trip film also works as one of Winston’s mystery novels. Only in this case, it’s one big mystery of life. When Murray’s Johnston begins his mission, he is an inert, emotionally spent, world-weary baby boomer. Director Jarmusch, who has marched to his own drummer, has always done personal, character driven pieces (Stranger than Paradise). He does a great job of inhabiting his world with disparate people who don’t always have happy endings. Jarmusch displays a clean, accessible eye for film composition, and his visuals can be striking and supportive of the emptiness Johnston must feel. Although the film appears plot driven, it is most certainly people driven as it explores relationships. His use of offbeat songs and musical score are good counterpoints to an intimate story.
The screenplay, also written by Jarmusch, is lean, yet poignantly effective, a kind of ‘less is more’ scenario. Such humorous lines as when Murray’s character complains, “I’m a stalker in a Taurus,” generate some fine moments. It is ironic that after all these years, Murray has developed into a bona fide dramatic actor whose comedic sensibilities only serve to accent rather than detract from the story. Perhaps he should have waited to the redo the somber material of The Razor’s Edge which he bravely tackled immediately following the successes of Caddyshack and Meatballs. It’s great to see him explore the subtle side of comedy and drama. He has mastered every nuance and economy of expression and is essentially toning his act down to a minimalist level even more so than in Lost in Translation. At times even his lack of reaction says more than words literally could ever say.
The actresses acquit themselves splendidly. We see too little of Delpy (Before Sunset) and Chloe Sevigny (who portrays a receptionist). Tilda Swinton is also too brief but extremely effective in a change of pace role. Frances Conroy (Six Feet Under) has a more substantive part as a repressed realtor. Sharon Stone looks fantastic and an aging Lange still has the acting chops that produced multiple Oscar nods in the past. (Trivia buffs will note this marks the second film featuring both Lange and Murray who previously excelled in Tootsie.) Speaking of Oscar, it would be a crime not to recognize Murray’s measured, controlled performance. Special mention should go to Wright in an amusing supporting role.
As for the ending, let’s just say that Murray’s character has seen all the former girlfriends with varying results and his suspicions that his son is closing in on him may be realized. These events place him at a crossroads of life. It is not an easy resolution to the film as it will not easily conform to standard plotlines. This is where the film deviates from the norm and this is where its theme potentially comes full circle. While it may be Jarmusch’s most accessible film thus far, it contains a cipher conclusion for the audience to interpret. So caught up are we in discovering the past, that we miss the point of the film-it’s all about self discovery. Despite the ending, which will separate the sophisticates from pop audiences, the film is nearly perfect up to that point for all. Those looking for happy, pat endings will be befuddled. The journey is the most important thing, and perceptive viewers will realize the ending tells more than meets the eye. I smell a sleeper here.
***1/2 of **** stars
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)