HIGH NOON WITH 3:10 TO YUMA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HORRORFIND’s FAMILIAR FACES

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

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

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

SHORE LEAVE 29 BOASTS ORIGINAL SERIES STAR

Actress Nichelle Nichols played Lt. Uhura in the original television series Star Trek. It was a supporting role that has, in decades since, catapulted her to royalty status at the recent Shore Leave event in Baltimore’s Hunt Valley. It was impressive to see how stunning she looked (at the age of 74) and very much on top of her game when fielding questions during a question-and-answer session. She contributed significantly to the progressive changes and perceptions of the civil rights movement through her portrayal of a star ship officer at a time when multiracial casts were unique to the small screen. She participated in the first interracial on air kiss with William Shatner in 1968 and was very influential in the recruitment process of astronauts in the U.S. space program which actively expanded its roster to include minorities and women. It was she who helped cultivate her character’s name, which started as the name of a book, Uhuru and softened to Uhura. Ever the professional, she stayed for hours into the evening to sign autographs for grateful fans.

Also on hand were cast members from other sci-fi shows past and present including Claudia Christian (from Babylon Five). Did you know that it was between her and Sandra Bullock for the starring role in Speed? She wondered out loud how that might have changed her life. In addition to her acting jobs, she has done singing and voiceover work. A playful, witty actress, she has been working nonstop for several years and currently resides in England.

Herb Jefferson, Jr has appeared in many television roles and was memorable as Nick Nolte’s friend in the landmark Rich Man Poor Man miniseries. Perhaps most people remember him as one of the pilots in the original Battlestar Galactica series of the 1970’s. He reminisced about the hurried, shooting schedule for that show, (which was adored for a brief time in the wake of the Star Wars fad) and how he forged a lasting, deep friendship with series star, Lorne Greene.

The usual group of dealers and vendors selling sci-fi related items was on hand, and the diverse attendees, some of whom were dressed as a favorite Star Trek character (a couple Harry Potter types were there too), all seemed to be enjoying the festive day.

2007 OSCAR PREDICTIONS

Here are my 2007 OSCAR predictions and I can only say that while I saw all the Best Picture nominations and some other titles (Dreamgirls, Pan's Labyrinth, Notes on a Scandal, Devil Wears Prada, Cars), I was unable to catch other nominated ones, so an educated guess is all I can give.

PICTURE-Even though Letters from Iwo Jima was the best of these, and Dreamgirls should have been nominated, and The Departed is 3/4 a great movie, and Babel starts like a great film with great ambitions, and the Queen was too 'perfect' to garner votes, a small, 'a feel good film that could' and one that is neither remarkable or extraordinary except for the fact it humorously expouses the importance of family will win-Little Miss Sunshine.

ACTOR-Forest Whitaker has paid his dues and made the most of a role of a lifetime.easy pick.
ACTRESS-Helen Mirren has paid her dues and made the most of a role of a lifetime. easy pick. deja vu.
SUPPORTING ACTOR-Eddie Murphy's comeback role. He may never do work so good or display his total talent so well. I am wistful in wishing Peter O'Toole the best and Alan Arkin needed a bit more screentime.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS-Jennifer Hudson found the right part at the right time. Just watch her climactic song "AND I AM TELLING YOU I'M NOT GOING" and you could give her the Oscar for those few minutes alone.
DIRECTOR-MARTIN SCORSESE finally gets his dues with The Departed. It would be stunning upset otherwise. Inarritu for Babel and Eastwood for Letters from Iwo Jima would be justified in any other year.
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-Little Miss Sunshine.
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-The Departed one of the few times a film adapted from another film (Infernal Affairs)was honored.
CINEMATOGRAPHY-Pan's Labyrinth.
VISUAL EFFECTS-Pirates of the Caribbean-Dead Mans Chest
COSTUME-Dreamgirls
EDITING-Babel although United 93 stands a great chance.
ART DIRECTION-Pan's Labyrinth despite a possible surge in Dreamgirls
MAKEUP-Pan's Labyrinth
SOUND MIXING-Deamgirls
SONG-Listen/Dreamgirls
SOUND EDITING-Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Mans Chest
ORIGINAL SCORE-The Queen but possible competition from Babel
FOREIGN -Pan's Labyrinth
DOCUMENTARY-An Inconvenient Truth
ANIMATED-Cars
I think Dreamgirls and Pan's Labyrinth could win alot of the smaller awards between them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROBERT ALTMAN-Beloved Maverick

The death of famed director Robert Altman at age 81 is the loss of a true auteur of filmmaking whose prowess was undiminished right to the end.

A late bloomer who had done considerable television work in its golden era (his TV work was formidable in its own right-Combat, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Bonanza, Peter Gunn), Altman had minor success in feature films in the sixties until he transformed M*A*S*H into a critical and popular success which would launch him throughout the seventies as a visionary artist who told stories in a candid, realistic manner. Of course, his style has been emulated by newer directors like Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia) and Paul Haggis (Crash) who have adopted aspects of Altman’s storyline structure of often seemingly unrelated characters in a vast tapestry of contemporary America that gradually coalesce into a unifying theme. Witness the recent Babel, which bears a striking similarity to the Altman way.

If you wanted ‘precise to the page’ scripted dialogue, then you wouldn’t look to an Altman film. He was notorious for improvising scenes and lines, and his fierce independence and respect for actors attracted the biggest and best of stars. How else could he get Bruce Willis and Julia Roberts do what amounted to superb cameos in The Player! It was fun to watch him match different actors together just to see how they would respond. One minute there was Lily Tomlin paired with Keith Carradine in Nashville and both get Oscar nominations, and next there was Lindsay Lohan paired with Meryl Streep in A Prairie Home Companion.

I had the good fortune of meeting Altman while I was working with the student union film committee at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland. He was featured to speak to the students at a showing of some of his films, and several of us had lunch at a nearby restaurant. Altman was always patient and informative in his responses to questions from the committee. What you saw on TV was what you got; he was just like that in real life. When asked what he thought of the hit television show M*A*S*H based on his movie, he wasn’t particularly fond of it since it sanitized and distorted the truth about what his film was trying to depict. When asked which of his films was his favorite, he answered that it was difficult to choose in the same way that his films were like his children, all special and beloved. I asked him what he had thought of Sam Peckinpah, another contemporary director, and his answer was “sick man…very sick….”, which was often an opinion shared by many. Altman’s individuality was evident when the waitress took our orders, and all of us went for the all-you-can-eat buffet. When it came time for Mr. Altman to order, he instead ordered a sandwich. Go figure.

A case could be made that as he got older, he became a better filmmaker. Sure, there were misfires like Popeye or the quirky Brewster McCloud, but you had to give him credit for being willing to take chances. Every few years or so, when you thought his career was foundering, he would return with The Player or Gosford Park and silence the critics and scholars. His is a body of work (Nashville, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, 3 Women, Short Cuts) that will be admired and imitated for a long time.

STRANGER THAN FICTION –Life as Narrative

Marc Forster is making a name for himself with such major films as Monsters Ball and Finding Neverland. In Stranger Than Fiction, he takes a plot that could have been suggested by Charlie Kaufman (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation) and creates a world that suggests fantasy yet is grounded in what we call reality. It is an inventive plot made convincing by sensitive direction and fine performances by its stars, Will Ferrell and Maggie Gyllenhaal.

IRS civil servant Harold Crick (Ferrell) leads a regimented, mundane existence, which consists of an orderly routine guided by his punctual wristwatch. His solitary life becomes upset by the presence of a female voice that seems to be narrating his every move. His daily rituals are altered and, when he audits a baker, a free spirited activist named Ana Pascal (Gyllenhaal), he meets stiff resistance and hostility. Compelled to find the answers to the mysterious voice, he first consults the company shrink (Tom Hulce in a welcome, yet short performance), a therapist (Linda Hunt in too brief a role), and finally a literary professor, Dr. Jules Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman in bravura support). It is with Dr. Hilbert that Harold finds hope and a methodology to solve the puzzle of the narrative voice.

At the same time, famed author, Kay Eiffel, is trying to finish her latest novel about a taxman who is hearing voices. When she struggles to find a suitable end for her character (all her principal characters are killed off in her books), a publisher’s assistant arrives in the name of Penny Escher (Queen Latifah wasted in a pedestrian part). Harold visits Ana for a followup audit and becomes smitten and attracted by her perky charm. As he audits her maze of disorganized tax documents, Ana begins to feel bad for the poor soul and gives him a sort of peace offering of homemade cookies, and thus their relationship grows. His visits with Dr. Hilbert begin to narrow the possible sources of his affliction until one day he stumbles on the answer and in doing so, he realizes that his life is predestined. His life out of kilter, Harold begins to break out of his quiet shell and experience life’s interesting aspects. Kay’s mental block soon gives way and when she finishes her novel and is ready to type the manuscript, Harold tracks her down using some creative ingenuity. She too has realized some incredible connection between her story and his real life. When Dr. Hilbert reads the final manuscript, his conclusions are a stunner to Harold. How Harold and Kay respond to this is what winds the film to a tense conclusion.

The dialogue is funny at times and always interesting. There are traces of other films like Groundhog Day, Field of Dreams or an episode of The X Files that will come to mind. The movie touches on the concepts of fate and destiny without being too obvious-perhaps it should have been more obvious come to think of it. Do we control our lives or are we part of some other plan or manuscript (like The Matrix)? The concept of ‘cause and effect’ and of randomness figures heavily in the overall theme of the film.

Harold is a sort of distant cousin to Forrest Gump complete with an innocent perspective on life. His character works because his persona changes throughout the film and when he faces his fears and desires head on, his life begins to move forward in ways he never imagined. He is starting to live life. And when he finds out his fate, he makes a big decision that brings his character full circle.

Harold’s watch becomes a kind of supporting character, as it serves as a catalyst for him and Ana to bond, but it is used too sparingly at times. There is a slight feeling that the filmmakers did not have enough confidence in the fantasy part to match the reality which is well done. Too bad, as the film steadily progresses in its story and etches some interesting characters. It also gets a bit confusing as to why a couple of characters pop in and out briefly, and you know it’s for some reason that becomes more evident by the climax.

The movie is at its best when Harold warms up to Ana, and the two begin a courtship that is affecting and genuine. In this, Gyllenhaal and Ferrell shine. Will Ferrell has always been a dependable comic from his Saturday Night Live years, but here, he successfully portrays a shy, passive man complete with blank expressions and awkward body language. Hoffman has his most significant role in years since his brief but memorable turn in Foster’s previous Finding Neverland. And Gyllenhaal proves adept as a romantic lead.

Forster is becoming a modern day teller of fables. In Stranger Than Fiction he spins a simple tale (written by Zach Helm) of love, life, and fate with a moral that is redemptive and refreshing. Not everyone will connect with this film; I suspect that the romantics out there will.

*** of **** stars

BABEL’s Microcosm of the World

With a plot structure not unlike his previous Amores Perros or 21 Grams, director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and writer Guillermo Arriaga have created Babel, the final act of a trilogy about the human condition. With seemingly unrelated characters and storylines that gradually merge, it is as ambitious as a narrative can get, and the filmmakers pull it off with great aplomb.

Four parallel stories take place within days if not hours of each other. In Morocco, the father of a goat herding family buys a rifle from a neighbor. Set to guard the flock from predators, his two sons decide to do some target practice. As a tour bus happens by, a single shot rings out, and a careless act will create havoc and distress for innocent victims and have severe repercussions for others.

In the bus, an American couple, Richard (Brad Pitt) and Susan (Cate Blanchett), are having a marital crisis when all of a sudden their world is turned upside down. The tour bus stops at a remote village as the passengers begin to stir and fear for their own safety. As the Moroccan police investigate the incident, Richard is desperate to save the life of his wife amid primitive surroundings in a foreign land.

The couple’s two children in California are under the care of their nanny, Amelia (Adriana Barraza), who is anxious to go to her son’s impending wedding. After failing to find suitable caregivers to watch over the children, she takes them with her to Mexico. Escorted by her volatile nephew Santiago (Gael Garcia Bernal), they drive to a festive wedding ceremony and reception. Afterwards, they are stopped at a border checkpoint where events turn nightmarish.

In Japan, a lonely teenaged girl, Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi) who is deaf, hangs with her other deaf friends and dreams of flirting and connecting with a male even if it means compromising her dignity. Her father, Yasujiro (Koji Yakusho) is inadequate as a parent since his wife died under obscure circumstances. As detectives want to question Yasujiro, Cheiko is smitten by a younger detective and unleashes a torrent of passion and secrets.

The final moments of the film are memorable as each storyline becomes clearer and potent in their revelations and truths. Time slips back and forth and certain events catch up to the others (Christopher Nolan’s Momento comes to mind). The threads that connect the different stories are not as obvious as one might expect and when they do become apparent, they hold emotional meaning. What is so remarkable is how a seemingly innocent prank sets off a chain reaction of angst and responsibility.

The film does not sermonize but rather it presents the events as they happen albeit in an incongruent time frame. You experience life and its effects on other events and people. The director and writer try to depict people like you or me with the same needs or longings. With a setting that reaches the far-flung corners (Japan, Mexico or Morocco) of the world, Inarritu has forced his audience to go with him and face a myriad of characters that speak English, Japanese, Spanish, Arabic, Berber, or French! Yet when we get to know these disparate individuals and their situations, we begin to empathize and care for them despite their faults or shortcomings. Although the title has biblical references with its different languages, these stories share common emotional bonds that transcend mere dialects. This is a film that could easily play anywhere in the world and still be affecting.

The international cast melds amateurs with seasoned veterans and the honest performances are completely captivating and affecting. I dare anyone to pick out the professional actors from the non professionals (save Pitt and Blanchett). This use of unknowns adds to the believability of the whole storyline. (It is ironic that Michael Pena plays a border policeman; he was featured in last year’s similarly structured Crash-a coincidence perhaps?)

There are painful, agonizing moments where human suffering is brought with unflinching, explicit realism to an almost unbearable level. This film presents characters with all their strengths and weaknesses and it does so unsparingly. Sometimes the punishment or consequences unfairly outweigh the crime or the mistake. The brothers who watch over their father’s goats must face their own culpability and ugly family secrets that threaten to destroy their way of life. There are Richard and Susan who are at the center or eye of a growing hurricane of life’s cruel randomness and must depend on strangers for survival. A jaunt across a Mexican border turns ugly.

Things are not wrapped up nicely, and several plot threads are left hanging and open-ended on purpose. The marital problems of Richard and Susan are never clearly delineated and their relationship gets short shrift even as they go through a harrowing event. The music is somber and spare. The imagery is powerful despite the handheld documentary feel. The scenes of Japanese nightlife are vivid and disturbing in their portrayal of urban youth.

Babel is about how families are torn apart and come together. It is also about children. It could be your children or mine or the world’s children. There are some significant issues (racial tension, illegal immigrants, adolescent yearnings, perceptions of a foreign country, and the arrogance of the ‘ugly American’) the filmmakers touch upon and you wish they had gone even farther with the material, but you are glad they went as far as they did. Babel is a film that this reviewer has no desire to sit through again, but having gone through it once, it is a unique, remarkable experience. This is an imperfect, significant film and destined for major Oscar nominations.

*** ½ out of **** stars

THE DEPARTED - Scorsese’s Gangs of Boston

No one has depicted the modern underworld better than film maestro Martin Scorsese who has melded cinematic acumen with his Italian-Catholic upbringing to form a trilogy of unparalleled morality plays: Mean Streets, Goodfellas, and Casino. The trilogy has become a quartet by default as the director tackles the Asian cult classic, Infernal Affairs, and has fashioned The Departed, a film so good up until its stunning conclusion, it almost can’t possibly live up to its steadily built, character driven narrative.

Set in Boston, mobster Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) rises from small time hood to major crime boss. He befriends and mentors a boy, Colin Sullivan, who, as a grown man (Matt Damon) has studied his way to the State Police academy. Simultaneously, another young man, Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), is about to graduate as a policeman. A task force is formed to build a case against Costello. Led by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Sergeant Dignam (Mark Wahlberg), Sullivan and Costigan are recruited for the team separately and unbeknownst to each other. Sullivan takes advantage of his status by tipping off Costello and keeping the kingpin one step ahead of the law. Costigan infiltrates Costello’s crew while Sullivan ironically leads an internal investigation into probable traitors/informants in the police department. Soon, Costello and Sullivan realize that there is a ‘mole’ in their own ranks too, but who can it be? It becomes a perverse game of cat and mouse as the policemen try to expose each other. Furthermore, Sullivan begins dating Madolyn (Vera Farmiga), a police shrink who also counsels and then forms a bond with Costigan. Realizing that he is about to be discovered, Costigan wants to be extracted by Queenan who senses that the situation is desperate. As the task force closes on Costello, Sullivan zeros in on Costigan’s identity by tailing Queenan, and thus good and evil are set on a collision course with startling, tragic finality.

Here we have a dichotomy or duality of two men, Sullivan and Costigan, both intelligent, well read, and streetwise, who happen to be on opposing sides and for a majority of the story, unaware of each other’s identity. Costigan is the noble undercover cop whose life is in ever increasing peril and Sullivan is the hotshot policeman who will do anything to protect Costello. Then there are the surrogate fathers as Nicholson’s Costello mentors Sullivan while Sheen’s Captain Queenan shepherds Costigan. It is amusing to see how Costello sort of adopts Costigan and Queenan is the elder to Sullivan at the police station. It is a parallel family nucleus turned inside out.

The acting is simply put-great. Jack Nicholson convincingly portrays a powerful mob boss with utter arrogance and ruthlessness. His dialogue is chilling and at times outrageously funny. Damon, in his old stomping grounds, sports a New England accent and does a very credible job as the heavy. DiCaprio demonstrates an ever-growing maturity in his roles; his recent partnership with Scorsese is proving fruitful (Gangs of New York, The Aviator). You have to hand it to Scorsese as one of the few directors who can attract the best actors who are dying to work with him. How else could such lead actors as Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin (who is a riot as a profanity-laced FBI boss), and Mark Wahlberg accept what are essentially supporting roles!

The film does miss on a couple points. It would have meant more if the relationship of Madolyn and Sullivan had been explored with more depth, and the emergence of Costigan in this unlikely triangle would have had more poignancy. Likewise, at the end, those relationships are left unclear and never fully explored as much as we want after we get so involved in these characters good or bad as they might be. The film is a little long but never uninteresting, and when it reaches its astonishing ending, it is sudden and jarring in unexpected ways that reach Shakespearean proportions.

Scorsese is still very much in command of his medium, as he will throw in a cinematic device like an iris-in shot or freeze a frame here or there. (Editor Thelma Schoonmaker, his long time collaborator, is in fine form juggling a dozen characters and maintaining the tension at a very high level for a long time, no easy feat.) Though Scorsese’s early Mean Streets (1973) was a fictional tale of low level hoods, it was also semi-autobiographical in its depiction of the people he knew. Goodfellas (1990) and Casino (1995) took a semi-documentary approach that held a fascination of real life events amid a dramatic storyline. In terms of structure, The Departed, while similar in spirit and energy to his previous crime dramas, shows Scorsese fabricating essentially a purely fictitious story, and as always, he has a knack for depicting the inner workings of organized crime with realistic bravado.

There are echoes of the films, The Corruptor (featuring Wahlberg), Donnie Brasco and Reservoir Dogs (also a Hong Kong inspired plot) with their questions of loyalty and betrayal. While earlier police corruption stories were told primarily from the police/protagonist’s point of view like Serpico or the great Prince of the City, The Departed takes an equal time approach with its protagonists and antagonists.

The movie contains raw violence including a brief but action packed climax. The profanity is excessive but realistic, and at times there are amusing cussing matches between the various factions. It’s hard to wrap your arms around The Departed because there’s just so much to savor and admire while also wishing that the radical change in tone at the end weren’t so jarring to the rhythm of the plot. It’s basically a film about rats, and you know what happens to rats.

***1/2 of **** stars (almost as good as Goodfellas)

FIRST MID ATLANTIC NOSTALGIA CONVENTION SERVES UP IRWIN ALLEN ALUMNI

Saturday September 16, 2006
The first Mid Atlantic Nostalgia Convention took place this past weekend in Aberdeen, MD. As usual, this event featured the usual dealer tables filled with books, comics, posters and stills from movies and tv shows past. As a bonus, there were several recognizable celebrities including Lana Wood (Natalie's sister and memorable as Plenty in Diamonds Are Forever), Marta Kristen (Judy in Lost in Space), and David Hedison (Capt. Lee Crane from tv's Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea). It was the latter who drew my attention having spent a childhood filled with imaginative adventure and science fiction, and what better than the submarine Seaview (get the screenname connection?) and its weekly adventures before Star Trek became the intellectual landmark in scifi tv. My family would have dinners out on many a Sunday and we would rush back home (before VCRs) in time to turn on the tv and see the opening tag for Voyage at 7pm EST. For its time, the show was impressive technically with its heavy special effects and in its early years, complex storylines (often courtesy of William Read Woodfield and Allan Balter who would then propell tv's Mission Impossible to glory). Although the later seasons would devolve into the monster of the week (as most Irwin Allen shows did), the show was an action filled good time. It is not a coincidence that Steven Spielberg remade the show as Seaquest DSV in the early 1990's.


During an hour long question and answer session, Hedison was quite animated, humorous, and very candid about his love for his craft of acting and his appreciation of his profession and the mentors he had known including the Playhouse where he studied with Sydney Pollack, Joanne Woodward, and Steve McQueen. Hedison related a story that during classes, McQueen told him that the two would be stars one day, and sure enough, a few years later, Haedison recalled seeing a movie marquee featuring Steve McQueen in The Blob and David Hedison as The Fly. And yes, Hedison says he gets asked all the time if he was under the fly mask (he was). And yes, he did most of his own stunts in Voyage which was crazy to attempt. And he only did Voyage at the advice of friend, Roger Moore and because of the casting of Richard Baseheart as Admiral Nelson. Later, Hedison would have the distinction of being the only actor to play CIA operative Felix Leiter twice in the long running James Bond series (Live and Let Die and License To Kill). What a thrill it was to finally meet Captain Crane in person and share great memories. Yes, for a moment I became a groupie.

Horror Weekend Thrives Despite Terrorism

(George Romero and fan, Dee Wallace Stone, Priscilla Barnes)

A good time was had by fans of the macabre at the annual Horrorfind Convention at Hunt Valley Marriott Hotel this past weekend. Numerous vendors displayed posters, toys, books, and videos in the horror genre. Several celebrities were present including Dee Wallace Stone (the mother in E.T.), Priscilla Barnes (Three's Company, The Devils Rejects), and legendary director George Romero (The Night of the Living Dead trilogy, Creepshow). Despite the absence of others like Rutger Hauer (Blade Runner), Denise Crosby (Star Trek:The Next Generation), and Adrienne Barbeau (Maude, Escape from New York) due to issues including air flight disruption from the recent terrorist threat, this was a crowded event with something for every horror fan.

OSCAR PREDICTIONS 2006

OK, I have been out of the loop for awhile (due to some major construction at the homestead) and there are several significant movie reviews forthcoming. However, I cannot miss out on the annual Oscar picks. I have seen most of the major films but I have not been able to catch up to the middle of the pack e.g. Syriana
Here we go and I went with my heart on the top awards even if it went against the popular consensus.
PICTURE-BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN was not the strongest movie of the year but its central theme struck a chord that should sweep it into history.
ACTOR-PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN’s role of a lifetime that he makes the most of.
ACTRESS-Reese Witherspoon seems to have the popular edge by a mile. I choose FELICITY HUFFMAN’s more challenging though under seen role in Transamerica, but what do I know?
SUPPORTING ACTOR-If there is justice in the world, PAUL GIAMATTI’s gutsy performance in Cinderella Man will win a split decision over popular juggernaut George Clooney.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS-RACHEL WEISZ was the soul of The Constant Gardener even though Amy Adams leaped out of Junebug
DIRECTOR–for a versatile career, the award goes to ANG LEE especially in a relatively weak field.
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-CRASH works because some very fine actors brought a great screenplay to life.
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN emerged from a short story and with an assist from western expert Larry McMurtry
ANIMATED FEATURE-WALLACE & GROMIT IN THE CURSE OF THE WERE- RABBIT was in fact one of the best films of the year.
DOCUMENTARY FEATURE-MARCH OF THE PENGUINS will march down the aisle
ART DIRECTION-MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA
CINEMATOGRAPHY-MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA might be upset by Brokeback Mountain
COSTUME DESIGN-MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA
FILM EDITING-CRASH’s multiple storylines presented a great editing opportunity
SOUND EDITING and SOUND MIXING-KING KONG
VISUAL EFFECTS-KING KONG
MAKEUP-CHRONICLES OF NARNIA
FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM-TSOSTI
ORIGINAL SCORE-MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA
ORIGINAL SONG-“Travelin’ Thru”-TRANSAMERICA
I won’t get into the short films which I have not seen.
I think that Memoirs of a Geisha will take some technical awards and could actually win the most Oscars. ENJOY!

Johnny Cash is Humanized in WALK THE LINE

It seems biographies of well known figures of the twentieth century have become an ever increasing source material for high drama (Ray, Beyond the Sea). Singer and songwriter Johnny Cash and his true love June Carter are realized by some honest, heartfelt performances and vivid period settings in Walk the Line. Directed by James Mangold (Girl Interrupted) from a screenplay by himself and Gill Dennis, the film draws material from autobiographies The Man in Black and Cash: An Autobiography.

An impending concert by Johnny Cash at Folsom State Prison is the point the story begins as it flashes back to 1944 in the South where the struggling Cash family works on a plantation. As a young boy, Johnny idolizes his older brother Jack and wishes for something special in life. Their mother gives Johnny the love for singing hymns while their father (Robert Patrick) is an alcoholic, stern figure. When tragedy strikes the family, an emotional, dark cloud hangs over Johnny (Joaquin Phoenix) through the years even as he serves military duty in Germany and begins to find solace in writing music. He marries his sweetheart, Vivian (Ginnifer Goodwin), and the two have a family and struggle to stay afloat financially while Johnny tinkers with gospel music and forms a trio. When a fateful audition starts badly, he reverts to his more personal, angry music, and the rest is history. Johnny begins cutting records, dressing in his fabled black outfits, and touring with the likes of Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley, and June Carter (Reese Witherspoon). Cash begins an infatuation and life long obsession for June who is also married at the time. Before long, Cash develops a dependency on drugs with unfortunate results. His career at a crossroads and his home life a shambles, he descends into a self-destructive path with only June Carter as his true love and salvation.

Let's face it, the reason for seeing this film is to see how good the performances are by Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon, and they deliver the goods. There is definitely chemistry between the two especially in their duets as both of them show vocal abilities by singing their own songs (as in films like Coal Miner's Daughter and The Buddy Holly Story). It would require a strong actor to play a legend, and Phoenix proves to be adept. He gets his vocals in a deep, low range to the point you are convinced that he is young Johnny Cash! Kudos should also go to Witherspoon who also shows a gift for warbling with a country twang and acting all at once, not a feat to be taken lightly. Goodwin shines in her moments as the first Mrs. Cash, and it's a shame we don't see more of her in the film.

The concert scenes are restaged with authenticity while simultaneously involving us with fluid close-ups and sharp cutting. It's nice to hear some famous songs recreated for today's audience. Even if you weren't a fan, the songs strike a memory chord regardless. Like Ray, Walk the Line shows how familial loss can have a lasting impact creatively and emotionally. The story manages to move ahead a few years at a time and important moments are rendered realistically. It is amusing in these pop music biographies to see a Who's Who of Rock n' Roll greats in their career infancies. Just seeing Cash pal around with the likes of Lewis, Presley, and others is fascinating. A lot of ground is covered in a little over two hours, but it doesn't feel too episodic.

What the film captures successfully is the affect that his music had on prison inmates and how an overwhelming amount of his fan mail was attributed to prisoners who felt that he spoke to them. (Watch for a cameo by co-producer James Keach as the prison warden.) Cash was a man of the people, and the film takes great pains to show that Cash was not perfect and in fact very human. He succumbs to the temptations of female groupies, gets addicted to drugs, goes to prison, and shows peculiar behavior as he obsesses with June. Although he was smitten with her, Cash was instrumental in getting June into the spotlight to do solos and to stand equal with him.

The film's momentum bogs down during Cash's downfall but redeems itself with scenes such as the Thanksgiving dinner in which Johnny confronts his father. Among the movie's few flaws is the failure to develop the strained relationship between Cash and his intimidating father (well played by Patrick), and the resolution of the film with its family reunion doesn't ring true as one would have liked. There is an amusing scene with June and her family scaring off a drug dealer who is trying to see Johnny. More scenes like that would have been welcome.

There will naturally be constant comparisons with Ray, but that shortchanges a film that would shine in any year. OK, Ray might be a tad better and Coal Miner's Daughter is the gold standard, but Walk the Line does just fine and Phoenix is terrific.

*** of **** stars (add ½* for Joaquin's performance)

KING KONG-Still the Champ

Let's be clear about this epic retelling of 'beauty and the beast'. If you didn't care for the original 1933 horror classic, King Kong, it is doubtful you will warm to this mega version. That being said, this update is a marvelous, big production that entertains and excites without sacrificing any of its emotional substance. As escapist fare with heart, the new King Kong has blockbuster written all over it, and in this case that's a good thing, a very good thing indeed.

It is Depression era in New York City where Carl Denham (Jack Black), a frustrated movie director, gambles that he can make a hit film on a remote island. Denham happens upon Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), an unemployed actress/comedienne, and casts her as his star. With some deception, he embarks on his filmic voyage with reluctant screenwriter, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody). Arriving at uncharted Skull Island, the film crew ventures inland and is confronted by unfriendly natives who later kidnap Darrow as a human sacrifice. As Driscoll leads the ship's crew to rescue Ann, a gigantic, fierce gorilla called Kong approaches and seizes her. Driscoll and the others are in hot pursuit through a prehistoric land where they are attacked by gigantic creatures. Kong fights his way through carnivorous dinosaurs with his female captive in hand until they reach his mountain top lair. Kong is a vicious animal, but he also reveals a gentler side when tantalized by Ann's comedic and athletic talents. The two begin to form an unlikely bond. When Driscoll manages to rescue Ann, an enraged Kong chases them until Denham tranquilizes the beast. Now a major attraction on Broadway, Kong is a prisoner until he breaks free to wreak havoc while searching for Ann. When the two are reunited, it culminates atop the Empire State Building as Kong is attacked by warplanes in a heartrending finale.

Does the new Kong justify the hype and expectations? Yes, it is the complete moviegoing experience. There are thrills, spectacle, humor, and a sense of heroic adventure, which are rare even in the post-Indiana Jones era. It would take the superhuman effort of a director like Peter Jackson (and writers Phillipa Boyens and Fran Walsh), who had just completed the legendary Lord of the Rings trilogy, to tackle this project. This is an old fashioned film that stays closely to the original script. That Jackson takes his time in quieter moments to develop his characters and never stumbles when the action starts is truly amazing. Just when you think our heroes are safe, a new danger pops up to keep you at the edge of your seat. He is a master showman of creative, funhouse perils, and when he does things, bigger is better. He re-imagines legendary sequences from the original and takes them to new heights. When Kong fights a dinosaur, he battles not two but three dinosaurs in a clash of the titans! Kong’s rampage on Broadway reminds you of the Piccadilly Circus sequence in An American Werewolf in London. When he is reunited with Ann, the two communicate through unspoken language. It is a moment of truth that Jackson films with an eerie beauty. You just know Jackson is a romantic as he sets up his dawn raid at the Empire State Building and gives his biggest star a great sendoff that compares favorably to the original.

As for Kong himself, the (CG) computer-generated effects are phenomenal as the broadest of emotions and the tiniest of mannerisms and facial nuances (like blinking his eyes) are eloquently captured. Imagine that, pathos from a CG creation!

Literally a far cry from original star Fay Wray, Naomi Watts gives the best performance in emoting true feelings and playing off her giant ape convincingly. Adrien Brody displays the necessary heroics in a role that doesn't demand much more. Jack Black was bold casting, but his character doesn't always work. Although entertaining, his Denham is more calculating and morally ambiguous than actor Robert Armstrong's 1933 depiction.

Technically the film is a marvel, and the art direction and special effects meld seamlessly together so that it is impossible to tell one from the other. Rarely do the effects look artificial except in the dinosaur stampede. The stunning visuals and fluid camera work are like eye candy, and many scenes are shot with a fresh perspective or point of view. Some of the action scenes are almost too much overkill, but Jackson gets away with it because his other scenes are so impressive.

At three hours running time, it moves fairly well. It takes an hour to get to Kong, but when he does appear, the film becomes one big, nonstop chase. There are brief lulls, but credit Jackson with not rushing to an action scene and instead savoring the quiet moments that establish the most important relationship in the story. What's satisfying in the relationship between Kong and Ann is that it is one of companionship and love without the overt sexuality of the original.

There are a couple of unsettling moments when Denham confronts the natives and a spider pit sequence that could be nightmarish for children. This pit sequence pays homage to a scene that was cut from the original and expands on the possibilities in nasty ways. If you thought Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom's insects were creepy, watch out!

Jackson wows his audiences with his talent for managing enormous spectacles and imbuing them with humanity. This film verifies his prowess as one of the most gifted directors of his generation. Audiences looking for adventure of the highest order will find a lot to enjoy here. It’s been three-quarters of a century since the original Kong wowed ‘em, and it’s a safe bet that no one will wow ‘em like Peter Jackson for another 75 years!

**** of **** stars

HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE keeps the flame burning

The phenomenal success of J. K. Rowling’s series of novels for children about a boy in a school of wizardry has been augmented by the enormous box office grosses of the film adaptations. Left with the daunting task of maintaining the standards and quality of the previous installments, Director Mike Newell has fashioned in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, a marvelous, visual treat that matches the series’ previous highs.

A new year at Hogwarts brings old faces and some new ones as the school for witchcraft and wizardry is primed for great change and a growing threat. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) is shaken by a recurring nightmare as the presence of Lord Voldemort looms ominously, and he summons Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) for advice. Soon a mysterious man, “Mad Eye’ Moody (Brendan Gleeson), arrives to help Harry against the dark forces. The school is preparing for a special gathering of two other schools to compete in a special Tri-Wizard Tournament, a fierce and dangerous competition in which only one older student from each respective school may enter via the Goblet of Fire. Harry becomes involved in the competition to the surprise of everyone including himself. As he and the other students find, the games are immensely formidable with dragons, underwater traps, and an endless maze of hedges. Meanwhile, Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) are experiencing the joys and pain of adolescence as the wonders of high school crushes and the anxiety of the school dance wreak havoc. Even Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) catches the romantic bug. Mistrust and accusations complicate matters for Harry, and Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) expresses his concerns about the future. Before long, Harry, Ron and Hermione bicker amongst themselves as their friendship is severely tested. When the tournament concludes, another set of tragic circumstances opens the way for new evil and betrayal. As the elder wizards (Gambon, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman) close ranks to protect the students especially Harry, the future remains uncertain at best.

Ironically, Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral) is the first British director of the series, and, while he had the difficult challenge of continuing the series, he has added some nice wrinkles and touches by delving deeper into the emotional conflicts of these students. In fact, the maturation and changes these teens must encounter richly add to the already exciting story. We root for these heroes and feel their discomfort and pain because we have in a sense grown up with them. As with any Harry Potter storyline, not all the characters are good and, conversely, not all the suspicious ones are bad. Several plotlines are carried over from the previous films and new ones are primed for future sequels. Screenwriter Steven Kloves, the keeper of the flame, has done a herculean job of distilling the essence of Rowling’s novels into each film thus far.

As always, the trio of young actors, Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint, own these roles, and the thought of replacing any of them due to age concerns was unnecessary. All three look great as they are now a little older and wiser. Of course, Gambon, Smith, Rickman, and Coltrane are the old pros who are the constants at Hogwarts. Ralph Fiennes is perfectly suited for his villainous turn in the startling climax. Brendan Gleeson does a fine job as the menacing, yet benevolent ‘Mad Eye’ Moody who supposedly watches over Harry during the tournament. It also seems that the most recent Harry Potter film is becoming quite an international event as the cast of students is even more ethnically diverse than ever before.

As usual, the production values are outstanding with lavish sets and costumes imaginatively photographed by Roger Pratt. The special effects are quite impressive although nothing that you haven’t already seen in the Lord of the Rings trilogy or the Star Wars sextet. Just the generous details and little touches throughout the film like the animated paintings add to the overall care that still goes into these films. Make no mistake, this is a lengthy film, but the pacing is good as a large number of scenes are strung back to back to contain as much of the book as possible into roughly two and a half hours. It feels a bit episodic but never loses sight of the main story and the emotional state of the characters.

There are creepy images and a foreboding atmosphere through much of the film. This adaptation does contain more risqué scenes such as Harry’s bathtub scene or the terrifying menace of Voldemort, in which the tone gets downright mean-spirited. The students are not so innocent anymore as they curse, and in one climactic scene come face to face with the pain of loss. A PG13 rating signals that the Potter adventures are growing up fast.

It does require that the audience have a background in the series of books or films to fully appreciate the significance of critical events, although the film can stand on its own as pure entertainment and a coming of age. In some ways Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is a classic bridge episode similar to The Empire Strikes Back. Not only is it a strong entry in the series with the most open ended finale yet, it proves a good setup for some potentially exciting things to come. Harry’s next adventure can’t come soon enough!

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

JARHEAD’s Dogs of War

The first Gulf War in Iraq has been an occasional subject matter of films, but not until Jarhead has a bona fide story emerged which captures the experience and heartache as told by director Sam Mendes. Although Mendes has never been able to match the heights of American Beauty, he does an effective job of making the audience a participant in the rigors of desert warfare.

Raw recruits are thrust into rough, basic training (at times with tragic results) as they are prepared for duty in Iraq. Among them are Anthony Swofford (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Troy (Peter Sarsgaard). Drill Sgt. Siek (Jamie Foxx) whips the young men into soldiers as they are deployed in the Persian Gulf with the imminent threat of war. This is a rough life with constant humiliation and hazing. Then comes Operation Desert Shield with the endless training, waiting, monotony, and more time away from family and home where wives and girlfriends lose touch or stray. Such is the hapless life of the grunt. A hostile terrain such as dirty oil fields adds to the isolation and need for rebellious acts to mitigate frustration. Swofford and Troy are groomed to be snipers, and when their opportunity comes in Operation Desert Storm, they are more than ready until they are dealt an unexpected turn of events.

The recurring phrase or motif in the film is “Welcome to the suck.” That about sums up what these men are put through. Adapted by William Broyles Jr. from Swofford’s own real life experiences, it is an uncompromising recreation of ‘the suck’. Mendes is content to show you what it was like but never dwells on any one scene longer than needed to get his point across.

Told essentially from his point of view, the film opens and closes with a telling monologue by Swofford that sums up his experience. He and Troy form the nucleus of the film’s conscience and soul. Swofford made the mistake of signing up while Troy is the ironic soldier who wants to fight a war but is thwarted by bureaucracy. The film does ring true in its depiction of the preparation for warfare with the heavy toll it takes on the soldiers and their personal lives. Periodically, an onscreen tag will appear to list the number of days the surging numbers of troops were in Iraq (5000 troops increases to 575,000 troops in 175 days), which helps put the events in perspective. This film demythologizes war and instead presents war as a difficult and often life changing experience resulting not from actual combat, but from the tedium and loneliness.

It is important to note that although Swofford shows a dislike for this man’s army, he continues to do as he is told. This apolitical film does not really take a stance on the war. We really don’t get enough background on Swofford or Troy to understand what makes these men tick. Rather, we are left with what they experience and how they respond on a superficial level. Troy comes across as inconsistent and his motivations are questionable. While the evolution of their relationship doesn’t always make sense, the film still packs an emotional punch. About two-thirds through, the film’s momentum begins to lose some steam and direction. There is also a sad event toward the end that is never fully explained.

Gyllenhaal (Proof, Donnie Darko) is showing good maturity as an actor, and Sarsgaard (Kinsey) is effective as his closest buddy. Jamie Foxx (Ray) registers quite convincingly as the leader of this bunch. Dennis Haysbert and Chris Cooper have short but effective moments as commanding officers with axes to grind.

Although movies have been set in the Iraqi conflict like Three Kings, this film deals directly with the soldiers who must do the dirty work. In some ways this film shares a pedigree with an ensemble piece like Battleground. There are allusions to the Vietnam War particularly at the end involving a Vietnam veteran and also in clips from Vietnam movies like Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter. The early drills recall some of the most harrowing moments from Full Metal Jacket with the verbal insults and discipline. In fact, some of the vicious lines are hysterically funny. It’s certainly a far cry from An Officer and Gentlemen. Like the soldiers at the beginning of Born on the Fourth of July, they go in wide eyed, full of optimism, and ready for action. Instead, what they find is something that beats their spirits down. In a way, the structure of vignettes and random incidents is similar to The Big Red One without the periodic voiceover. Pop songs of the era are matched perfectly to scenes. Technical aspects are good including the camera work and editing. There are some memorable images including an eerie scene where the patrol comes upon a charred caravan of vehicles with burned, Iraqi people.

Jarhead is not a perfect film, but it is well acted and pulls no punches on what it must have been like in Iraq. Those looking for an action packed war film will be severely disappointed and let down. Except for some character inconsistencies, it is a realistic study in the psychological toll that military life takes on a human being.

*** of **** stars

Literary Classic Shines in PRIDE AND PREJUDICE

Author Jane Austen has been a popular source of material for recent films and television miniseries. Her free spirited, individual women who search for happiness amid ignorance and old fashioned conduct are refreshing even by today’s standards. What’s pleasantly surprising is that Austen’s stories about manners, loyalty, honor, love, and betrayal have a universal appeal and a timeless quality amid a vivid period setting. A good example is Pride and Prejudice, which features thoughtful direction, a strong cast, and an impressive turn by its star, Keira Knightley.

In 18th century England, the Bennet family consists of a mother, (Brenda Blethyn), father (Donald Sutherland), and their many daughters including eldest Jane (Rosamund Pike) and the most independent-minded, Elizabeth (Keira Knightley). Desperate to marry her daughters to wealthy bachelors, mom will manipulate an event like the upcoming ball to play matchmaker. Enter the mysterious Mr. Darcy (Matthew MacFadyen) and his friend, Mr. Bingley, who are well-to-do and seeking a female date for the latter. Jane and Bingley seem to hit it off and another ball ensues at the Bingley estate. Meanwhile, the seemingly indifferent Darcy takes note of the free spirited Elizabeth. Gossip and rumors abound. When a soldier, Mr. Wickham, appears to woo Elizabeth and relays a tale of betrayal at the hands of Darcy, Elizabeth begins to despise Darcy. There later appears a cousin, Mr. Collins, who is heir to the Bennet fortunes and is searching for a bride to be. The problem is that Collins is hopelessly unappealing especially to the object of his affection, Elizabeth, much to the annoyance of Mrs. Bennet. Elizabeth finds herself still seemingly attracted again to Mr. Darcy when their paths cross by accident. Add to the complications the intentions of wealthy Lady Catherine de Bourg (Judi Dench), who has designs on Darcy for her younger girl, and you have a dramatic interweaving of a complex study of romance in which lovers fall from grace and reconnect.

Numerous versions of Austen’s novel have been filmed including the Laurence Olivier version from 1940 and a British television series with Colin Firth (ironically cast as a similarly named and etched character, Mark Darcy, from Bridget Jones’s Diary). TV veterans, director Joe Wright and screenwriter Deborah Moggach, do an impressive job of adapting the novel with good clarity of drama and moments of humor. It doesn’t feel like a book but rather an organic, filmic event, no small feat. This is not a ‘dumbed’ down version but a contemporary translation done with the right balance of reverence to the source material while making it accessible to modern day audiences.

Elizabeth is the kind of heroine who can think for herself at a time when women were not accorded many freedoms. She is cool as a proverbial cucumber as she makes a first impression on Darcy, and you feel an interest in how these two souls will come together despite some formidable obstacles along the way. It’s a delightful premise, and part of the fun is how this storyline and several other threads will develop. It is refreshing in any film to see how major characters will challenge an audience by evolving over the course of the story instead of remaining static.

Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Caribbean) at 20 is displaying the beginnings of a long, versatile career as a dependable actress who can tackle such prestigious material as this. In fact, her performance is not unlike the impressive turn of young Kate Winslet in Sense and Sensibility. MacFadyen is effective as Darcy, an aloof, cold fish when we first meet him. Blethyn (Secrets and Lies) is always good, and here she romps as the scheming mother. Sutherland, as the oblivious father, seems to fit period pieces quite well (Start the Revolution Without Me). Dench is always in command whenever she is on screen although it is a minor role. Rosamund Pike (Die Another Day) shows she can do more than action films.

Sure, there are minor plot holes and some inconsistencies in the characters, but the main themes work. The dialogue is proper, old English, and it takes a little time to get up to speed in deciphering the accents. The pace drags slightly toward the end, but it finishes with a nice flourish of resolution and optimism. Its dreamy ending will set hearts swooning and minds wandering to an elegant, romantic era.

The film has a natural, vivid sense of time and place. People bow and curtsey displaying all the proper mannerisms of the time. The cinematography is beautiful amid the English countryside and mansions. The extras are a realistic mixture of handsome faces and plain ones. Likewise, the interiors of the homes look worn and lived in. The balls are realistically choreographed in a manner reminiscent of TV’s Hill Street Blues where people come and go out of frame and others move throughout a fluid camera shot. Transitions that show a passage of time are cleverly done.

Pride and Prejudice is a worthy companion to 1995’s Sense and Sensibility. Don’t expect a boring film but rather a well paced drama with dashes of humor and heartfelt relationships. It not only proves that older, literary material can be brought to life cinematically without being stuffy, but that Knightley has emerged as a force to be reckoned with.

***1/2 of **** stars (especially for classic romance fans)

America on Trial in GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK

Actor/Director George Clooney pays tribute to truth and decency amid distrust and uncertainty in the Communist witchhunts with his recreation of its greatest hero, the newsman of newsmen, Edward R. Murrow, in Good Night, and Good Luck.

In the early 1950’s, the Communist scare and the subsequent subversion of citizens’ rights was at its apex with blacklists and rampant accusations resulting in ruined lives and careers. Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn) was the grand master of the news airwaves in the infantile medium of television. With his show’s director, Fred Friendly (George Clooney) and his production team, he picks one obscure news item regarding an Air Force serviceman who is dismissed due to unspecified charges. Murrow and CBS essentially take on the US Air Force amid this climate of suspicion and presumed guilt. Later, Murrow’s team takes on Senator Joseph McCarthy by making critical comments of the senator’s own words and contradictions. McCarthy retaliates with accusations of Murrow’s supposed association with un-American groups just as the parent network, CBS, reels under sponsorship pressure and the unpredictable whims of network president William Paley (Frank Langella). As Murrow and his own staff come under tense scrutiny by McCarthy and even CBS, public reaction and the response of the print media come to the forefront.

Nothing can compare to the words that were written and spoken with such conviction and honesty as those uttered by Murrow. The title of the movie is a direct quote that Murrow employed to sign off each week at the close of his interview shows. The filmmakers (including director Clooney and writers Clooney and Grant Heslov) were wise to let the text stand on its own. They also benefit from good performances from a cast headed by Strathairn (L.A. Confidential, A League of Their Own), a journeyman actor who has finally found a core role to call his own, and he makes the most of it. He gets the mannerisms and cadence down quite convincingly, and while Strathairn may not look exactly like Murrow, he has the persona nailed. Frank Langella (Dave) is excellent as the mercurial Paley whose support of Murrow was tenuous at best. Ray Wise (Twin Peaks) registers in what could have been a more defined role as a doomed newsman whose guilt by association triggers some life changing events. Patricia Clarkson (The Station Agent) and Robert Downey Jr. (Chaplin) as secretly married staffers, Joe and Shirley, round out the cast. Ironically, perhaps the best performance can be attributed to McCarthy himself as newsreels offer a fascinating, perverse glance at the infamous politician whose flamboyance and dogged theatrics doomed the careers of many government officials and film or television actors. The duel between Murrow and McCarthy seems like two heavyweights going at it verbally in the public arena.


The cinematography by Robert Elswit (Magnolia) is crisp and starkly lit in black and white to evoke the past. The production design and costumes are consistent with the period. Just the sight of newsmen typing on old style typewriters or production assistants carrying around film reels instead of videotape or discs is amusing. The editing by Stephen Mirrione (Traffic, 21 Grams) is tight and well paced. At times the studio broadcasts of a female blues singer bridges various sequences in theme and mood. The broadcast of a live network news program is staged with realism and with the frenzy and excitement that only live television could bring. One wonders what TV veterans like Sidney Lumet or Robert Altman could have brought to the table.

Murrow’s show was kind of a precursor to the current granddaddy of all prime time news shows, 60 Minutes. It was interesting to see that his was not a perfect career having to mix fluffy showbiz interviews with such personalities as Liberace on his Person-to-Person show with legitimate news reports. At 93 minutes, the film surprisingly seems a bit short. You almost feel like this is a big budget episode of the famous You Are There reenactment shows. The story ends almost abruptly as it begins being bookended by a formal event honoring Murrow in 1958.

A couple of things don’t quite work in the film. The characters of Joe and Shirley must come to terms with the network’s policy forbidding marriage among its coworkers, but this subplot doesn’t significantly serve to move the story forward. Clooney shows a workman-like approach to directing the film but it just doesn’t grab you as emotionally as you would like. You sit there entranced by the history but are never fully given to the pathos of its characters. Instead, the film becomes almost a quasi-documentary bereft of much feeling.

As previous films have dealt with the Red Scare and blacklists, this film compares favorably with The Front and the great television movie Fear on Trial. Although the Soviet Union was a major threat to the United States during the Cold War, the accusatory enemy from within was perhaps as great a menace. The implications and parallels to today’s political climate and the role television has in shaping perception are clearly the point Clooney and gang are trying to make. Murrow’s formal speech, which begins and ends the film’s story, is itself a prophetic and sobering commentary and indictment of the possibilities of television and foreshadows the future with amazing prescience. It shows that one man made a difference. Such is the testament to a heroic reporter whose integrity this film manages to capture, albeit in a brief history lesson.

*** of **** stars

Past Illuminates Present in EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED

Actor turned director Liev Schreiber (The Sum of All Fears) does an above average screen version of the novel, Everything Is Illuminated, by author Jonathan Safran Foer. This tale of journey and self discovery is highlighted by strong ensemble performances and sharp direction with a storyline that enriches and enlightens the soul.

Jonathan Foer (Elijah Wood) is a young man who has seen his grandfather, Safran, pass away. Jonathan has a peculiar habit of taking small objects and life’s little memorabilia and sealing them in plastic ziplock bags to display them on his wall. Safran gives Jonathan an old picture showing a young Safran standing next to a beautiful girl who saved his life many years ago. Thus Jonathan commences on a long journey to locate this mystery woman in the Ukraine not knowing if she is still alive. He enlists the help of a brash, young tour guide named Alex (Eugene Hutz) and his grandfather (Boris Leskin) to drive him to his goal. At first the trip hits dead ends and false leads, but as the group nears its target, the men find themselves amid the ruins of a dark chapter in history with the memories of war and the past ghosts of a nonexistent town. There, they find their own respective destinies and will be forever changed by what they learn.

This film feels like it was directed by someone who knew how to get the most from his actors. At times, the film is spoken in Russian and seems like a foreign film. The title itself is a play on self discovery. This is a thoughtful trek of one man into his past, and his past ironically involves his companions; Jonathan’s obsessive journey becomes an emotional journey for Alex and his grandfather as well. It’s a tale of bonding over the long haul and the guilt one must carry for a lifetime. By the end of the film, these characters have all experienced life altering events that will permanently intertwine their lives. It proves that memories can be powerful in traumatizing and also cleansing the soul. It’s also about one’s legacy and how others view an event or a person in the past. Alex eventually sees his grandfather in a completely different light. Even our perception of these individuals will have changed by film’s end which is a tribute to a story that is well told.

The story is deceptively simple. It functions as a road trip movie (like The Straight Story) combined with an interesting mystery story. It really involves a great many layers of emotions and subplots that range from the past to the present. The ending is a bit surreal with its déjà vu feeling.

Elijah Wood (Sin City, The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)) has chosen a wide range of roles ever since his splash in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Here, he does a fine job with what is essentially a minimalist role with not much to show. Eugene Hutz and Boris Leskin fare better as Alex and his grandfather respectively. Even the grandfather’s dog named Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. (that’s right) is funny as a fiercely loyal companion.

The spare music score by Paul Cantelon is a moody compliment to the thoughtful nature of the film. The editing is effective as imagery from past and present are linked and transitioned effortlessly. The cinematography by Matthew Libatique (Gothika, Requiem for a Dream) is appropriately stark and lifeless with some impressive images of war and its aftermath.

The coincidences that emerge during the last half of the film make for good drama but are a little too coincidental. We never fully understand the whole background story of Alex’s grandfather and what his motivations are. Likewise, Jonathan’s blank stares and lack of apparent substance and depth do not give us much more than a sketch of a quirky man. At times, the film feels a little downbeat and depressing as more horrific revelations are exposed. But these are minor criticisms of what is a good, introspective story with good performances and interesting themes of remembrance and closure. That Schreiber not only directed but adapted the screenplay to this worthwhile slice of history is a tribute to his talents and promising potential in the future.


*** of **** stars

IN HER SHOES Stands Tall

Having previously tackled a wide range of themes in his films, Director Curtis Hanson delves into the love/hate relationship of two disparate sisters in the film, In Her Shoes. The result is an enjoyably entertaining comedy/drama featuring a number of topflight performances and some hilarious dialogue.

Maggie Feller (Cameron Diaz) is an irresponsible, practically illiterate alcoholic who sleeps around and mooches or steals to get by in the world. Her sister, Rose Feller (Toni Collette) is a self conscious, workaholic lawyer who is dating her boss and indulges in her one passion, fashionable dress shoes. (Maggie’s obsession with Rose’s sexy heels recalls an ongoing theme of television’s Sex and the City.) Both sisters lost their psychologically impaired mother to a supposed car accident that affected their family over the years. One day Maggie is thrown out of her house by her step mother and dad. Finding refuge with her sister, Rose, she proceeds to make life miserable with her carefree attitude and interference that ends in embarrassment and anger for both. As Rose’s romantic and professional life is turned upside down, Maggie is sent packing and turns to one last hope, her maternal grandmother she never knew, namely Ella Hirsch (Shirley MacLaine). Ella works in a retirement community in Florida, and Maggie’s appearance causes quite a stir. When she lost her daughter, Ella lost touch with her granddaughters, and Maggie’s ‘visit’ serves as a catalyst for reconnection. Maggie’s visit becomes a reawakening of sorts for herself and a chance for Ella to rediscover her lost family. Meanwhile, Rose is at a crossroads in her life and decides to change course in her job and finds romance from an unlikely source. Anxious to reunite her granddaughters, Ella resorts to extreme measures to bridge an emotional gap as her two girls begin to discover their own identities in unique and unexpected ways.

This is a gem of a film. It says something when you realize early on that you are watching something special. Curtis Hanson (L.A.Confidential, Wonder Boys) has struck gold with Susannah Grant’s (Erin Brokovich) adaptation of the best seller by Jennifer Weiner. The film is really about the secrets and lies that cripple a family over time and how a strange course of events revisit the relationships or lack thereof. Hanson and the company do a marvelous job of balancing some very funny dialogue with more serious, dramatic scenes. There are some great, memorable lines, some of which are funny and smart without losing sight of the context of the story. A number of scenes are touching and affecting in their sensitive handling of real emotions without becoming clichéd. It’s nice to see real people who change over time and how seemingly inconsequential supporting characters gradually come to the forefront.

The acting by the entire cast is strong and you appreciate the little nuances in facial expression and inflection of dialogue that enrich each character. This may be Cameron Diaz’s best performance. That’s saying something as the glamorous model has been more star than actress in her most popular films (Charlie’s Angels, There’s Something About Mary) and she is given a juicy role with sharp direction. Toni Collette has always been a solid actress in any film (Sixth Sense, The Hours) but she has found a wonderful character in Rose and makes the most of it. Shirley MacLaine (Terms of Endearment, The Turning Point) is terrific in what is a change of pace role where she eschews makeup to look her age and shows a maternal wisdom that is the stuff of Supporting Oscars. You wish there were more of her in the film, but what’s there is delicious. It’s nice to see an old pro like Norman Lloyd still displaying his acting chops in what is a minor role of a bed-ridden patient who has a profound influence on Diaz’s character.

The performances are complemented by seamless editing which not only captures the right reactions, but effortlessly switches back and forth between the two sisters especially during key scenes that are thematically linked. Although the running time goes over two hours, the pacing is good, and everything seems integral to the storyline. The musical score by Mark Isham is quite effective in complimenting the emotional moments without ever being intrusive.

Despite its strong script, the film never fully explores Maggie’s transformation which, while uplifting and remarkable, is never totally convincing given her origins and tendencies. Things get wrapped up in a dreamy sendoff which is perhaps too good to be true, but those same qualities also make for a more upbeat film.

Hanson displays a very keen eye in relating what is essentially a woman’s film. Yes, this may be considered a woman’s film in its theme and target audience, but considering the fact it is also a well made, funny, and heart rending film about love and family, the women ought to bring along the men. In Her Shoes is not just about rival sisters but rather it is about a family yanked apart and slowly brought together again in ways that are not altogether apparent at the start. How these lost souls meld together is the stuff of high entertainment and substance.

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

WALLACE AND GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT is superior family fun

The Oscar winning shorts headlining inventor Wallace and his loyal dog Gromit are expanded to a feature film in Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. The results are a splendidly entertaining 85 minutes of fun, excitement, comedy, and escapism that put most live-action films to shame.

Wallace and his canine pal, Gromit, have a thriving business as Anti-Pestos who hunt down and capture rabbits that are eating the vegetable yards of the neighborhood. Meanwhile, Wallace, who is constantly inventing new contraptions and devices, is experimenting with a mind altering machine that will brainwash a rabbit into not wanting veggies. But of course an accident occurs and later, under the full moon, a strange series of attacks by a large, mysterious creature ravages the vegetable gardens of many a neighbor. Meanwhile, Wallace is attracted to a woman, Lady Tottington, whose vegetables are part of the annual Great Vegetable Convention. At the same time, a lecherous man named Victor Quartermaine is on the make for her riches. As the vegetable competition is ready to begin, all the entrants are threatened by the giant veggie eating creature. Who is this strange creature and how can it be stopped? It falls on the loyal, resourceful Gromit to try to save the day even as danger threatens Wallace and the vegetable gathering.

Wallace and Gromit remind you of comedians Penn and Teller, where one is a straight man to the other’s silent pantomimes. Speaking of Gromit, his character clearly pays homage to the silent characters of Chaplin, Keaton, and even France’s Monsieur Hulot. Voice work by Ralph Fiennes (The Constant Gardener) and Helena Bonham Carter (The Corpse Bride) as Victor and Lady Tottington respectively is quite convincing. Although the characters are made from claymation, they take on a life of their own, and pretty soon you forget that you are watching clay and instead care about the characters as if they were real people.

Clever puns aside, and there are many of them that whiz by at a steady clip, the sight gags are delightfully amusing and inventive. The humorous situations are never stale or run out of steam but are consistently inspired. The title is a giveaway to the plot as it alludes to the werewolf mythology and the full moon. The transformation that serves as a major plot point is played for laughs and not horrific, Wolfman inspired though it may be. The identity of the creature is a playful parody of every werewolf movie ever made with a nod to such staples as King Kong and Frankenstein. The filmmakers even throw a couple of red herrings to keep you guessing until the big revelation. There are scary moments however, without needing to be graphic or terrifying. All this is from a G-rated film?

The pacing is very good and the mood goes from simple comedy to suspense to a hint of romance. Not only is the animation effective with its expressive characters emoting believably, but the overall production is strong even in areas one might not expect in an animated film, namely the cinematography and editing. Even the rousing musical score done by committee is heroically inventive and inspired.

Made by the creative team (Directors Steve Box and Nick Park) which scored big on the recent Chicken Run, ‘Wallace and Gromit’ soars even higher in terms of overall excellence. It works for kids to be sure as the screen is filled with a smorgasbord of colorful and imaginative sets, characters, and effects. What is special is how the film plays for adults in equal measure as the simple storyline is played straight and the jokes are rapid and clever. A great deal of care and time (five years) went into making every scene work, no small feat. This marks another high point this past year in animation as the art form has enjoyed a surge in popularity and creativity. Not only is Wallace and Gromit one of the best animated films of the year (surely giving The Corpse Bride a run for its money), it’s one of the best films of 2005. So when is the sequel coming out?

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

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)

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

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