With such a Lifetime-esque title, I can easily see how one could mistake “Finding Amanda” for a trite, melodramatic sap-fest that appeals strictly to the estrogen crowd. But after listening to ten minutes of writer/director Peter Tolan’s profanity-laced venom masquerading as dialogue, it’s easier to see that any sense of sentimentality you may have been expecting has been openly checked at the door. This is a crass, free-spirited black comedy in which public indecency is just as popular as the slot machines inside the casino.
Matthew Broderick stars as Taylor, a smarmy television writer who’s struggling with just about every addiction you can think of yet promises to travel to Vegas and rescue his niece from prostitution. He vows not to gamble one cent while there, but the irresistible air of the track becomes too much to bear and soon enough the bank is prepared to thwart any major transaction he might be planning. When his wife discovers a check missing, she immediately catches on to his scheme and threatens to dissolve their marriage upon his return.
After a series of disappointments, Broderick makes a splendid return to the screen and delivers one of the most starkly funny performances of his career. No matter how despicable Taylor’s behavior becomes, he always seems to emit the ideal amount of humor and charisma to keep the audience on his side. The indelible personality that made Ferris Bueller such an iconic character is still very much in play even if on a more disheveled, self-conscious level.
When he finally spots Amanda (Brittany Snow), she appears to be in better shape than he is regardless of how many restroom rendezvous she’s been a part of. Her hair is bleach blond, her figure is tight, and she’s always perky enough to make you wonder whether her issues are indeed worthy of a stint in rehab. She does have somewhat of an anger-management problem, but Tolan doesn’t toil enough in that area, so I won’t bother discussing it.
Snow is desperately trying to shed her innocent girl image and, for the most part, her performance isn’t all that bad. She has a strangely honest on-screen connection with Broderick and her intensity level during some of the more critical scenes is commendable.
As the film sails toward its conclusion, the relationship between Taylor and Amanda is strained in more ways than one and the likelihood of anyone going to rehab diminishes by the second.
Their final encounter is endearing and evasive at the same time, but the last shot may frustrate those looking for a fairy tale ending. It’s not great, but it’s surely more enjoyable than “What Happens in Vegas” right?
- *** out of 4
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Be Kind Rewind and Shutter
“Be Kind Rewind” is a film for anyone who has ever been even the least bit enchanted by the inspirational magic of Hollywood’s finest technical wizardry. No matter how offbeat or fanciful things became, I couldn’t help but feel enamored by the production team’s ingenious approach to recreating some of the industry’s most unforgettable pictures. Whether you’re twenty-five or fifty-five, you’d be hard-pressed to find yourself not admiring the uncorrupted sentiment behind director Michel Gondry’s innovative cinematic daydream and I can only hope that it gains a stronger audience on DVD.
Taking a page out of the Surrealist’s Handbook, Gondry takes an otherwise loopy scenario involving a man whose brain becomes magnetized and transforms it into a sweet, good-natured meta-comedy that had me smiling throughout its entire one-hundred and two minute running time.
Jack Black and Mos Def make a winning on-screen pair of small town eccentrics and provide just the right balance between heart and absurdity to keep the film from experiencing an early downfall. Since they could actually pass for a couple of lumbering video store clerks from Passaic, Gondry doesn’t have to go out of his way to make the viewer believe that what they’re watching is plausible.
Had a showy A-list cast attempted to bring this story to life, I don’t think it would’ve survived much past the developmental stage, because Black and Def’s fervent enthusiasm for the material appears difficult to match.
Like most of Gondry’s finest work, this one didn’t receive the expanded release it deserved. While audiences were off indulging in tedious debris such as “Jumper” and “Semi Pro,” this quiet treasure struggled to crack the top-10 at the weekend box office and is now relegated to the shelf at your local video store. Here’s one tape I hope doesn’t get erased.
- *** out of 4
If anyone can offer a compelling reason as to why we needed a soulless, Americanized version of “Shutter,” I’d love to hear it.
Seriously, can anyone justify the creation of such a dense, mind-numbing excuse for a thriller that has absolutely no exhilaration whatsoever? I’m still waiting.
Rather than make you sweat it out, I’ll just go ahead and say that no such rationalization exists and let you in on just how insipid this film turns out to be.
Joshua Jackson and Rachel Taylor play a newlywed couple who travel to Tokyo and begin seeing the spirit of a dead woman in their photographs. At first, they have no idea who she is, but it’s later revealed that she’s one of his old girlfriends who never quite let go of the relationship. Is she really appearing from beyond the grave to terrorize them? Well, it’s either that or someone has been knocking back a little too much sake for my taste.
Then again, does it really matter? The so-called terrifying resolution to this tale is so utterly inept that it wouldn’t even be cruel if I revealed it right here, so before you let the trailer suck you in, take a deep breath and think carefully about what you’re about to do.
- * out of 4
Taking a page out of the Surrealist’s Handbook, Gondry takes an otherwise loopy scenario involving a man whose brain becomes magnetized and transforms it into a sweet, good-natured meta-comedy that had me smiling throughout its entire one-hundred and two minute running time.
Jack Black and Mos Def make a winning on-screen pair of small town eccentrics and provide just the right balance between heart and absurdity to keep the film from experiencing an early downfall. Since they could actually pass for a couple of lumbering video store clerks from Passaic, Gondry doesn’t have to go out of his way to make the viewer believe that what they’re watching is plausible.
Had a showy A-list cast attempted to bring this story to life, I don’t think it would’ve survived much past the developmental stage, because Black and Def’s fervent enthusiasm for the material appears difficult to match.
Like most of Gondry’s finest work, this one didn’t receive the expanded release it deserved. While audiences were off indulging in tedious debris such as “Jumper” and “Semi Pro,” this quiet treasure struggled to crack the top-10 at the weekend box office and is now relegated to the shelf at your local video store. Here’s one tape I hope doesn’t get erased.
- *** out of 4
If anyone can offer a compelling reason as to why we needed a soulless, Americanized version of “Shutter,” I’d love to hear it.
Seriously, can anyone justify the creation of such a dense, mind-numbing excuse for a thriller that has absolutely no exhilaration whatsoever? I’m still waiting.
Rather than make you sweat it out, I’ll just go ahead and say that no such rationalization exists and let you in on just how insipid this film turns out to be.
Joshua Jackson and Rachel Taylor play a newlywed couple who travel to Tokyo and begin seeing the spirit of a dead woman in their photographs. At first, they have no idea who she is, but it’s later revealed that she’s one of his old girlfriends who never quite let go of the relationship. Is she really appearing from beyond the grave to terrorize them? Well, it’s either that or someone has been knocking back a little too much sake for my taste.
Then again, does it really matter? The so-called terrifying resolution to this tale is so utterly inept that it wouldn’t even be cruel if I revealed it right here, so before you let the trailer suck you in, take a deep breath and think carefully about what you’re about to do.
- * out of 4
The Departed
Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed" is a gritty yet exceptionally riveting film that paints a stunning portrait of what can happen when the Massachusetts State Police Department goes head-to-head with a Boston crime syndicate. It’s being marketed as a remake of 2002’s Hong Kong cop film “Infernal Affairs" , but it’s not so much a remake as it is an Americanized revision of an already intriguing story.
Scorsese and screenwriter William Monahan have simply taken the basic structure of its predecessor and reworked it into a glorified Hollywood action film full of unexpected twists and brilliant performances.
Everything from the rapid, graphic violence to the Rolling Stones' 'Gimme Shelter' made it wildly entertaining and demonstrated Scorsese’s superb ability to lull his audience into submission.
Leonardo DiCaprio seems to be getting even better with each performance and his on-screen presence has grown tremendously. I think the decision to pair him with Matt Damon and Jack Nicholson was a brilliant move, because they seem to feed off of one another to make each scene that much more believable.
Here, DiCaprio plays William Costigan, a rookie cop who is pulled out of the police academy to infiltrate the Boston mob run by Nicholson’s character, Frank Costello.
At the same time, Costello sends his own “rat" into the police department in hopes of gaining even more control over illegal activity. Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) is a career criminal, who was taken in by Costello at a young age and given a first-hand look at what life in the mob is all about. Sullivan quickly rises up the police ranks and is soon put in charge of the entire investigation involving Costello’s illegal dealings.
Both DiCaprio and Damon deliver thrilling, first-rate performances, but I would give a slight edge to DiCaprio, because he completely consumes everything that Costigan stands for and is ultimately the more sympathetic of the two characters.
When both organizations find out they may have a “rat", a complex game of cat-and-mouse ensues as both “rats" are trying to find one another before it’s too late. As if the story wasn’t intricate enough, Scorsese includes a storyline in which Costigan and Sullivan are both involved with the same woman, which serves to complicate things even more when she becomes pregnant.
At the head of everything is Irish mob boss Frank Costello, whose appetite for violence matches his appetite for women. Jack Nicholson is known for his dark, off-the-wall characters and what he achieves with Costello has to be one of his best. I think the fact that Nicholson rewrote the character to make him even more rotten, pretty much sums up how great the performance really is. During the opening monologue, we hear Costello say “I don’t wanna be a product of my environment I want my environment to be a product of me" and he is determined to stand by that statement.
At 69, Jack seems to be having a great time indulging in such over-the-top roles and should receive an Oscar nomination in February.
During the last twenty minutes of the film, things become a little hectic and bodies begin to pile up, which all lead up to a rooftop showdown between Costigan and Sullivan to determine their fate.
In Martin Scorsese’s world, there is no such thing as a happy ending and “The Departed" proves to be no different. For every good thing that happens, there are five bad things that follow, which makes the ending seem like the only appropriate outcome to one of the best films of the year.
Scorsese is known for incorporating biblical themes into his films and in the end, death may be the only true way for his characters to atone for their sins.
- **** out of 4
Scorsese and screenwriter William Monahan have simply taken the basic structure of its predecessor and reworked it into a glorified Hollywood action film full of unexpected twists and brilliant performances.
Everything from the rapid, graphic violence to the Rolling Stones' 'Gimme Shelter' made it wildly entertaining and demonstrated Scorsese’s superb ability to lull his audience into submission.
Leonardo DiCaprio seems to be getting even better with each performance and his on-screen presence has grown tremendously. I think the decision to pair him with Matt Damon and Jack Nicholson was a brilliant move, because they seem to feed off of one another to make each scene that much more believable.
Here, DiCaprio plays William Costigan, a rookie cop who is pulled out of the police academy to infiltrate the Boston mob run by Nicholson’s character, Frank Costello.
At the same time, Costello sends his own “rat" into the police department in hopes of gaining even more control over illegal activity. Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) is a career criminal, who was taken in by Costello at a young age and given a first-hand look at what life in the mob is all about. Sullivan quickly rises up the police ranks and is soon put in charge of the entire investigation involving Costello’s illegal dealings.
Both DiCaprio and Damon deliver thrilling, first-rate performances, but I would give a slight edge to DiCaprio, because he completely consumes everything that Costigan stands for and is ultimately the more sympathetic of the two characters.
When both organizations find out they may have a “rat", a complex game of cat-and-mouse ensues as both “rats" are trying to find one another before it’s too late. As if the story wasn’t intricate enough, Scorsese includes a storyline in which Costigan and Sullivan are both involved with the same woman, which serves to complicate things even more when she becomes pregnant.
At the head of everything is Irish mob boss Frank Costello, whose appetite for violence matches his appetite for women. Jack Nicholson is known for his dark, off-the-wall characters and what he achieves with Costello has to be one of his best. I think the fact that Nicholson rewrote the character to make him even more rotten, pretty much sums up how great the performance really is. During the opening monologue, we hear Costello say “I don’t wanna be a product of my environment I want my environment to be a product of me" and he is determined to stand by that statement.
At 69, Jack seems to be having a great time indulging in such over-the-top roles and should receive an Oscar nomination in February.
During the last twenty minutes of the film, things become a little hectic and bodies begin to pile up, which all lead up to a rooftop showdown between Costigan and Sullivan to determine their fate.
In Martin Scorsese’s world, there is no such thing as a happy ending and “The Departed" proves to be no different. For every good thing that happens, there are five bad things that follow, which makes the ending seem like the only appropriate outcome to one of the best films of the year.
Scorsese is known for incorporating biblical themes into his films and in the end, death may be the only true way for his characters to atone for their sins.
- **** out of 4
The Devil Wears Prada
On the outside, Director David Frankel’s new film “The Devil Wears Prada" appears to be nothing more than over-hyped fluff being marketed as a deliciously funny tale about the inside world of the fashion industry. While this may sound appealing to some people, I had my doubts about whether or not it could possibly deliver and was a little skeptical about what kind of movie it was going to be. It took only a few minutes before I realized my negativity had been premature and I had a feeling I was in for quite the surprise.
Based on the novel by Lauren Weisberger, it tells the story of Andy Sachs, an ambitious young woman who comes to New York in hopes of becoming a high profile journalist, but ultimately ends up working as an assistant at one of the largest fashion magazines in the world. Sachs, played by Anne Hathaway, soon finds that it will be no easy task keeping up with the lavish lifestyle of fashion’s elite, but is determined to succeed. Whether it’s getting coffee or buying clothes, she seems willing to do anything to make a name for herself.
At this point, I found the plot to be rather ordinary in its development and it quickly became fairly predictable storytelling.
It isn’t until we meet Andy’s boss that the film really begins to take off and acquire a much needed boost of comedic energy.
Miranda Priestly, played by Meryl Streep, rules over her empire with an iron fist and when it comes to fashion designing, she is almost impossible to please. Since the company lives and dies by her opinion, everyone in her presence better have something important to add or should not even bother coming back.
In a purely dazzling performance, Streep consumes the role of Miranda and delivers her lines with such devilish elegance that she appears to be on her way to yet another Oscar nomination. Hathaway clearly benefits from having Streep on screen and her performance is more convincing because of it.
As Andy becomes more involved in the company, her personal life starts to suffer and she soon has no time for anything other than catering to Miranda’s needs. In a humorous, yet outlandish scene, Miranda demands that Andy obtain two copies of the unpublished Harry Potter novel for her children to read while traveling. To me, it seems a bit unbelievable, but I guess you just have to go with it.
Finally, all of her hard work pays off when she is chosen to accompany Miranda on a trip to Paris and get a real taste of what the fashion world is really all about. She instantly learns how harsh it can be and starts to think that it may not be what she is looking for. It is about this time that the film goes on autopilot and just kind of glides toward the conclusion.
Despite the somewhat predictable ending, strong performances from both Streep and Hathaway make enough noise along the way to add an impressive quality to a film that would otherwise be of little interest to people like myself. Frankel manages to paint an intriguing picture of a relentlessly shallow industry that will stop at nothing to achieve perfection. By having a rare combination of great acting and cleverly written comedy, it is able flourish at a level that most films of this genre rarely ascend to. What I think works best about this film is its ability to appeal to people of all ages and as Miranda Priestly would say “That’s all."
- *** ½ out of 4
Based on the novel by Lauren Weisberger, it tells the story of Andy Sachs, an ambitious young woman who comes to New York in hopes of becoming a high profile journalist, but ultimately ends up working as an assistant at one of the largest fashion magazines in the world. Sachs, played by Anne Hathaway, soon finds that it will be no easy task keeping up with the lavish lifestyle of fashion’s elite, but is determined to succeed. Whether it’s getting coffee or buying clothes, she seems willing to do anything to make a name for herself.
At this point, I found the plot to be rather ordinary in its development and it quickly became fairly predictable storytelling.
It isn’t until we meet Andy’s boss that the film really begins to take off and acquire a much needed boost of comedic energy.
Miranda Priestly, played by Meryl Streep, rules over her empire with an iron fist and when it comes to fashion designing, she is almost impossible to please. Since the company lives and dies by her opinion, everyone in her presence better have something important to add or should not even bother coming back.
In a purely dazzling performance, Streep consumes the role of Miranda and delivers her lines with such devilish elegance that she appears to be on her way to yet another Oscar nomination. Hathaway clearly benefits from having Streep on screen and her performance is more convincing because of it.
As Andy becomes more involved in the company, her personal life starts to suffer and she soon has no time for anything other than catering to Miranda’s needs. In a humorous, yet outlandish scene, Miranda demands that Andy obtain two copies of the unpublished Harry Potter novel for her children to read while traveling. To me, it seems a bit unbelievable, but I guess you just have to go with it.
Finally, all of her hard work pays off when she is chosen to accompany Miranda on a trip to Paris and get a real taste of what the fashion world is really all about. She instantly learns how harsh it can be and starts to think that it may not be what she is looking for. It is about this time that the film goes on autopilot and just kind of glides toward the conclusion.
Despite the somewhat predictable ending, strong performances from both Streep and Hathaway make enough noise along the way to add an impressive quality to a film that would otherwise be of little interest to people like myself. Frankel manages to paint an intriguing picture of a relentlessly shallow industry that will stop at nothing to achieve perfection. By having a rare combination of great acting and cleverly written comedy, it is able flourish at a level that most films of this genre rarely ascend to. What I think works best about this film is its ability to appeal to people of all ages and as Miranda Priestly would say “That’s all."
- *** ½ out of 4
Half Nelson
Merriam-Webster defines the term half nelson as “a wrestling hold in which the holder puts an arm under the opponent's arm and exerts press on the back of the neck." One of the main purposes of this hold is to exert total control over your opponent and make them feel as if there is no way out.
This idea of complete immobilization is what I believe to be the focal point of Ryan Fleck’s remarkable new film “Half Nelson" in which a middle-school teacher forms an unlikely bond with a student as his life continues a downward spiral into a world full of drugs, depression, and disappointment.
Dan Dunne (Ryan Gosling) spends his days enlightening inner-city kids on such topics as Martin Luther King Jr. and the Attica prison riot as if his life were going exactly the way he imagined.
Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth. As soon as the bell rings, he instantly becomes a desperate junkie looking for his daily fix of crack cocaine. For the most part, he has been able to effectively hide his addiction from his family and school, but it becomes quite apparent as he continues to use. One day after a basketball game, a student walks into the bathroom to find him lying on the floor and utterly incapacitated, but isn’t quite sure what to think.
When he finally gets up, he agrees to give her a ride home and a unique friendship is formed that will later take on even more meaning. Since the pace of the film can seem quite dull at times, the performances of Gosling and newcomer Shareeka Epps have to be that much more powerful because of it. In undoubtedly the finest performance of his career, Gosling delivers a stunning portrayal of Dunne and makes sure that every note of this film rings true to its audience. He creates a fascinating portrait of drug addiction and shows just how much your life can be consumed by such a dangerous substance.
Epps’s performance is also Oscar-worthy as the student who befriends Dunne and finds out that not everyone is as perfect as they seem. A scene I found to be particularly poignant is one in which Dan is having dinner with his parents and all he can think about is getting home to his crack pipe.
This, I feel is where the title comes in, because no matter how hard he tries to free himself, there is ultimately no way out. “Half Nelson" is a believably engaging film that latches onto its audience and never lets up. Thanks to a brilliant screenplay by Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden, it is able to go above and beyond the normal expectations of the genre and become a painfully truthful story that hits you directly at the core.
- **** out of 4
This idea of complete immobilization is what I believe to be the focal point of Ryan Fleck’s remarkable new film “Half Nelson" in which a middle-school teacher forms an unlikely bond with a student as his life continues a downward spiral into a world full of drugs, depression, and disappointment.
Dan Dunne (Ryan Gosling) spends his days enlightening inner-city kids on such topics as Martin Luther King Jr. and the Attica prison riot as if his life were going exactly the way he imagined.
Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth. As soon as the bell rings, he instantly becomes a desperate junkie looking for his daily fix of crack cocaine. For the most part, he has been able to effectively hide his addiction from his family and school, but it becomes quite apparent as he continues to use. One day after a basketball game, a student walks into the bathroom to find him lying on the floor and utterly incapacitated, but isn’t quite sure what to think.
When he finally gets up, he agrees to give her a ride home and a unique friendship is formed that will later take on even more meaning. Since the pace of the film can seem quite dull at times, the performances of Gosling and newcomer Shareeka Epps have to be that much more powerful because of it. In undoubtedly the finest performance of his career, Gosling delivers a stunning portrayal of Dunne and makes sure that every note of this film rings true to its audience. He creates a fascinating portrait of drug addiction and shows just how much your life can be consumed by such a dangerous substance.
Epps’s performance is also Oscar-worthy as the student who befriends Dunne and finds out that not everyone is as perfect as they seem. A scene I found to be particularly poignant is one in which Dan is having dinner with his parents and all he can think about is getting home to his crack pipe.
This, I feel is where the title comes in, because no matter how hard he tries to free himself, there is ultimately no way out. “Half Nelson" is a believably engaging film that latches onto its audience and never lets up. Thanks to a brilliant screenplay by Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden, it is able to go above and beyond the normal expectations of the genre and become a painfully truthful story that hits you directly at the core.
- **** out of 4
An Inconvenient Truth
“America has not led but fled on the issue of global warming" says Senator John Kerry when expressing his opinion on the US government’s lack of effort in trying to combat the cultural phenomenon known as global warming. It’s an ongoing crisis that has left scientists frequently pondering its effects on society, while consistently urging politicians to render more energy conscious decisions.
Director Davis Guggenheim’s breathtaking new documentary “An Inconvenient Truth" couldn’t come at a better time as the United States continues to burn fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate that could ultimately lead to the end of the world as we know it.
Former presidential candidate Al Gore has made it his mission to go from country to country informing people of the dangers that await if we continue down this dark path of destruction and I think people have finally started to listen.
Whether in a college classroom or a political convention, Gore has taken it upon himself to get the message across and has become one of the leading spokespeople on the subject. Here he is in rare form as he enthusiastically presents a revealing slideshow in which he provides the audience with some haunting evidence that illustrates just how serious the problem has become.
Although it may seem like a classroom setting at times, Gore keeps it interesting by putting his own amusing spin on the situation and shows that he really does have a sense of humor. His argument begins with the fact that Carbon Dioxide is incessantly building up in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels and will eventually lead to higher temperatures throughout the world.
He then goes through a series of graphs and charts that offer further proof of the damage being done. Some of his most startling statistics include “the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years" and “the flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade", which are unpleasant to think about, but undeniable nonetheless.
After a while, I began to wonder if anything positive would come from this, but I guess there aren’t a lot of positive things to be said. When you think about the amount of time the government has had to address this, you can almost cringe at how many times this issue has been ignored.
It is something that affects all of us and will bring about catastrophic consequences if not dealt with soon. Gore seems to have genuine concern for what’s going on and is doing his best to get everyone else to join in the effort. I feel it was a great move to turn his presentation into a documentary, because it gives people worldwide a chance to see just what he is talking about. Gore manages to pack enough vital information into his one-hundred minutes that anyone who sees it should feel significantly motivated regardless of their political affiliation.
Gore handles the subject with the utmost sincerity and appears to be speaking as a concerned citizen rather than a politician. His evocative lecture is sure to stir many emotions and several of the images will stick with you long after it’s over. This is without a doubt one the most important films of the year and proves once again, that the truth really does hurt.
- **** out of 4
Director Davis Guggenheim’s breathtaking new documentary “An Inconvenient Truth" couldn’t come at a better time as the United States continues to burn fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate that could ultimately lead to the end of the world as we know it.
Former presidential candidate Al Gore has made it his mission to go from country to country informing people of the dangers that await if we continue down this dark path of destruction and I think people have finally started to listen.
Whether in a college classroom or a political convention, Gore has taken it upon himself to get the message across and has become one of the leading spokespeople on the subject. Here he is in rare form as he enthusiastically presents a revealing slideshow in which he provides the audience with some haunting evidence that illustrates just how serious the problem has become.
Although it may seem like a classroom setting at times, Gore keeps it interesting by putting his own amusing spin on the situation and shows that he really does have a sense of humor. His argument begins with the fact that Carbon Dioxide is incessantly building up in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels and will eventually lead to higher temperatures throughout the world.
He then goes through a series of graphs and charts that offer further proof of the damage being done. Some of his most startling statistics include “the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years" and “the flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade", which are unpleasant to think about, but undeniable nonetheless.
After a while, I began to wonder if anything positive would come from this, but I guess there aren’t a lot of positive things to be said. When you think about the amount of time the government has had to address this, you can almost cringe at how many times this issue has been ignored.
It is something that affects all of us and will bring about catastrophic consequences if not dealt with soon. Gore seems to have genuine concern for what’s going on and is doing his best to get everyone else to join in the effort. I feel it was a great move to turn his presentation into a documentary, because it gives people worldwide a chance to see just what he is talking about. Gore manages to pack enough vital information into his one-hundred minutes that anyone who sees it should feel significantly motivated regardless of their political affiliation.
Gore handles the subject with the utmost sincerity and appears to be speaking as a concerned citizen rather than a politician. His evocative lecture is sure to stir many emotions and several of the images will stick with you long after it’s over. This is without a doubt one the most important films of the year and proves once again, that the truth really does hurt.
- **** out of 4
Apocalypto
From the moment “The Passion of the Christ" was released in 2004, Mel Gibson’s career has been a non-stop roller coaster ride full of commercial success and public humiliation. Despite grossing $370 million at the box-office, his film was condemned by numerous religious sects and he has subsequently become the poster boy for all things anti-Semitic. Some critics even felt that his star in Hollywood was quickly disappearing and that he would be hard-lucked to find another job anytime soon.
Well, it’s 2006 and Mel has returned once again in an attempt to repair what’s left of his public image and show people why he’s still one of the top directors in the business.Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto is another blood-soaked work of genius from a filmmaker who has made a living off dealing with controversial subject matter and could be a major player when Oscar time rolls around.
Deep in the Yucatán peninsula, Gibson tells the harrowing story of a Mayan warrior named Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood), who is chosen by the rulers to be a human sacrifice and must ultimately go to great lengths to be with his family once again. In his big-screen debut, Youngblood delivers an intense, haunted performance that really resonates with the audience and makes you feel as if you’re right there with him.
He handles the dialogue with great skill and never was there a point where I felt he was trying too hard to make everything believable. That, I feel is one of Gibson’s talents a director, because no matter what the scene requires, his actors always seem to rise to the occasion. Since there is rarely a dull moment, the audience is treated to some thrilling battle sequences full of enough piercing and decapitation that it’s definitely not for the faint-hearted. Some people may criticize it for being too graphic or gratuitous, but I have a hard time believing that, at some point, their society wasn’t really like that.
They performed sacrifices just like many other great civilizations and their methods were not always the most wholesome or compassionate, so I think the bloodshed was important in showing what these people really went through.
Gibson’s tremendous dedication to this project should certainly be acknowledged and casting all indigenous people is one of the main reasons for this film being as extraordinary as it is.
Although there are some observable anachronisms, Gibson and his team have succeeded in creating a skillfully written and beautifully filmed movie in which the Mayan culture is portrayed as a strong, yet doomed empire that had no idea of the danger that awaited them in the future.
No one in Hollywood needs a hit more than Mel Gibson and I think he has finally found what he is looking for. Like the Mayans themselves, Gibson became overly confident in his abilities and thought that he could do anything he wanted without suffering from the consequences.
Regardless of whether or not the public ever forgives him, I feel that with Apocalypto, he has achieved his own personal salvation.
- *** ½ out of 4
Well, it’s 2006 and Mel has returned once again in an attempt to repair what’s left of his public image and show people why he’s still one of the top directors in the business.Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto is another blood-soaked work of genius from a filmmaker who has made a living off dealing with controversial subject matter and could be a major player when Oscar time rolls around.
Deep in the Yucatán peninsula, Gibson tells the harrowing story of a Mayan warrior named Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood), who is chosen by the rulers to be a human sacrifice and must ultimately go to great lengths to be with his family once again. In his big-screen debut, Youngblood delivers an intense, haunted performance that really resonates with the audience and makes you feel as if you’re right there with him.
He handles the dialogue with great skill and never was there a point where I felt he was trying too hard to make everything believable. That, I feel is one of Gibson’s talents a director, because no matter what the scene requires, his actors always seem to rise to the occasion. Since there is rarely a dull moment, the audience is treated to some thrilling battle sequences full of enough piercing and decapitation that it’s definitely not for the faint-hearted. Some people may criticize it for being too graphic or gratuitous, but I have a hard time believing that, at some point, their society wasn’t really like that.
They performed sacrifices just like many other great civilizations and their methods were not always the most wholesome or compassionate, so I think the bloodshed was important in showing what these people really went through.
Gibson’s tremendous dedication to this project should certainly be acknowledged and casting all indigenous people is one of the main reasons for this film being as extraordinary as it is.
Although there are some observable anachronisms, Gibson and his team have succeeded in creating a skillfully written and beautifully filmed movie in which the Mayan culture is portrayed as a strong, yet doomed empire that had no idea of the danger that awaited them in the future.
No one in Hollywood needs a hit more than Mel Gibson and I think he has finally found what he is looking for. Like the Mayans themselves, Gibson became overly confident in his abilities and thought that he could do anything he wanted without suffering from the consequences.
Regardless of whether or not the public ever forgives him, I feel that with Apocalypto, he has achieved his own personal salvation.
- *** ½ out of 4
The Pursuit of Happyness
It’s 1981. Yuppies everywhere have flocked to such financially flourishing cities as New York and San Francisco in hopes of getting their first taste of success in the Reagan era. While they immerse themselves in a world full of materialism, greed, and outright superficiality, 27-year-old Chris Gardner is struggling just to make ends meet. He invested all of his money into a bone density scanner that most doctors refer to as a “luxury" that they don’t really need. He’s broke, scared, and yet not quite ready to give up on his dreams. His wife has had enough of his inability to provide for them and threatens to run off with their son until he gets things straightened out.
What happens after that is the subject of Italian director Gabriele Muccino’s inspiring new film “The Pursuit of Happyness" (misspelling intended) which follows Chris’s remarkable journey from living in relative obscurity to becoming the head of his own multi-million dollar brokerage firm.
Since Chris is such an easy character to root for, Will Smith is the perfect fit for a role of this magnitude and he undoubtedly deserves any accolades that might come his way. He turns Chris into an emotionally complex character who is willing to do whatever he can to make a better life for his son , even if it means sleeping in shelters and subway bathrooms along the way. His luck changes when he hears about a competitive internship at Dean Witter Reynolds that will award just one person with a job in the end, but he decides to go for it anyway.
Since the program is essentially designed for people with financial stability, there is no salary involved and Chris is forced to go from shelter to shelter with his son until they can afford a place of their own. His life immediately becomes consumed with nothing but work as he has to attend the internship during the day, while still selling medical equipment in his spare time.
Just when his situation couldn’t get more desperate, he is hit with a $400 penalty for being late on his taxes and is left with just $23 in the bank.
Despite his economic shortcomings, his time at Dean Witter has been well spent and he is rapidly becoming one of the top interns in the group. He has been getting all of his work done in almost half the time, because he has to be at the shelter by 5:00 p.m. to ensure a room for the night. Smith’s charm and quick-wittedness are in full effect here as he delivers one the finest and most delicate performances of his career to date.
His real-life son Jaden, plays 5-year-old Christopher Gardner and their heartfelt chemistry on-screen makes them one of the most compelling parent-child pairings since Ryan and Tatum O’Neal. If I seem to be talking a lot about Smith, it’s because there’s not much else worth talking about. He gives an extraordinary performance in an otherwise ordinary film that would be nowhere without his invaluable cinematic presence.
I will say that it’s probably the most depressing film I’ve seen since 2004’s “Million Dollar Baby" and if your heart is not wrenched at some point, it’s probably non-existent.
Although we’re aware that everything has to get better, we still feel satisfied when Chris finally gets what he deserves.Overall, Muccino’s English-language debut is a pure, satisfying account of Gardner’s inspirational life story, but it never really falls into the category of being a great film.
It does, however, serve as a personal showcase for Smith to finally shine under the spotlight and gain further credibility as a dramatic performer. Chris’s story is one that needed to be told and while reading the closing credits, we realize that his pursuit of happiness had finally ended.
- *** out of 4
What happens after that is the subject of Italian director Gabriele Muccino’s inspiring new film “The Pursuit of Happyness" (misspelling intended) which follows Chris’s remarkable journey from living in relative obscurity to becoming the head of his own multi-million dollar brokerage firm.
Since Chris is such an easy character to root for, Will Smith is the perfect fit for a role of this magnitude and he undoubtedly deserves any accolades that might come his way. He turns Chris into an emotionally complex character who is willing to do whatever he can to make a better life for his son , even if it means sleeping in shelters and subway bathrooms along the way. His luck changes when he hears about a competitive internship at Dean Witter Reynolds that will award just one person with a job in the end, but he decides to go for it anyway.
Since the program is essentially designed for people with financial stability, there is no salary involved and Chris is forced to go from shelter to shelter with his son until they can afford a place of their own. His life immediately becomes consumed with nothing but work as he has to attend the internship during the day, while still selling medical equipment in his spare time.
Just when his situation couldn’t get more desperate, he is hit with a $400 penalty for being late on his taxes and is left with just $23 in the bank.
Despite his economic shortcomings, his time at Dean Witter has been well spent and he is rapidly becoming one of the top interns in the group. He has been getting all of his work done in almost half the time, because he has to be at the shelter by 5:00 p.m. to ensure a room for the night. Smith’s charm and quick-wittedness are in full effect here as he delivers one the finest and most delicate performances of his career to date.
His real-life son Jaden, plays 5-year-old Christopher Gardner and their heartfelt chemistry on-screen makes them one of the most compelling parent-child pairings since Ryan and Tatum O’Neal. If I seem to be talking a lot about Smith, it’s because there’s not much else worth talking about. He gives an extraordinary performance in an otherwise ordinary film that would be nowhere without his invaluable cinematic presence.
I will say that it’s probably the most depressing film I’ve seen since 2004’s “Million Dollar Baby" and if your heart is not wrenched at some point, it’s probably non-existent.
Although we’re aware that everything has to get better, we still feel satisfied when Chris finally gets what he deserves.Overall, Muccino’s English-language debut is a pure, satisfying account of Gardner’s inspirational life story, but it never really falls into the category of being a great film.
It does, however, serve as a personal showcase for Smith to finally shine under the spotlight and gain further credibility as a dramatic performer. Chris’s story is one that needed to be told and while reading the closing credits, we realize that his pursuit of happiness had finally ended.
- *** out of 4
Snakes on a Plane
When I first read that Samuel L. Jackson was going to star in a film called “Snakes on a Plane", I instantly questioned what exactly he was getting himself into. For an actor who has done such great work in films like “Pulp Fiction" and “A Time to Kill", it seemed like a risky move to sign on to a film that had such an off the wall story line, but I figured if anyone could pull it off, he could.
After months of generating an absurd amount of buzz on the internet, I have to say that I was a little disappointed with the finished product and hopefully I’m not the only one who feels this way.
Believe it or not, there’s actually an intriguing story here regarding the origin of the snakes and how they came to be on the plane in the first place, but appears to take a back seat when the mayhem finally ensues.
Jackson plays Neville Flynn, an FBI agent assigned to escort a federal witness on a flight from Honolulu to Los Angeles in hopes of putting high-profile gangster Eddie Kim away for good. To prevent that from happening, Kim has deviously arranged for a crate full of poisonous snakes to be put in the plane’s cargo hold with a timer installed so the snakes will be released at some time during the trip.
If that wasn’t enough, he has even had the leis laced with pheromones to ensure that the snakes will attack the passengers more violently.
Now that sounds like it would make for an exciting thriller, but there are many elements of this film that prevent it from becoming as good as advertised such as its clichéd characters and horrendous dialogue.
“We have to put a barrier between us and the snakes" and “Great, snakes on crack" are only a couple of the ridiculously bad lines this film has to offer, but I assure you there are plenty more where these came from.
Another tiring aspect of this film lies in the fact that there are only so many places a snake can harm you and it begins to get quite monotonous after a while. Since Director David R. Ellis makes sure that no area of the human body goes untouched, prepare to be fully disgusted by the time the credits roll and for those afraid of snakes, may I suggest spending your time on another film in its place (World Trade Center perhaps?).
By the time Jackson delivers his already iconic line, I’d had it with not only the snakes, but the entire film as well. Jackson’s performance seems to be the lone bright spot of this film, but isn’t enough to overcome such dreadful material. I understand that it wasn’t supposed to be taken seriously, but I expected a little more substance from such a promising movie and wasn’t given any.
“Snakes on a Plane" is a bad, but also very entertaining film that doesn’t quite live up to its lofty expectations. It had the makings of an exhilarating suspense film, but insisted on settling for trite character development and cheap thrills. For a quick summary, I think Public Enemy said it best when they said “Don’t believe the hype."
- ** out of 4
After months of generating an absurd amount of buzz on the internet, I have to say that I was a little disappointed with the finished product and hopefully I’m not the only one who feels this way.
Believe it or not, there’s actually an intriguing story here regarding the origin of the snakes and how they came to be on the plane in the first place, but appears to take a back seat when the mayhem finally ensues.
Jackson plays Neville Flynn, an FBI agent assigned to escort a federal witness on a flight from Honolulu to Los Angeles in hopes of putting high-profile gangster Eddie Kim away for good. To prevent that from happening, Kim has deviously arranged for a crate full of poisonous snakes to be put in the plane’s cargo hold with a timer installed so the snakes will be released at some time during the trip.
If that wasn’t enough, he has even had the leis laced with pheromones to ensure that the snakes will attack the passengers more violently.
Now that sounds like it would make for an exciting thriller, but there are many elements of this film that prevent it from becoming as good as advertised such as its clichéd characters and horrendous dialogue.
“We have to put a barrier between us and the snakes" and “Great, snakes on crack" are only a couple of the ridiculously bad lines this film has to offer, but I assure you there are plenty more where these came from.
Another tiring aspect of this film lies in the fact that there are only so many places a snake can harm you and it begins to get quite monotonous after a while. Since Director David R. Ellis makes sure that no area of the human body goes untouched, prepare to be fully disgusted by the time the credits roll and for those afraid of snakes, may I suggest spending your time on another film in its place (World Trade Center perhaps?).
By the time Jackson delivers his already iconic line, I’d had it with not only the snakes, but the entire film as well. Jackson’s performance seems to be the lone bright spot of this film, but isn’t enough to overcome such dreadful material. I understand that it wasn’t supposed to be taken seriously, but I expected a little more substance from such a promising movie and wasn’t given any.
“Snakes on a Plane" is a bad, but also very entertaining film that doesn’t quite live up to its lofty expectations. It had the makings of an exhilarating suspense film, but insisted on settling for trite character development and cheap thrills. For a quick summary, I think Public Enemy said it best when they said “Don’t believe the hype."
- ** out of 4
Lady in the Water
Is it just me or has M. Night Shayamalan’s promising career as a filmmaker gone completely South the past few years? It seems that with each new film, he becomes increasingly boring and anti-climactic in his storytelling and always tries to make his films look as if they are more important than they actually are.
His latest movie “Lady in the Water" is no exception as he yet again attempts to pile as many philosophical themes regarding politics and the human condition as he can into 110 minutes of film. His intentions are noble, but unfortunately the end result just isn’t strong enough to support such deep and profound material.
His film centers around an old Philadelphia apartment complex called The Cove that is said to have a mysterious being living at the bottom of its swimming pool. It appears only after the pool has closed for the night and has reportedly been stealing random items left behind by the people who live there.
When it’s brought to the attention of the superintendent, he promises to look into it and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) is an honest man who goes about his business everyday constantly doing repairs and other odd jobs to keep his tenants happy, which helps keep his mind off the death of his family. Despite not having a very demanding role, Giamatti (Sideways, Cinderella Man) delivers a sincere performance as Heep and is one of the few bright spots this film has to offer. While in his apartment late one night, he hears strange noises coming from the pool so he immediately goes to check it out.
It turns out that it’s not a creature, but a woman that has been living in the pool and causing quite the stir among the tenants. Her name is Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) and she is a narf (water nymph) that has come from the Blue World to try and save the human race from destroying itself. Now that sounds interesting and all, but it quickly becomes so preposterous and far-fetched that not even Shayamalan’s sense of humor can save this one from an early demise. Whether they were intended to be or not, many moments in this film are so laugh out loud ridiculous that they actually make the film a little more bearable.
There is one scene in which a little boy is receiving theoretical messages while staring at cereal boxes and I couldn’t help but wonder what Shayamalan was thinking about when he wrote that absurd thing. As if the plot wasn’t silly enough, we later find out that certain people living in the building have been pre-selected to help Story return home safely. Determined to find out who they are, Cleveland goes to an old woman who through her daughter’s translation, tells him the bedtime story of the narf and how an eagle is supposed to come down and take her back to the Blue World.
He is told that the purpose of the narf’s visit is to come in contact with a writer living in the building and inform him that his work will ultimately change the world forever. By providing this information, Shayamalan manages to take all of the suspense out of the story and make it quite predictable the rest of the way.
The fact that the writer turns out to be the character played by Shayamalan himself shows just how self-indulgent he has truly become. Although there are a few good jolts in the film, the pointlessness of the ending made everything else seem wasted.
From a director who created such brilliant films as “The Sixth Sense" and “Signs", I found it to be a great disappointment.Shayamalan has created another film with an intriguing premise that wasted no time becoming pointless and forgettable. For those who thought 2004’s “The Village" was just a fluke, you’ll be frustrated to know that not much has changed and that this one is indeed dead in the water.
- ** out of 4
His latest movie “Lady in the Water" is no exception as he yet again attempts to pile as many philosophical themes regarding politics and the human condition as he can into 110 minutes of film. His intentions are noble, but unfortunately the end result just isn’t strong enough to support such deep and profound material.
His film centers around an old Philadelphia apartment complex called The Cove that is said to have a mysterious being living at the bottom of its swimming pool. It appears only after the pool has closed for the night and has reportedly been stealing random items left behind by the people who live there.
When it’s brought to the attention of the superintendent, he promises to look into it and make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) is an honest man who goes about his business everyday constantly doing repairs and other odd jobs to keep his tenants happy, which helps keep his mind off the death of his family. Despite not having a very demanding role, Giamatti (Sideways, Cinderella Man) delivers a sincere performance as Heep and is one of the few bright spots this film has to offer. While in his apartment late one night, he hears strange noises coming from the pool so he immediately goes to check it out.
It turns out that it’s not a creature, but a woman that has been living in the pool and causing quite the stir among the tenants. Her name is Story (Bryce Dallas Howard) and she is a narf (water nymph) that has come from the Blue World to try and save the human race from destroying itself. Now that sounds interesting and all, but it quickly becomes so preposterous and far-fetched that not even Shayamalan’s sense of humor can save this one from an early demise. Whether they were intended to be or not, many moments in this film are so laugh out loud ridiculous that they actually make the film a little more bearable.
There is one scene in which a little boy is receiving theoretical messages while staring at cereal boxes and I couldn’t help but wonder what Shayamalan was thinking about when he wrote that absurd thing. As if the plot wasn’t silly enough, we later find out that certain people living in the building have been pre-selected to help Story return home safely. Determined to find out who they are, Cleveland goes to an old woman who through her daughter’s translation, tells him the bedtime story of the narf and how an eagle is supposed to come down and take her back to the Blue World.
He is told that the purpose of the narf’s visit is to come in contact with a writer living in the building and inform him that his work will ultimately change the world forever. By providing this information, Shayamalan manages to take all of the suspense out of the story and make it quite predictable the rest of the way.
The fact that the writer turns out to be the character played by Shayamalan himself shows just how self-indulgent he has truly become. Although there are a few good jolts in the film, the pointlessness of the ending made everything else seem wasted.
From a director who created such brilliant films as “The Sixth Sense" and “Signs", I found it to be a great disappointment.Shayamalan has created another film with an intriguing premise that wasted no time becoming pointless and forgettable. For those who thought 2004’s “The Village" was just a fluke, you’ll be frustrated to know that not much has changed and that this one is indeed dead in the water.
- ** out of 4
Click
Over the past decade, Adam Sandler has made numerous attempts at developing a more serious on-screen persona, but few have been critically well-received. Whether he was a loud-mouth golfer in “Happy Gilmore" or a mild-mannered chef in “Spanglish", Sandler just can’t quite convince people that he can be consistently on-target with his performances.
His latest film “Click" has all of the offbeat humor and out-of-control antics you would expect from him, but I still felt there was something missing.This time around he plays a workaholic architect named Michael, who works so much that he hardly sees his kids and has little time to spend talking with his wife.
When he misses the majority of his son’s swim meet and is forced to cancel a family camping trip, he decides to take his life into his own hands and go for a drive.
Oddly, Bed, Bath, and Beyond is the only store open at the time, but it just so happens to offer the remedy he is looking for. It is here that he meets Morty, played hilariously by Christopher Walken, who gives him a universal remote that has the power to control anything with the push of a button.
Michael soon learns just how powerful it can be when it begins to fast forward on its own and leave him wondering how much of his life he missed out on during that time. At one point, it skips an entire year in which his kids grow up and are no longer interested in the same activities as before and Michael can’t believe what has happened.
I found it to be reminiscent of 2004’s “The Butterfly Effect" in that both characters are desperately trying to improve their lives, but each change doesn’t always bring about the most favorable outcome.
As Michael continues to use the remote, his life becomes worse off than it was before and doesn’t appear that it will get any better. Although there are some good laughs involving Michael’s neighbor, it quickly becomes a very sad and depressing story about a man who tries so hard to make things right that he ultimately ends up losing everything he had worked for. Sandler portrays these emotions with great sincerity, but often looks as if he is trying too hard to deliver the perfect scene. I also felt that some of the more critical scenes were sometimes ruined by humor taking over at inappropriate times and leaving much to be desired.
Just when you think Sandler has gone serious, he says or does something to make you believe he’s still the same loud-mouth he’s always been. As a fan of most of Sandler’s films ( “The Waterboy" and “Little Nicky" not included) , I usually enjoy his unique sense of humor, but also like to see him expand his talent and deal with more adult situations.
During the film’s final sequence, many questions are answered and problems are resolved, but I felt a little cheated with the way it decided to end and everything I had just witnessed now came into question. If there is anything important being said by this movie, it is that no matter how hard you try, you can’t please everyone.
Overall, “Click" was an entertaining movie about a man trying to spend more time with his family, but the imbalance between emotion and humor seemed to be too much at times. It is a film that’s not quite sure whether it wants to be a slapstick comedy or a heartfelt drama, which for me makes it an enjoyable, yet somewhat disappointing film.
- ** ½ out of 4
His latest film “Click" has all of the offbeat humor and out-of-control antics you would expect from him, but I still felt there was something missing.This time around he plays a workaholic architect named Michael, who works so much that he hardly sees his kids and has little time to spend talking with his wife.
When he misses the majority of his son’s swim meet and is forced to cancel a family camping trip, he decides to take his life into his own hands and go for a drive.
Oddly, Bed, Bath, and Beyond is the only store open at the time, but it just so happens to offer the remedy he is looking for. It is here that he meets Morty, played hilariously by Christopher Walken, who gives him a universal remote that has the power to control anything with the push of a button.
Michael soon learns just how powerful it can be when it begins to fast forward on its own and leave him wondering how much of his life he missed out on during that time. At one point, it skips an entire year in which his kids grow up and are no longer interested in the same activities as before and Michael can’t believe what has happened.
I found it to be reminiscent of 2004’s “The Butterfly Effect" in that both characters are desperately trying to improve their lives, but each change doesn’t always bring about the most favorable outcome.
As Michael continues to use the remote, his life becomes worse off than it was before and doesn’t appear that it will get any better. Although there are some good laughs involving Michael’s neighbor, it quickly becomes a very sad and depressing story about a man who tries so hard to make things right that he ultimately ends up losing everything he had worked for. Sandler portrays these emotions with great sincerity, but often looks as if he is trying too hard to deliver the perfect scene. I also felt that some of the more critical scenes were sometimes ruined by humor taking over at inappropriate times and leaving much to be desired.
Just when you think Sandler has gone serious, he says or does something to make you believe he’s still the same loud-mouth he’s always been. As a fan of most of Sandler’s films ( “The Waterboy" and “Little Nicky" not included) , I usually enjoy his unique sense of humor, but also like to see him expand his talent and deal with more adult situations.
During the film’s final sequence, many questions are answered and problems are resolved, but I felt a little cheated with the way it decided to end and everything I had just witnessed now came into question. If there is anything important being said by this movie, it is that no matter how hard you try, you can’t please everyone.
Overall, “Click" was an entertaining movie about a man trying to spend more time with his family, but the imbalance between emotion and humor seemed to be too much at times. It is a film that’s not quite sure whether it wants to be a slapstick comedy or a heartfelt drama, which for me makes it an enjoyable, yet somewhat disappointing film.
- ** ½ out of 4
Clerks II
When “Clerks" opened at Cannes in 1994, it instantly took the festival by storm and presented people with a new brand of humor that was so outrageously comical that it almost received an NC-17 rating from the MPAA. It’s now twelve years later and writer/director Kevin Smith is back to where it all began in hopes of regaining the edge that made him one of the top independent filmmakers of the 90’s.
For someone who has never been the biggest fan of Kevin Smith, I walked into “Clerks II" with a deeply open mind and immediately wondered whether or not it could possibly be as freshly funny as the original. From the minute the film started, I realized that Smith has without a doubt returned to form and that his sense of humor is as keen as ever.
Like its predecessor, it follows the lives of everyone’s favorite slackers Dante Hicks and Randal Graves as they attempt to find meaning in life while spending their days working endlessly in a convenient store. Early one morning, Dante arrives to find that his beloved Quick Stop is completely up in flames due to Randal’s blunder with the coffee pot and will not be reopening anytime soon.
With few options in front of them, they eventually find jobs working at a fast food restaurant called Mooby’s and get right back to their same old uneventful lifestyle. I find it hard to believe that Brian O’Halloran and Jeff Anderson aren’t in more movies, because they are extremely funny and it’s hard to imagine anyone else in their roles. Their offbeat conversations and inappropriate humor are a key element to the success of this film and they should be thanking Kevin Smith for writing such brilliant comedic dialogue.
One of Smith’s greatest talents is finding humor in everyday situations and making his characters believable in the eyes of the audience. I think a lot of that comes from the fact that he once worked in a convenient store himself and has a very accurate sense of what guys really talk about.
His best move here was the addition of the lovely Rosario Dawson ( “Rent", “Sin City") to the cast, which makes for an interesting subplot involving her romance with Dante. In another great role, Dawson plays Becky, the manager of Mooby’s with such zeal and enthusiasm that she appears to be having a great time on-screen. As the day goes on, Dante spends more time in the office with Becky than actually working and Randal continues to relentlessly harass customers, but somehow food still gets served.
Among the many cameo appearances, Jason Lee manages to provide the most laughs during his time on camera and shows why he is a great comedic talent. His character’s appearance causes such a stir, that Randal has to leave work for an hour so he can ride the go-karts to relax. And where would any Kevin Smith film be without an appearance from the dynamic duo known as Jay and Silent Bob? They’re here as always and are responsible for many of the laughs throughout the film including a hysterical, yet disturbing scene in which Jay pays tribute to “Buffalo Bill" from “The Silence of the Lambs."
As if that wasn’t disturbing enough, a scene in which Randal’s gift to Dante gets out of control will definitely have people fully disgusted. During the last third of the film, Smith gets a little soft in his subject matter and tries to show people that he does have a delicate side to his personality. Each of his characters apparently wants to grow up and start making something of their life, which allows the film to end exactly how it began more than a decade ago.
Overall, “Clerks II" is a very humorous film full of enough racial slurs and scatological references that it is certainly not for those who are easily offended. It works, because its stars aren’t afraid to deal with shocking material in hopes of getting a laugh. Regardless of how boring or monotonous their life may be, for Dante and Randal, it’s just another day on the job.
- *** out of 4
For someone who has never been the biggest fan of Kevin Smith, I walked into “Clerks II" with a deeply open mind and immediately wondered whether or not it could possibly be as freshly funny as the original. From the minute the film started, I realized that Smith has without a doubt returned to form and that his sense of humor is as keen as ever.
Like its predecessor, it follows the lives of everyone’s favorite slackers Dante Hicks and Randal Graves as they attempt to find meaning in life while spending their days working endlessly in a convenient store. Early one morning, Dante arrives to find that his beloved Quick Stop is completely up in flames due to Randal’s blunder with the coffee pot and will not be reopening anytime soon.
With few options in front of them, they eventually find jobs working at a fast food restaurant called Mooby’s and get right back to their same old uneventful lifestyle. I find it hard to believe that Brian O’Halloran and Jeff Anderson aren’t in more movies, because they are extremely funny and it’s hard to imagine anyone else in their roles. Their offbeat conversations and inappropriate humor are a key element to the success of this film and they should be thanking Kevin Smith for writing such brilliant comedic dialogue.
One of Smith’s greatest talents is finding humor in everyday situations and making his characters believable in the eyes of the audience. I think a lot of that comes from the fact that he once worked in a convenient store himself and has a very accurate sense of what guys really talk about.
His best move here was the addition of the lovely Rosario Dawson ( “Rent", “Sin City") to the cast, which makes for an interesting subplot involving her romance with Dante. In another great role, Dawson plays Becky, the manager of Mooby’s with such zeal and enthusiasm that she appears to be having a great time on-screen. As the day goes on, Dante spends more time in the office with Becky than actually working and Randal continues to relentlessly harass customers, but somehow food still gets served.
Among the many cameo appearances, Jason Lee manages to provide the most laughs during his time on camera and shows why he is a great comedic talent. His character’s appearance causes such a stir, that Randal has to leave work for an hour so he can ride the go-karts to relax. And where would any Kevin Smith film be without an appearance from the dynamic duo known as Jay and Silent Bob? They’re here as always and are responsible for many of the laughs throughout the film including a hysterical, yet disturbing scene in which Jay pays tribute to “Buffalo Bill" from “The Silence of the Lambs."
As if that wasn’t disturbing enough, a scene in which Randal’s gift to Dante gets out of control will definitely have people fully disgusted. During the last third of the film, Smith gets a little soft in his subject matter and tries to show people that he does have a delicate side to his personality. Each of his characters apparently wants to grow up and start making something of their life, which allows the film to end exactly how it began more than a decade ago.
Overall, “Clerks II" is a very humorous film full of enough racial slurs and scatological references that it is certainly not for those who are easily offended. It works, because its stars aren’t afraid to deal with shocking material in hopes of getting a laugh. Regardless of how boring or monotonous their life may be, for Dante and Randal, it’s just another day on the job.
- *** out of 4
The Da Vinci Code
“Why is it divine or human? Can't human be divine?" asks Professor Robert Langdon as he passionately explores the true nature of Christ’s life on Earth in Ron Howard’s latest film “The Da Vinci Code."
By now, most people are more than familiar with the issues raised in Dan Brown’s controversial best seller and are quick to dismiss them as nothing but preposterous pieces of fiction. Although they might seem implausible, they are almost impossible to ignore as shown by the enormous number of books being sold throughout the world.
As if the novel wasn’t enough, we now have a feature film to further add to the phenomenon and once again present people with the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were in fact married. Following its premiere at Cannes, it was immediately smashed by critics who said it was long, boring, and anti-climactic.
Despite all of the harsh criticism, I decided to go see it for myself and as an avid fan of the book, I have to say that I was not disappointed.
We begin inside the world famous Louvre Museum in Paris as museum curator Jacques Sauniere is desperately trying to save himself from death while being chased by a crazed albino monk known as Silas, who will stop at nothing to expose the biggest secret in human history.
Knowing he’s minutes from the end, Sauniere makes one last second attempt at keeping the secret alive by positioning his body in such a way that only a select few will be able to decipher the code he has so cleverly arranged. When police arrive, they are baffled by what is in front of them and are left with no choice but to bring in an expert to help them understand what Sauniere was trying to say.
For those of us who have read the novel, we know what happens next as Professor Langdon arrives and is instantly able to provide insight into the situation. At this point, Howard is following the story fairly well, but seems to lose much of the excitement generated by Brown’s novel and makes key elements of the quest seem somewhat ordinary. Despite a few absurd lines of dialogue, Tom Hanks gives an interesting performance as Langdon and seems to have the part of Harvard scholar down to a science.
Although it’s not as captivating as some of his other roles ( “Forrest Gump", “Saving Private Ryan" etc. ), he still creates a very likable and sincere character that audiences can hopefully enjoy. Knowing that Langdon can’t solve it on his own, French cryptologist Sophie Neveu, played by Audrey Tautou, comes to the scene and offers her own take on what has occurred. It is not long before Langdon discovers that he is the prime suspect in the murder of Jacques Sauniere and that French police brought him there in hopes of getting a confession. As the film’s pace quickens, Langdon and Neveu embark on a journey that with any luck will lead them to the final resting place of the Holy Grail.
Even if the chemistry between Hanks and Tautou seems a bit off, they still make a decent on-screen pair during most of their scenes together and can be fairly convincing at times. From this point on, the film evolves into a thrilling adventure tale involving knights, car chases, and even a Fibonacci sequence for good measure. But when all of the excitement is over, the million dollar question still remains. Were Jesus and Mary Magdalene married, and, if so, did they have a child?
To go even further and say that the descendants of this royal bloodline are still living today has been regarded as the detail that would cause an unprecedented crisis of faith and forever change the world as we know it. Many accuse this film of being too preachy in its viewpoints, but if its all fiction anyway, then why is everyone getting so worked up over it?
I think people need to stop attacking it and just acknowledge the fact that Dan Brown has created a wildly entertaining story full of twists and intellectual intrigue that has captured people’s attention for the last three years. But like all religious films that make there way onto the silver screen, few are ever free from the immense disapproval that follows and this has proven to be no different.
Overall, “The Da Vinci Code" was an engaging film that bombarded its audience with enough secret codes and religious uncertainty to make serious followers of Christ gasp when presented with such nonsense. With all that aside, I found it to be great entertainment and anyone who likes to have fun at the movies should feel the same way. I think the real winner here is Brown himself, who will be laughing all the way to the bank.
- *** out of 4
By now, most people are more than familiar with the issues raised in Dan Brown’s controversial best seller and are quick to dismiss them as nothing but preposterous pieces of fiction. Although they might seem implausible, they are almost impossible to ignore as shown by the enormous number of books being sold throughout the world.
As if the novel wasn’t enough, we now have a feature film to further add to the phenomenon and once again present people with the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were in fact married. Following its premiere at Cannes, it was immediately smashed by critics who said it was long, boring, and anti-climactic.
Despite all of the harsh criticism, I decided to go see it for myself and as an avid fan of the book, I have to say that I was not disappointed.
We begin inside the world famous Louvre Museum in Paris as museum curator Jacques Sauniere is desperately trying to save himself from death while being chased by a crazed albino monk known as Silas, who will stop at nothing to expose the biggest secret in human history.
Knowing he’s minutes from the end, Sauniere makes one last second attempt at keeping the secret alive by positioning his body in such a way that only a select few will be able to decipher the code he has so cleverly arranged. When police arrive, they are baffled by what is in front of them and are left with no choice but to bring in an expert to help them understand what Sauniere was trying to say.
For those of us who have read the novel, we know what happens next as Professor Langdon arrives and is instantly able to provide insight into the situation. At this point, Howard is following the story fairly well, but seems to lose much of the excitement generated by Brown’s novel and makes key elements of the quest seem somewhat ordinary. Despite a few absurd lines of dialogue, Tom Hanks gives an interesting performance as Langdon and seems to have the part of Harvard scholar down to a science.
Although it’s not as captivating as some of his other roles ( “Forrest Gump", “Saving Private Ryan" etc. ), he still creates a very likable and sincere character that audiences can hopefully enjoy. Knowing that Langdon can’t solve it on his own, French cryptologist Sophie Neveu, played by Audrey Tautou, comes to the scene and offers her own take on what has occurred. It is not long before Langdon discovers that he is the prime suspect in the murder of Jacques Sauniere and that French police brought him there in hopes of getting a confession. As the film’s pace quickens, Langdon and Neveu embark on a journey that with any luck will lead them to the final resting place of the Holy Grail.
Even if the chemistry between Hanks and Tautou seems a bit off, they still make a decent on-screen pair during most of their scenes together and can be fairly convincing at times. From this point on, the film evolves into a thrilling adventure tale involving knights, car chases, and even a Fibonacci sequence for good measure. But when all of the excitement is over, the million dollar question still remains. Were Jesus and Mary Magdalene married, and, if so, did they have a child?
To go even further and say that the descendants of this royal bloodline are still living today has been regarded as the detail that would cause an unprecedented crisis of faith and forever change the world as we know it. Many accuse this film of being too preachy in its viewpoints, but if its all fiction anyway, then why is everyone getting so worked up over it?
I think people need to stop attacking it and just acknowledge the fact that Dan Brown has created a wildly entertaining story full of twists and intellectual intrigue that has captured people’s attention for the last three years. But like all religious films that make there way onto the silver screen, few are ever free from the immense disapproval that follows and this has proven to be no different.
Overall, “The Da Vinci Code" was an engaging film that bombarded its audience with enough secret codes and religious uncertainty to make serious followers of Christ gasp when presented with such nonsense. With all that aside, I found it to be great entertainment and anyone who likes to have fun at the movies should feel the same way. I think the real winner here is Brown himself, who will be laughing all the way to the bank.
- *** out of 4
The Good Shepherd
Edward Wilson is the thinking man’s hero. He’s smart, soft-spoken, and will do absolutely anything to protect the country he loves. So when he’s recruited to become a member of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), he faithfully accepts and soon finds himself caught up in a precarious web of uncertainty and deception. His tumultuous journey from Yale University to becoming the head of counter-intelligence for the CIA is the subject of Robert De Niro’s long, yet fascinatingly mysterious new film “The Good Shepherd", which chronicles the dawn of the Central Intelligence Agency during a very turbulent period in American history.
Since the film covers nearly twenty-five years, we are given an in-depth look at Wilson’s life before he became a government big shot and begin to understand why he acts the way he does in certain situations. While attending Yale, he was part of the secret society known as Skull and Bones and was essentially being groomed for a life of shadows and secrecy. Everything he did carried a label of confidentiality and he ultimately had to leave his emotions at the door if he wanted to succeed.
In what is probably the most underrated performance of 2006, Matt Damon captures the essence of Wilson’s true nature and delivers a brilliantly understated portrayal of a man whose only real friend was the country he sacrificed everything to protect. Although Wilson is almost the complete opposite of the character he played in “The Departed", Damon plays him with passionate sincerity and definitely makes him convincing every step of the way.
When Wilson is contacted by General Bill Sullivan, played by De Niro himself, he agrees to take a integral role in the development of an intelligence agency that would be in charge of monitoring things between the US and Soviet Union. His situation becomes complicated when he has to leave his wife and head to Europe to interview potential German informants, but his dedication to work always comes before anything else.
Upon returning home, he finds that his wife Margaret (Angelina Jolie) has apparently moved on with her life and has no interest in rekindling a relationship that was never really devoted to begin with. Jolie’s presence here is heartfelt, but I still feel that she was greatly underused and her widespread talent never really comes out. One of the only things keeping them connected is their son Edward Jr., who eventually becomes interested in joining the CIA, but his mother fights for him to reconsider.
Since the film constantly jumps between 1939 and 1961, the audience’s attention must be rock solid to avoid missing any significant details. Although some might find this to be a difficult task, I found the film to be very informative even without knowing all of the details about what was going on. Each actor’s performance corresponds directly with the pace of the film and despite some sluggish moments, it’s actually quite profound in its lifelessness. In just his second directorial effort, De Niro has created a film that is sometimes dull, but always sharp and perplexing.
Every character has their own agenda and is consistently hesitant over who to trust when their life is on the line. De Niro’s subtle direction mixed with Eric Roth’s ingeniously written script produces a thought-provoking exercise about family, trust, and how far one is willing to go to protect what they love.
- *** ½ out of 4
Since the film covers nearly twenty-five years, we are given an in-depth look at Wilson’s life before he became a government big shot and begin to understand why he acts the way he does in certain situations. While attending Yale, he was part of the secret society known as Skull and Bones and was essentially being groomed for a life of shadows and secrecy. Everything he did carried a label of confidentiality and he ultimately had to leave his emotions at the door if he wanted to succeed.
In what is probably the most underrated performance of 2006, Matt Damon captures the essence of Wilson’s true nature and delivers a brilliantly understated portrayal of a man whose only real friend was the country he sacrificed everything to protect. Although Wilson is almost the complete opposite of the character he played in “The Departed", Damon plays him with passionate sincerity and definitely makes him convincing every step of the way.
When Wilson is contacted by General Bill Sullivan, played by De Niro himself, he agrees to take a integral role in the development of an intelligence agency that would be in charge of monitoring things between the US and Soviet Union. His situation becomes complicated when he has to leave his wife and head to Europe to interview potential German informants, but his dedication to work always comes before anything else.
Upon returning home, he finds that his wife Margaret (Angelina Jolie) has apparently moved on with her life and has no interest in rekindling a relationship that was never really devoted to begin with. Jolie’s presence here is heartfelt, but I still feel that she was greatly underused and her widespread talent never really comes out. One of the only things keeping them connected is their son Edward Jr., who eventually becomes interested in joining the CIA, but his mother fights for him to reconsider.
Since the film constantly jumps between 1939 and 1961, the audience’s attention must be rock solid to avoid missing any significant details. Although some might find this to be a difficult task, I found the film to be very informative even without knowing all of the details about what was going on. Each actor’s performance corresponds directly with the pace of the film and despite some sluggish moments, it’s actually quite profound in its lifelessness. In just his second directorial effort, De Niro has created a film that is sometimes dull, but always sharp and perplexing.
Every character has their own agenda and is consistently hesitant over who to trust when their life is on the line. De Niro’s subtle direction mixed with Eric Roth’s ingeniously written script produces a thought-provoking exercise about family, trust, and how far one is willing to go to protect what they love.
- *** ½ out of 4
Pan's Labyrinth
Guillermo del Toro’s new film “Pan’s Labyrinth” is a masterpiece, plain and simple. Everything about this frighteningly fantastic adult fairy tale just screams greatness and further solidifies del Toro’s place as a superb cinematic storyteller. Like 2001’s “The Devil’s Backbone”, Labyrinth takes place during a very gloomy time in Spanish history as Francisco Franco has risen to power and the war between the Fascists and Republicans wages on.
Amidst all the chaos and confusion, eleven-year-old Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) is struggling to cope with the loss of her father as well as her mother’s newfound marriage to a cruel and sadistic military leader. She spends her days consumed by her own wishful fantasies and avidly longs for her life to return to the way it used to be.
What she encounters over the next two hours or so is a terrifyingly larger-than-life journey of profound self-discovery that goes way beyond any of her wildest dreams.
Upon arriving at the compound, she is instantly alienated from the others and discovers that her only real friend is a servant named Mercedes (Maribel Verdú), who shares her palpable dislike for the Fascist environment.
She is a young girl surrounded by soldiers, weapons, and random acts of violence that appear to be taking a harsh toll on her emotional well-being and she quietly longs for an escape from this wretched reality.
With her mother sick in bed, she decides to go explore the labyrinth outside and is greeted by a faun, who informs her that she is a long-lost princess of the underworld and must complete three crucial tasks before she can be granted re-entry. She eagerly accepts and looks forward to embarking on this dark and mysterious adventure. Baquero plays Ofelia with such a tender feeling of childlike innocence that it’s almost as if she’s not acting at all.
Her performance evokes uncontrolled feelings of happiness, sorrow, eeriness, and misery that are seldom surpassed by other actors her age. Everything wholesome that Ofelia represents, Capitán Vidal (Sergi López) can be seen as the complete opposite. He is a cold and calculating individual whose only real concern is having a male heir to carry on his name after he’s gone and Ofelia’s mother is the means of achieving his goal. His wicked personality serves as motivation for Ofelia to finish her mission as quickly as possible and get out while she still can.
Each obstacle involves creatures so macabre and scenery so splendidly surreal that del Toro’s special effects team is really given a chance to strut their stuff. They manage to create such a ghastly portrait of Ofelia’s vivid imagination that it eventually becomes an unspeakable nightmare that she may never wake up from.
Labyrinth works, because we are seeing things through the innocuous eyes of a young girl, who doesn’t really understand the political implications of the world around her. I think everyone can relate to wanting an escape from the inevitable horrors of life and del Toro addresses that idea in a very meaningful and sophisticated manner. We all deal with problems in our own way and for Ofelia, immersing herself in the realm of mythology served as her own personal panacea.
- **** out of 4
Amidst all the chaos and confusion, eleven-year-old Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) is struggling to cope with the loss of her father as well as her mother’s newfound marriage to a cruel and sadistic military leader. She spends her days consumed by her own wishful fantasies and avidly longs for her life to return to the way it used to be.
What she encounters over the next two hours or so is a terrifyingly larger-than-life journey of profound self-discovery that goes way beyond any of her wildest dreams.
Upon arriving at the compound, she is instantly alienated from the others and discovers that her only real friend is a servant named Mercedes (Maribel Verdú), who shares her palpable dislike for the Fascist environment.
She is a young girl surrounded by soldiers, weapons, and random acts of violence that appear to be taking a harsh toll on her emotional well-being and she quietly longs for an escape from this wretched reality.
With her mother sick in bed, she decides to go explore the labyrinth outside and is greeted by a faun, who informs her that she is a long-lost princess of the underworld and must complete three crucial tasks before she can be granted re-entry. She eagerly accepts and looks forward to embarking on this dark and mysterious adventure. Baquero plays Ofelia with such a tender feeling of childlike innocence that it’s almost as if she’s not acting at all.
Her performance evokes uncontrolled feelings of happiness, sorrow, eeriness, and misery that are seldom surpassed by other actors her age. Everything wholesome that Ofelia represents, Capitán Vidal (Sergi López) can be seen as the complete opposite. He is a cold and calculating individual whose only real concern is having a male heir to carry on his name after he’s gone and Ofelia’s mother is the means of achieving his goal. His wicked personality serves as motivation for Ofelia to finish her mission as quickly as possible and get out while she still can.
Each obstacle involves creatures so macabre and scenery so splendidly surreal that del Toro’s special effects team is really given a chance to strut their stuff. They manage to create such a ghastly portrait of Ofelia’s vivid imagination that it eventually becomes an unspeakable nightmare that she may never wake up from.
Labyrinth works, because we are seeing things through the innocuous eyes of a young girl, who doesn’t really understand the political implications of the world around her. I think everyone can relate to wanting an escape from the inevitable horrors of life and del Toro addresses that idea in a very meaningful and sophisticated manner. We all deal with problems in our own way and for Ofelia, immersing herself in the realm of mythology served as her own personal panacea.
- **** out of 4
Dreamgirls
“Dreamgirls” is an interesting film. It’s as much a visually stunning spectacle of sight and sound as it is an empty character-driven melodrama absorbed by its own self-image. Loosely (Yeah, Right) based on Diana Ross and the Supremes, it follows the up and down career of an all-girl group called The Dreams, who find success during the 1960’s with their unique combination of dynamite looks and powerhouse vocal range. Don’t get me wrong, I was very entertained, but ultimately found it to be a shoddy story without enough substance to match its own distinctive brand of pizzazz.
During the spectacular first half, we are introduced to a number of major characters that appear to be involved strictly for the money and will do anything they can to achieve financial success. One of those characters is Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jamie Foxx), who sweet talks his way to becoming The Dreams’ manager, but eventually destroys the camaraderie of the group by promoting Deena Jones (Beyoncé Knowles) to lead singer and encouraging her to move on to bigger and better things.
This move causes quite the stir among the group and leads to one of the most incredibly vivacious scenes in the history of movie musicals. When Jennifer Hudson belts out her show-stopping rendition of “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going”, she instantly commands the screen and makes her early departure from season three of “American Idol” seem like a blessing in disguise.
Her performance as Effie White is truly a revelation and should make her a virtual lock to win Best Supporting Actress. Joining her on Oscar night will be none other than Eddie Murphy, whose electrifying portrayal of James “Thunder” Early ranks among the best of his career and shows that he is still capable of stealing the show at any given moment. He presents Early as a flamboyant yet tragic personality with a drug problem that will sooner or later lead to his downfall.
With all the phenomenal talent this film has to offer, you’d expect it to be a blockbuster from start to finish, but unfortunately that’s expecting too much. Writer/Director Bill Condon seems to focus a little too much on the glam factor and not enough on developing a clear, coherent storyline. With the exception of Hudson and Murphy, every character seems too naïve and archetypical to be taken seriously and the film’s overall effectiveness is clearly hindered because of it.
While it does have its moments, I still felt a little let down by the whole presentation and expected a lot more from a film with such a promising source of material. Luckily, it looks gorgeous and sounds amazing, so everything else is secondary. Is it pure fluff ? Of course, but that’s why we love it.
- *** out of 4
During the spectacular first half, we are introduced to a number of major characters that appear to be involved strictly for the money and will do anything they can to achieve financial success. One of those characters is Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jamie Foxx), who sweet talks his way to becoming The Dreams’ manager, but eventually destroys the camaraderie of the group by promoting Deena Jones (Beyoncé Knowles) to lead singer and encouraging her to move on to bigger and better things.
This move causes quite the stir among the group and leads to one of the most incredibly vivacious scenes in the history of movie musicals. When Jennifer Hudson belts out her show-stopping rendition of “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going”, she instantly commands the screen and makes her early departure from season three of “American Idol” seem like a blessing in disguise.
Her performance as Effie White is truly a revelation and should make her a virtual lock to win Best Supporting Actress. Joining her on Oscar night will be none other than Eddie Murphy, whose electrifying portrayal of James “Thunder” Early ranks among the best of his career and shows that he is still capable of stealing the show at any given moment. He presents Early as a flamboyant yet tragic personality with a drug problem that will sooner or later lead to his downfall.
With all the phenomenal talent this film has to offer, you’d expect it to be a blockbuster from start to finish, but unfortunately that’s expecting too much. Writer/Director Bill Condon seems to focus a little too much on the glam factor and not enough on developing a clear, coherent storyline. With the exception of Hudson and Murphy, every character seems too naïve and archetypical to be taken seriously and the film’s overall effectiveness is clearly hindered because of it.
While it does have its moments, I still felt a little let down by the whole presentation and expected a lot more from a film with such a promising source of material. Luckily, it looks gorgeous and sounds amazing, so everything else is secondary. Is it pure fluff ? Of course, but that’s why we love it.
- *** out of 4
The Number 23
Wow, “The Number 23” is bad!
At first glance, one would have to think that the pairing of Jim Carrey and Joel Schumacher wouldn’t be capable of such inane rubbish, but clearly they’ve outdone themselves. They’ve managed to take a fairly intriguing concept and reduce it to nothing more than a jumbled mess of a movie, whose bleak and dreary tone prevents the audience from ever really taking it seriously. It is indeed a sorry excuse for a Hollywood thriller.
Had it not been for a sultry performance from Virginia Madsen, I probably would’ve walked out after the first ten minutes.
Carrey plays Walter Sparrow, a dogcatcher who becomes hopelessly obsessed with the number 23, while reading a book his wife gave him for his birthday. Everything he reads seems to parallel his own life and he begins making bizarre connections that somehow relate back to that god-forsaken number. His name, driver’s license, and social security number all add up to 23 and his entire existence appears to revolve around those two digits: “Caesar was stabbed 23 times”, “9+11+2001=23”, and "2/3 =.666" to name just a few.
As the film goes on, it’s clear that writer Fernley Phillips went overboard on the whole theory of the 23 enigma. Each correlation becomes more exaggerated than the last and the film ultimately gets swallowed up by its own harebrained material. When they brought up that Ted Bundy was executed on the 23rd, I was about ready to throw in the towel. As a student of Criminology, I will proudly say that he was actually executed on the 24th, which pretty much throws a wrench in whatever credibility the film may have had.
As for Carrey, he seemed lost in unfamiliar territory and was undoubtedly out of his comfort zone. I understand his need to take on more serious roles, but this is not the way to go about doing that.
His magnificent work in films like “The Truman Show” and “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” seems like a lifetime ago, which for him, is a clear indication that he needs to return to what made him a star in the first place. He’s a phenomenal comedic talent, but we just need him to show it.
Director Joel Schumacher’s ill-fated attempt at creating an effective occult thriller was doomed from the start and completely ruined by an ending that made everything else seem like a total waste of time. What looked like an engaging thriller is actually a dull and pointless story of a man with too much time on his hands that never really adds up.
- * out of 4
At first glance, one would have to think that the pairing of Jim Carrey and Joel Schumacher wouldn’t be capable of such inane rubbish, but clearly they’ve outdone themselves. They’ve managed to take a fairly intriguing concept and reduce it to nothing more than a jumbled mess of a movie, whose bleak and dreary tone prevents the audience from ever really taking it seriously. It is indeed a sorry excuse for a Hollywood thriller.
Had it not been for a sultry performance from Virginia Madsen, I probably would’ve walked out after the first ten minutes.
Carrey plays Walter Sparrow, a dogcatcher who becomes hopelessly obsessed with the number 23, while reading a book his wife gave him for his birthday. Everything he reads seems to parallel his own life and he begins making bizarre connections that somehow relate back to that god-forsaken number. His name, driver’s license, and social security number all add up to 23 and his entire existence appears to revolve around those two digits: “Caesar was stabbed 23 times”, “9+11+2001=23”, and "2/3 =.666" to name just a few.
As the film goes on, it’s clear that writer Fernley Phillips went overboard on the whole theory of the 23 enigma. Each correlation becomes more exaggerated than the last and the film ultimately gets swallowed up by its own harebrained material. When they brought up that Ted Bundy was executed on the 23rd, I was about ready to throw in the towel. As a student of Criminology, I will proudly say that he was actually executed on the 24th, which pretty much throws a wrench in whatever credibility the film may have had.
As for Carrey, he seemed lost in unfamiliar territory and was undoubtedly out of his comfort zone. I understand his need to take on more serious roles, but this is not the way to go about doing that.
His magnificent work in films like “The Truman Show” and “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” seems like a lifetime ago, which for him, is a clear indication that he needs to return to what made him a star in the first place. He’s a phenomenal comedic talent, but we just need him to show it.
Director Joel Schumacher’s ill-fated attempt at creating an effective occult thriller was doomed from the start and completely ruined by an ending that made everything else seem like a total waste of time. What looked like an engaging thriller is actually a dull and pointless story of a man with too much time on his hands that never really adds up.
- * out of 4
Zodiac
Fans of brutal cult classics like “Se7en” and “Fight Club” (myself included) may be disappointed to hear that David Fincher’s latest film “Zodiac” is a tad toned-down from what they’re used to. Instead of relying on blood and gore galore, he has created a masterful film in which discomfort and unrelenting psychological terror take center stage. In many ways, this restrained approach seems perfectly executed, because the viewer is immediately enveloped in an unnerving world where not even the children are protected from the madness.
Based on Robert Graysmith’s best-selling novel, “Zodiac” follows the decades-long hunt for the notorious serial killer who terrorized the San Francisco Bay area during the early 1970’s, but was unfortunately never identified. He has been linked to seven murders between December 1968 and October 1969, which is significantly lower than the 37 he has often taken credit for over the years. Every time police thought they were getting close, something new would come along and shake things up for everyone involved. Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) was working as a cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle when he first heard about the Zodiac Killer and his involvement in the case quickly grew from there.
What started out as a passive curiosity, quickly became a dangerous obsession that would eventually devour every ounce of his energy. He becomes so wrapped up in the investigation that his family is forced to leave him until he gets his life back in order.
Despite his nice-guy persona, Gyllenhaal’s take on Graysmith is actually quite moving as he embodies the fanatical personality of a man who spent his entire career searching for answers, but wasn’t given any. He does his best to capture the compulsive mentality and make the audience feel just as discouraged about the state of affairs as he is. His mania isn’t that different from what Jim Carrey’s character experiences in “The Number 23”, but the similarities between the two films stop right there.
While Carrey’s film used obsession as a contrived plot device, Graysmith manages to harness his enthusiasm and put it toward achieving a greater purpose. In addition to Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr. both turn in superb supporting performances and ultimately take the film to another level. Downey, as reporter Paul Avery, is refreshingly terrific in his patented spaced-out drug addict role and continues his string of quirky yet amazing character interpretations. Mark Ruffalo isn’t someone you usually see in this type of picture, but his work as Inspector Dave Toschi surpasses anything he has ever done and allows him to sharpen his intense dramatic chops.
Since Fincher grew up in California, he has a loving passion for the area and a distinctive attention to detail that undeniably makes this film what it is. By producing a spot-on re-creation of 1970’s San Francisco, he makes it so that the audience feels as if they’ve traveled back in time and is witnessing these events first-hand. If you find yourself frustrated with the film’s open-ended conclusion, just imagine how the real-life investigators feel. The fact that the case remains unsolved brings up the frightening possibility that the Zodiac might still be out there, watching, waiting to strike again.
- **** out of 4
Based on Robert Graysmith’s best-selling novel, “Zodiac” follows the decades-long hunt for the notorious serial killer who terrorized the San Francisco Bay area during the early 1970’s, but was unfortunately never identified. He has been linked to seven murders between December 1968 and October 1969, which is significantly lower than the 37 he has often taken credit for over the years. Every time police thought they were getting close, something new would come along and shake things up for everyone involved. Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) was working as a cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle when he first heard about the Zodiac Killer and his involvement in the case quickly grew from there.
What started out as a passive curiosity, quickly became a dangerous obsession that would eventually devour every ounce of his energy. He becomes so wrapped up in the investigation that his family is forced to leave him until he gets his life back in order.
Despite his nice-guy persona, Gyllenhaal’s take on Graysmith is actually quite moving as he embodies the fanatical personality of a man who spent his entire career searching for answers, but wasn’t given any. He does his best to capture the compulsive mentality and make the audience feel just as discouraged about the state of affairs as he is. His mania isn’t that different from what Jim Carrey’s character experiences in “The Number 23”, but the similarities between the two films stop right there.
While Carrey’s film used obsession as a contrived plot device, Graysmith manages to harness his enthusiasm and put it toward achieving a greater purpose. In addition to Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr. both turn in superb supporting performances and ultimately take the film to another level. Downey, as reporter Paul Avery, is refreshingly terrific in his patented spaced-out drug addict role and continues his string of quirky yet amazing character interpretations. Mark Ruffalo isn’t someone you usually see in this type of picture, but his work as Inspector Dave Toschi surpasses anything he has ever done and allows him to sharpen his intense dramatic chops.
Since Fincher grew up in California, he has a loving passion for the area and a distinctive attention to detail that undeniably makes this film what it is. By producing a spot-on re-creation of 1970’s San Francisco, he makes it so that the audience feels as if they’ve traveled back in time and is witnessing these events first-hand. If you find yourself frustrated with the film’s open-ended conclusion, just imagine how the real-life investigators feel. The fact that the case remains unsolved brings up the frightening possibility that the Zodiac might still be out there, watching, waiting to strike again.
- **** out of 4
Borat
Lewd, raucous, offensive, and utterly hysterical are just some of the colorful adjectives that can be used to describe Sacha Baron Cohen’s new film “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.” Every second of this film pulsates with enough uproarious humor and off-the-wall antics that I can definitely see how someone could be turned off by the entire idea of it.
As for me, I liked “Borat” very much and it’s without a doubt one of the funniest films I’ve ever seen. People have criticized it for being “dumb” and “childish“, but that’s exactly the point Cohen is trying to make. Borat's ignorance and outright racist attitude are a large part of what makes this type of humor so effective. Whether it’s a group of “rednecks” or “frat boys“, he is able to expose people for the bigots they are, while demonstrating how little Americans really know about other cultures.
During this 82-minute "mockumentary", Cohen explores many different realms of American culture and his final result delivers more laughs than most comedies in recent memory. Borat Sagdiyev is a Kazakh journalist who embarks on a trip across America to get a real taste of what life in the United States is all about. He provides the audience with some intriguing information about his home country such as “This is Orkin. The town rapist! Naughty, Naughty!” and “Although Kazakhstan a glorious country, it have a problem, too: economic, social, and Jew (Cohen is Jewish).”
When he finally arrives in America, he has a hard time adjusting to the overall differences in lifestyle between Kazakhstan and the US. For instance, people don’t take kindly to his awkward greeting and refuse to offer him help in any way. Some of the best scenes involve Borat’s etiquette at a formal dinner party and his encounter with three drunken college students, which is responsible for many of the outrageous moments this film has to offer.
While in his hotel room one night, he discovers Pamela Anderson on the television and immediately falls in love with her. He then persuades his sidekick Azamat to let him travel to California in hopes of marrying Pamela in a traditional Kazakhstan wedding. In what is probably the funniest and-most disgusting scene-in the film, Borat and Azamat (both naked) begin to wrestle around the hotel room and eventually make their way to one of the conference rooms in which a meeting is being held. If you think intentionally offensive comments and sequences of naked wrestling are funny, this is definitely the film for you.
Regardless of whether it was scripted or not, “Borat” is well worth the price of admission and should satisfy anyone who enjoys biting social satire. Cohen is a comedic genius whose dedication to making this film as real as possible should be intensely applauded. For anyone who still doesn’t understand what all the hype is about, you really have to see it to believe it. The true brilliance lies in the fact that people see Borat as a Jew-hating racist and actually believe that Kazakh people are really like that. There is a part during the dinner party in which a woman proceeds to teach Borat how to use the toilet and I felt that incident pretty much summed up everything Cohen is actually trying to expose.
High Five!
- **** out of 4
As for me, I liked “Borat” very much and it’s without a doubt one of the funniest films I’ve ever seen. People have criticized it for being “dumb” and “childish“, but that’s exactly the point Cohen is trying to make. Borat's ignorance and outright racist attitude are a large part of what makes this type of humor so effective. Whether it’s a group of “rednecks” or “frat boys“, he is able to expose people for the bigots they are, while demonstrating how little Americans really know about other cultures.
During this 82-minute "mockumentary", Cohen explores many different realms of American culture and his final result delivers more laughs than most comedies in recent memory. Borat Sagdiyev is a Kazakh journalist who embarks on a trip across America to get a real taste of what life in the United States is all about. He provides the audience with some intriguing information about his home country such as “This is Orkin. The town rapist! Naughty, Naughty!” and “Although Kazakhstan a glorious country, it have a problem, too: economic, social, and Jew (Cohen is Jewish).”
When he finally arrives in America, he has a hard time adjusting to the overall differences in lifestyle between Kazakhstan and the US. For instance, people don’t take kindly to his awkward greeting and refuse to offer him help in any way. Some of the best scenes involve Borat’s etiquette at a formal dinner party and his encounter with three drunken college students, which is responsible for many of the outrageous moments this film has to offer.
While in his hotel room one night, he discovers Pamela Anderson on the television and immediately falls in love with her. He then persuades his sidekick Azamat to let him travel to California in hopes of marrying Pamela in a traditional Kazakhstan wedding. In what is probably the funniest and-most disgusting scene-in the film, Borat and Azamat (both naked) begin to wrestle around the hotel room and eventually make their way to one of the conference rooms in which a meeting is being held. If you think intentionally offensive comments and sequences of naked wrestling are funny, this is definitely the film for you.
Regardless of whether it was scripted or not, “Borat” is well worth the price of admission and should satisfy anyone who enjoys biting social satire. Cohen is a comedic genius whose dedication to making this film as real as possible should be intensely applauded. For anyone who still doesn’t understand what all the hype is about, you really have to see it to believe it. The true brilliance lies in the fact that people see Borat as a Jew-hating racist and actually believe that Kazakh people are really like that. There is a part during the dinner party in which a woman proceeds to teach Borat how to use the toilet and I felt that incident pretty much summed up everything Cohen is actually trying to expose.
High Five!
- **** out of 4
Casino Royale
“Casino Royale” is director Martin Campbell’s latest journey into the world of James Bond and he has clearly upped the ante the second time around. Everything from the intense, black-and-white opening to the strong, gritty action scenes give you the indication that this is not your typical razzle-dazzle Bond extravaganza. What we have here is a tightly written story that attempts to bring a more realistic element to the series by completely reinventing the character of James Bond to give him a more down-to-earth personality.
Daniel Craig (Layer Cake, Munich) may not have been everyone’s first choice to take over as Bond, but he is definitely the right man for the job. He looks as if he could pass for a villain rather than Bond himself, but his brute-like demeanor has allowed him to bring a renewed sense of rugged masculinity that many critics feel had been lost for quite some time. He’s a guy who doesn’t care whether his martinis are shaken or stirred and has an ego big enough to match his affinity for beautiful women.
Yes, this is a new kind of James Bond. One that displays a certain vulnerability that hadn’t been seen in the other films, but still delivers a wide array of exhilarating moments to satisfy any fan of the series. Since this is essentially a prequel, Bond has just been promoted to 007 and not yet earned the full confidence of his superiors. His methods are seen as unorthodox and he doesn’t really care how much noise he makes as long as the job gets done.
His latest mission revolves around Montenegro’s Le Casino Royale, where he must prevent an investment banker from winning a high-stakes poker game and using the prize money to fund international terrorism.
With the help of treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), he is able to get a spot at the table and engage in a thrilling showdown with Le Chiffre, the paymaster of a Soviet controlled trade union, to determine who walks away with the $150 million pot. Desperate to win, Le Chiffre arranges for his girlfriend to poison Bond’s drink and nearly kills him in the process. Although the movie is almost entirely gadget-free, his Aston Martin DBS has a built-in defibrillator, which proves to be a life saver in situations like these. When he’s finally revived, he goes back to the table determined to win and is not going to let anyone get in his way.
Eva Green plays a stunningly beautiful Bond girl and her character depth is significantly greater than those in past years. Judi Dench also gives a great, sarcastic performance as M and her scenes with Craig are nothing short of splendid. Seeing her in a small role like this, reminds me of how great an actress she really is. Following the game, the storyline develops even further into an entertaining suspense tale full of explosions and over-the-top action sequences, which are a trademark of the Bond franchise.
“Casino Royale” is the Bond film I’ve been waiting for and probably the best since the days of Sean Connery. Craig’s portrayal of Bond is everything Ian Fleming intended for him to be and he does his best to make the character his own. By avoiding all of the fluff from previous Bond films, Campbell is able to create a revamped version of the beloved character, while totally redefining the franchise in the process.
- *** ½ out of 4
Daniel Craig (Layer Cake, Munich) may not have been everyone’s first choice to take over as Bond, but he is definitely the right man for the job. He looks as if he could pass for a villain rather than Bond himself, but his brute-like demeanor has allowed him to bring a renewed sense of rugged masculinity that many critics feel had been lost for quite some time. He’s a guy who doesn’t care whether his martinis are shaken or stirred and has an ego big enough to match his affinity for beautiful women.
Yes, this is a new kind of James Bond. One that displays a certain vulnerability that hadn’t been seen in the other films, but still delivers a wide array of exhilarating moments to satisfy any fan of the series. Since this is essentially a prequel, Bond has just been promoted to 007 and not yet earned the full confidence of his superiors. His methods are seen as unorthodox and he doesn’t really care how much noise he makes as long as the job gets done.
His latest mission revolves around Montenegro’s Le Casino Royale, where he must prevent an investment banker from winning a high-stakes poker game and using the prize money to fund international terrorism.
With the help of treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), he is able to get a spot at the table and engage in a thrilling showdown with Le Chiffre, the paymaster of a Soviet controlled trade union, to determine who walks away with the $150 million pot. Desperate to win, Le Chiffre arranges for his girlfriend to poison Bond’s drink and nearly kills him in the process. Although the movie is almost entirely gadget-free, his Aston Martin DBS has a built-in defibrillator, which proves to be a life saver in situations like these. When he’s finally revived, he goes back to the table determined to win and is not going to let anyone get in his way.
Eva Green plays a stunningly beautiful Bond girl and her character depth is significantly greater than those in past years. Judi Dench also gives a great, sarcastic performance as M and her scenes with Craig are nothing short of splendid. Seeing her in a small role like this, reminds me of how great an actress she really is. Following the game, the storyline develops even further into an entertaining suspense tale full of explosions and over-the-top action sequences, which are a trademark of the Bond franchise.
“Casino Royale” is the Bond film I’ve been waiting for and probably the best since the days of Sean Connery. Craig’s portrayal of Bond is everything Ian Fleming intended for him to be and he does his best to make the character his own. By avoiding all of the fluff from previous Bond films, Campbell is able to create a revamped version of the beloved character, while totally redefining the franchise in the process.
- *** ½ out of 4
World Trade Center
As the creator of some of the most stunning and politically charged films of our time, Oliver Stone has never been one to shy away from the hotbed issues of society. He is constantly surrounded by controversy and has even earned the nickname “Mr. Conspiracy” for his so-called hidden agendas when it comes to filmmaking. So when I first heard that a film capturing the tragedy of 9/11 was going to be made, I was not surprised to see his name attached.
Regardless of his public perception, Stone has proven himself to be an extremely gifted director and what he achieves with “World Trade Center” is virtually unlike anything he has ever done before.
It follows the compelling story of John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno, two Port Authority Police Officers who became trapped under the rubble for twelve hours following the collapse of the North tower’s elevator shaft and fought desperately to stay alive. Each officer woke up on the morning of September 11th, 2001 like it was just another day on the job, but ultimately became involved in one of the most catastrophic events the United States has ever faced.
Since the majority of the film takes place beneath the rubble, it relies heavily on the performances of its cast to keep it going. Nicolas Cage and Michael Peña deliver their roles with such effortless sincerity that they should be applauded for trying to make the film as authentic as possible. Cage is one of those actors that no matter what character he is playing, he always makes it believable. His take on McLoughlin proves to be no different.
His scenes with Peña are full of so much heartfelt emotion that it is hard to imagine what their real life counterparts actually went through. Michael Peña displays superb acting talent as Jimeno and shows why he is a vastly talented up and coming actor who will undoubtedly have a solid career in the future. It is the bond formed between these two courageous men that enabled them to find the strength to carry on under such severe conditions and Stone makes that a focal point throughout the film.
This film works, because it is not really about the attack itself, but rather how the city of New York came together and responded in a time of great need. It is this reason alone that makes it a very worthwhile film about the true nature of the human spirit and how no matter what life throws at us, Americans will never back down in the face of evil.
As if the performances by Cage and Peña weren’t impressive enough, the work of Stone’s production team in creating an incredible duplication of Ground Zero on a Los Angeles soundstage is also worthy of recognition. They have done an astonishing job reconstructing the sights and sounds from that horrific day and the film is that much more realistic because of it.
Strong Oscar consideration should be given to both Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhaal for their moving portrayals of the wives who are left to deal with the possibility that their husbands may not be coming home.
Although it’s not as haunting as Paul Greengrass’s “United 93”, "WTC" does have many inspiring elements that in the end make it a faithfully engaging and patriotic film that doesn’t disappoint.The combination of Stone’s brilliant production team and a tightly written script from Andrea Berloff make “World Trade Center” a very meaningful film for those who decide to see it. I believe that the story already had the makings of a pretty good movie, but just needed the right director to make everything come together and in that respect, Oliver Stone has certainly succeeded.
- *** ½ out of 4
Regardless of his public perception, Stone has proven himself to be an extremely gifted director and what he achieves with “World Trade Center” is virtually unlike anything he has ever done before.
It follows the compelling story of John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno, two Port Authority Police Officers who became trapped under the rubble for twelve hours following the collapse of the North tower’s elevator shaft and fought desperately to stay alive. Each officer woke up on the morning of September 11th, 2001 like it was just another day on the job, but ultimately became involved in one of the most catastrophic events the United States has ever faced.
Since the majority of the film takes place beneath the rubble, it relies heavily on the performances of its cast to keep it going. Nicolas Cage and Michael Peña deliver their roles with such effortless sincerity that they should be applauded for trying to make the film as authentic as possible. Cage is one of those actors that no matter what character he is playing, he always makes it believable. His take on McLoughlin proves to be no different.
His scenes with Peña are full of so much heartfelt emotion that it is hard to imagine what their real life counterparts actually went through. Michael Peña displays superb acting talent as Jimeno and shows why he is a vastly talented up and coming actor who will undoubtedly have a solid career in the future. It is the bond formed between these two courageous men that enabled them to find the strength to carry on under such severe conditions and Stone makes that a focal point throughout the film.
This film works, because it is not really about the attack itself, but rather how the city of New York came together and responded in a time of great need. It is this reason alone that makes it a very worthwhile film about the true nature of the human spirit and how no matter what life throws at us, Americans will never back down in the face of evil.
As if the performances by Cage and Peña weren’t impressive enough, the work of Stone’s production team in creating an incredible duplication of Ground Zero on a Los Angeles soundstage is also worthy of recognition. They have done an astonishing job reconstructing the sights and sounds from that horrific day and the film is that much more realistic because of it.
Strong Oscar consideration should be given to both Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhaal for their moving portrayals of the wives who are left to deal with the possibility that their husbands may not be coming home.
Although it’s not as haunting as Paul Greengrass’s “United 93”, "WTC" does have many inspiring elements that in the end make it a faithfully engaging and patriotic film that doesn’t disappoint.The combination of Stone’s brilliant production team and a tightly written script from Andrea Berloff make “World Trade Center” a very meaningful film for those who decide to see it. I believe that the story already had the makings of a pretty good movie, but just needed the right director to make everything come together and in that respect, Oliver Stone has certainly succeeded.
- *** ½ out of 4
United 93
September 11th, 2001 will be eternally remembered as a day that forever changed the world we live in. It hit us when we least expected and demonstrated just what can happen when Terrorists strike such a vulnerable position. All of the sights and sounds from that fateful day are once again brought to the forefront in Paul Greengrass‘s new film "United 93", which has drawn much controversy from numerous media sources throughout the country.
Many people say it's too soon, but I think it was a film that needed to be made and Director Paul Greengrass should be commended for taking on such a complex project. After all, there was plenty of criticism when Spielberg decided to make "Schindler's List" and it turned out to be one of the best films ever made.
Taking on a subject like the Holocaust will always be too early for some of us, but it was done in a way that people respected and appreciated.People need to see this film not only for the entertainment aspect, but also for the riveting portrayal of those brave passengers who took control in a frightening situation and became heroes.
I found myself tremendously moved by every scene and the final fifteen minutes are as compelling as anything I've ever witnessed on screen. For anyone who needs evidence that Greengrass wasn’t doing this for the money, look no further than the list of cast members. No Tom Cruise, no Brad Pitt, and even no Mel Gibson. Just an impressive group of lesser-known actors that devoted themselves to making this movie as real and sincere as possible. For the most part, they have achieved their goal on many levels.
What I think works best about this film is the fact that it is not told from any particular point-of-view. It is not out to point fingers or dabble in political conspiracies. It’s sole purpose is to tell the story of the people on board and how they made a conscious decision to stand against Islamic terrorists.While some viewers may find it quite disturbing, the final segment of the film is sure to stir plenty of emotions and ultimately leave you with a breathtaking conclusion.
For anyone who wants to see what true heroism really is, “United 93” is without a doubt, just what you are looking for.
- **** out of 4
Many people say it's too soon, but I think it was a film that needed to be made and Director Paul Greengrass should be commended for taking on such a complex project. After all, there was plenty of criticism when Spielberg decided to make "Schindler's List" and it turned out to be one of the best films ever made.
Taking on a subject like the Holocaust will always be too early for some of us, but it was done in a way that people respected and appreciated.People need to see this film not only for the entertainment aspect, but also for the riveting portrayal of those brave passengers who took control in a frightening situation and became heroes.
I found myself tremendously moved by every scene and the final fifteen minutes are as compelling as anything I've ever witnessed on screen. For anyone who needs evidence that Greengrass wasn’t doing this for the money, look no further than the list of cast members. No Tom Cruise, no Brad Pitt, and even no Mel Gibson. Just an impressive group of lesser-known actors that devoted themselves to making this movie as real and sincere as possible. For the most part, they have achieved their goal on many levels.
What I think works best about this film is the fact that it is not told from any particular point-of-view. It is not out to point fingers or dabble in political conspiracies. It’s sole purpose is to tell the story of the people on board and how they made a conscious decision to stand against Islamic terrorists.While some viewers may find it quite disturbing, the final segment of the film is sure to stir plenty of emotions and ultimately leave you with a breathtaking conclusion.
For anyone who wants to see what true heroism really is, “United 93” is without a doubt, just what you are looking for.
- **** out of 4
Grindhouse
“Grindhouse”: The name says it all. I’m referring, of course, to the 191-minute exploitation tour-de-force from Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino that serves as a stunning reminder of why going to the movies is just so darn fun. It’s a blissfully energetic throwback to the tasteless schlock of the 1970’s where the audience was guaranteed a little over-the-top bang for their buck. You know, the kind of film that’s so infatuated with filth and graphic bloodshed that it makes you want to rush home and take a shower afterwards.
No, this film isn’t for everyone, but those who decide to give it a chance will be treated to a powerhouse double feature in which one film is just slightly more satisfying than the other. First up is “Planet Terror”, a straight-up zombie gorefest starring Freddy Rodriguez and Rose McGowan that pretty much sets the tone for the entire experience. McGowan plays Cherry Darling, a sensuous former go-go dancer who ends up in an explosive mêlée to save the world from the “infected” zombie-like creatures trying to destroy it.
With the help of her ex-boyfriend El Wray, she leads a group of pseudo-assassins through a series of fast-paced, shoot’em up action sequences that are as thrilling as anything Rodriguez has ever done. Think of it as “28 Days Later” meets “Desperado” in that for every jolt, there’s an adrenaline-laced explosion sure to follow.
Robert Rodriguez is one of the most technically savvy action directors currently working and his camera work here is nothing short of dazzling. Every frame is full of enough raw energy and excitement that you’re never left looking at your watch. He knows what his audience wants and delivers it in an exhilarating manner that only he can. Beneath all of the sex and decapitations, a tacky plot involving the government and Osama Bin Laden (seriously) actually exists, but does it really matter at this point? Rodriguez has more than held up his end of the bargain by creating a joyfully entertaining picture that thrives off its own absurdity. And for that, we applaud him.
But wait, there’s more! The second and slightly superior half of this three-hour hack fest is Quentin Tarantino’s riveting revenge film “Death Proof.” Here, Tarantino treats us to some of the best slam-bang car chases ever filmed as Kurt Russell gleefully stalks women in hopes of introducing them to his own sick brand of road rage. Russell’s performance is the driving force behind this one as he creates such a charismatic villain that we almost feel bad for him at the end. He drives around in his “100% Death Proof” 1969 Dodge Charger looking for potential victims, but comes across a group of women who turn out to be better at the game than he is.
After the breakneck speed of “Planet Terror”, the audience might feel a bit discouraged by the somewhat slow start of “Death Proof”, but I assure you, it’s well worth the wait. Tarantino is a proven master of dialogue and his characters often go on tirades about totally random concepts, but the digression is only a catalyst for what lies ahead. When the climax finally hits, we feel stimulated by the conclusion, but also disappointed it’s over.
As a whole, “Grindhouse” is a perfect tribute to the cult films of the 70’s and packs more pop culture punch than most films in recent memory. I understand that not everyone enjoys these types of films, but this is grindhouse cinema at its absolute finest. Remember: What makes it cheesy, makes it great.
“Planet Terror” - *** ½ out of 4
"Death Proof” - **** out of 4
No, this film isn’t for everyone, but those who decide to give it a chance will be treated to a powerhouse double feature in which one film is just slightly more satisfying than the other. First up is “Planet Terror”, a straight-up zombie gorefest starring Freddy Rodriguez and Rose McGowan that pretty much sets the tone for the entire experience. McGowan plays Cherry Darling, a sensuous former go-go dancer who ends up in an explosive mêlée to save the world from the “infected” zombie-like creatures trying to destroy it.
With the help of her ex-boyfriend El Wray, she leads a group of pseudo-assassins through a series of fast-paced, shoot’em up action sequences that are as thrilling as anything Rodriguez has ever done. Think of it as “28 Days Later” meets “Desperado” in that for every jolt, there’s an adrenaline-laced explosion sure to follow.
Robert Rodriguez is one of the most technically savvy action directors currently working and his camera work here is nothing short of dazzling. Every frame is full of enough raw energy and excitement that you’re never left looking at your watch. He knows what his audience wants and delivers it in an exhilarating manner that only he can. Beneath all of the sex and decapitations, a tacky plot involving the government and Osama Bin Laden (seriously) actually exists, but does it really matter at this point? Rodriguez has more than held up his end of the bargain by creating a joyfully entertaining picture that thrives off its own absurdity. And for that, we applaud him.
But wait, there’s more! The second and slightly superior half of this three-hour hack fest is Quentin Tarantino’s riveting revenge film “Death Proof.” Here, Tarantino treats us to some of the best slam-bang car chases ever filmed as Kurt Russell gleefully stalks women in hopes of introducing them to his own sick brand of road rage. Russell’s performance is the driving force behind this one as he creates such a charismatic villain that we almost feel bad for him at the end. He drives around in his “100% Death Proof” 1969 Dodge Charger looking for potential victims, but comes across a group of women who turn out to be better at the game than he is.
After the breakneck speed of “Planet Terror”, the audience might feel a bit discouraged by the somewhat slow start of “Death Proof”, but I assure you, it’s well worth the wait. Tarantino is a proven master of dialogue and his characters often go on tirades about totally random concepts, but the digression is only a catalyst for what lies ahead. When the climax finally hits, we feel stimulated by the conclusion, but also disappointed it’s over.
As a whole, “Grindhouse” is a perfect tribute to the cult films of the 70’s and packs more pop culture punch than most films in recent memory. I understand that not everyone enjoys these types of films, but this is grindhouse cinema at its absolute finest. Remember: What makes it cheesy, makes it great.
“Planet Terror” - *** ½ out of 4
"Death Proof” - **** out of 4
Spider-Man 3
Pardon the cliché, but it seems to me that director Sam Raimi has stuffed everything but the kitchen sink into “Spider-Man 3.” There’s really no other way to say it. He’s managed to cram in three villains, a funeral, and one too many suffocatingly romantic storylines into a 2+ hour film that just isn’t strong enough to support that kind of weight. Don’t get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy the passionate nuances of Peter Parker’s love life, but only when they’re naturally occurring rather than contrived. What I liked best about the first two films, was their ability to creatively blend action and romance without having anything seem forced or insincere.
Here, Raimi abandons that formula in an impulsive attempt to tie up loose ends and give fanboys a conclusion worthy of their approval. Despite a few miscues and sappy moments, his result’s actually not too shabby. When we last saw Parker (Tobey Maguire) in ‘04, his relationship with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) was just starting to take off and everything was fine and dandy in superhero land.
Three years later, things aren’t so smooth as Peter is forced to choose between the woman he loves and the world he so desperately wants to save. His spider sense can detect a certain distance between them and her need for emotional reassurance isn’t always something he can be there to satisfy. Just when he thought things couldn’t get more difficult, he discovers that the man who killed his uncle has escaped from prison and developed the ability to transform his body into sand.
Flint Marko, played by Thomas Haden Church of Sideways fame, lacks the charisma of past baddies and doesn’t really have anything remarkable to bring to the series. His backstory is bland and nothing in his personality makes him stand out as a memorable antagonist.
Venom and The Green Goblin also make an appearance, but neither makes enough noise to be considered a major threat. Despite three bad guys, the real enemy here is a mysterious black goo that falls from the sky and brings out the worst in Peter’s behavior. He goes from nerdy and unassuming to gaudy and gregarious overnight, which makes for some much needed comic relief when the film appears to be losing its swagger.
Sporting his newfound Emo haircut, he engages in a Travolta-esque strut through the streets of Manhattan that made me wonder if he was going to put the world on hold for a while and stop off at 2001 to bust a move. Yes, this is a different Peter Parker. A much nastier and more sarcastic one to say the least. His encounter with MJ at a jazz club is priceless, as he makes a complete fool of himself in front of everyone including his new love interest, Gwen Stacy (a striking Bryce Dallas Howard).
After almost losing everything, he finally wakes up and realizes that the suit will no longer control his every move. He’s determined to get MJ back and will do whatever it takes to make that happen. For his final showdown with Marko and Venom, he’s aided by an unexpected source whom he thought would never come to forgive him.
Together, they deliver an invigorating special effects extravaganza that elevates the film to another plateau of excitement. Is this a great film? No, but it’s a pretty good one that probably won’t get the critical recognition it deserves. Even with the congested plot and romantic mishmash, Raimi still gives the fans a genuine reason to flock to the theatre and witness a classic tale of internal struggle. After all, who doesn’t love a good superhero?
- *** out of 4
Side note: When did Bryce Dallas Howard become such a beauty?
Here, Raimi abandons that formula in an impulsive attempt to tie up loose ends and give fanboys a conclusion worthy of their approval. Despite a few miscues and sappy moments, his result’s actually not too shabby. When we last saw Parker (Tobey Maguire) in ‘04, his relationship with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) was just starting to take off and everything was fine and dandy in superhero land.
Three years later, things aren’t so smooth as Peter is forced to choose between the woman he loves and the world he so desperately wants to save. His spider sense can detect a certain distance between them and her need for emotional reassurance isn’t always something he can be there to satisfy. Just when he thought things couldn’t get more difficult, he discovers that the man who killed his uncle has escaped from prison and developed the ability to transform his body into sand.
Flint Marko, played by Thomas Haden Church of Sideways fame, lacks the charisma of past baddies and doesn’t really have anything remarkable to bring to the series. His backstory is bland and nothing in his personality makes him stand out as a memorable antagonist.
Venom and The Green Goblin also make an appearance, but neither makes enough noise to be considered a major threat. Despite three bad guys, the real enemy here is a mysterious black goo that falls from the sky and brings out the worst in Peter’s behavior. He goes from nerdy and unassuming to gaudy and gregarious overnight, which makes for some much needed comic relief when the film appears to be losing its swagger.
Sporting his newfound Emo haircut, he engages in a Travolta-esque strut through the streets of Manhattan that made me wonder if he was going to put the world on hold for a while and stop off at 2001 to bust a move. Yes, this is a different Peter Parker. A much nastier and more sarcastic one to say the least. His encounter with MJ at a jazz club is priceless, as he makes a complete fool of himself in front of everyone including his new love interest, Gwen Stacy (a striking Bryce Dallas Howard).
After almost losing everything, he finally wakes up and realizes that the suit will no longer control his every move. He’s determined to get MJ back and will do whatever it takes to make that happen. For his final showdown with Marko and Venom, he’s aided by an unexpected source whom he thought would never come to forgive him.
Together, they deliver an invigorating special effects extravaganza that elevates the film to another plateau of excitement. Is this a great film? No, but it’s a pretty good one that probably won’t get the critical recognition it deserves. Even with the congested plot and romantic mishmash, Raimi still gives the fans a genuine reason to flock to the theatre and witness a classic tale of internal struggle. After all, who doesn’t love a good superhero?
- *** out of 4
Side note: When did Bryce Dallas Howard become such a beauty?
Knocked Up
Rob Schneider once said that his main reason for making “Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo” was to resurrect the struggling genre of R-rated comedy. Well, I don’t think that an agonizingly idiotic sex romp with no apparent significance or purpose is the best way to save an entire group of films. It seems that Mr. Schneider could’ve used some advice from Writer/Director Judd Apatow, who is rapidly becoming one of the sharpest comedic minds in Hollywood.
His latest film, “Knocked Up,” is the absolute epitome of what an adult comedy should be. It’s a blisteringly funny yet surprisingly poignant look at pregnancy through the eyes of two twenty-somethings whose entire world is turned upside down following a drunken encounter. In the hands of a lesser director, this film may have been just another throwaway, but the combination of Apatow’s always clever dialogue and exceptional cast quickly make it one of the truly great comedies of all time.
Here’s the breakdown: Ben Stone (Seth Rogen) is an overweight stoner, who enjoys hanging out with his vulgar circle of friends and living life according to his own perverted vision. Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl) is a reporter for E! and just starting to begin her high-profile career in the entertainment industry. Together, they make an interesting pair to say the least, but when Alison informs Ben that she’s pregnant, things get a little dicey. Ben says he’s “on board,” but has no real concept of what becoming a father really entails. He’s willing to make the best of the situation and Alison is willing to give him a chance to prove himself worthy of the task. For the first few months, their relationship appears to be heading in the right direction, but Ben’s juvenile behavior is wearing thin and Alison wonders if he’ll ever change his ways.
Here is where the film really flourishes, because we are given an in-depth look at contemporary dating and able to use Alison’s sister and brother-in-law as a mirror into the complicated psyche of married people. The comedic stylings of Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd are carried out in scene-stealing fashion as they engage in bitter verbal battles, while offering some often raunchy yet continually hilarious observations on the institution of marriage. When Alison looks at how her sister’s life turned out, she questions whether or not her life with Ben would be any different.
After all of the crying and arguing is over, Apatow greets us with what is probably the most graphic childbirth scene ever filmed. It’s everything you expect and then some. When the baby comes, we finally see what the film was getting at the whole time. It’s a rarity that a film with such a dirty mind can have such a heartwarming message at its center, but I think that’s what makes it so good. The fact that we care about the characters and are willing to watch them work things out is exactly where Apatow succeeds.
When the film is over, one question still remains: How on Earth did a beautiful, blond woman fall for a self-deprecating schlub like Ben? I guess that’s where disbelief has to be suspended. The bottom line is that these people are funny. Very funny. They’re so keenly aware of their pop culture surroundings that almost every one-liner is a reference to a movie or song. Whether it’s Doc Brown or Steely Dan, no one is safe from their wide array of sharp-edged insults. So as far as consistent humor is concerned, “Knocked Up” is one movie that literally delivers.
- **** out of 4
His latest film, “Knocked Up,” is the absolute epitome of what an adult comedy should be. It’s a blisteringly funny yet surprisingly poignant look at pregnancy through the eyes of two twenty-somethings whose entire world is turned upside down following a drunken encounter. In the hands of a lesser director, this film may have been just another throwaway, but the combination of Apatow’s always clever dialogue and exceptional cast quickly make it one of the truly great comedies of all time.
Here’s the breakdown: Ben Stone (Seth Rogen) is an overweight stoner, who enjoys hanging out with his vulgar circle of friends and living life according to his own perverted vision. Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl) is a reporter for E! and just starting to begin her high-profile career in the entertainment industry. Together, they make an interesting pair to say the least, but when Alison informs Ben that she’s pregnant, things get a little dicey. Ben says he’s “on board,” but has no real concept of what becoming a father really entails. He’s willing to make the best of the situation and Alison is willing to give him a chance to prove himself worthy of the task. For the first few months, their relationship appears to be heading in the right direction, but Ben’s juvenile behavior is wearing thin and Alison wonders if he’ll ever change his ways.
Here is where the film really flourishes, because we are given an in-depth look at contemporary dating and able to use Alison’s sister and brother-in-law as a mirror into the complicated psyche of married people. The comedic stylings of Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd are carried out in scene-stealing fashion as they engage in bitter verbal battles, while offering some often raunchy yet continually hilarious observations on the institution of marriage. When Alison looks at how her sister’s life turned out, she questions whether or not her life with Ben would be any different.
After all of the crying and arguing is over, Apatow greets us with what is probably the most graphic childbirth scene ever filmed. It’s everything you expect and then some. When the baby comes, we finally see what the film was getting at the whole time. It’s a rarity that a film with such a dirty mind can have such a heartwarming message at its center, but I think that’s what makes it so good. The fact that we care about the characters and are willing to watch them work things out is exactly where Apatow succeeds.
When the film is over, one question still remains: How on Earth did a beautiful, blond woman fall for a self-deprecating schlub like Ben? I guess that’s where disbelief has to be suspended. The bottom line is that these people are funny. Very funny. They’re so keenly aware of their pop culture surroundings that almost every one-liner is a reference to a movie or song. Whether it’s Doc Brown or Steely Dan, no one is safe from their wide array of sharp-edged insults. So as far as consistent humor is concerned, “Knocked Up” is one movie that literally delivers.
- **** out of 4
Mr. Brooks
“Mr. Brooks” is a tough film to get into. It has all the elements of a great thriller, but for some reason, something still didn’t feel right. Kevin Costner’s coldly detached performance as Earl Brooks, aka “the Thumbprint Killer,” is intriguing, frightening, and confusing all rolled into one.
He kills, because he likes it, yet we’re never really offered any further explanation for his obsession. His life is dark, secret, and often so humdrum that he needs to experience that murderous rush just to keep things on an even keel. He recites the Serenity Prayer and languidly attends A.A. meetings in hopes of curing his addiction, but somehow nothing seems to do the trick.
That’s how director Bruce A. Evans’s film begins. Quite promising, no? At least that’s how I felt, until I realized just how many directions this film was going in. On the one hand, we have a sinister story about a callous sociopath, who goes to great lengths to keep his identity hidden from the people he loves. On the other, we have a morality tale centered around a spiritually inhibited family man with a fear that his daughter has inherited his uncontrollable thirst for carnage. That’s a lot for any movie to juggle. Especially one that refuses to embrace either side and leaves the audience wondering what exactly the director is trying to say about the human condition.
Every move Mr. Brooks makes is questionable, but he’s so clever and meticulous that he never even comes close to being apprehended. Tracy Atwood (Demi Moore) is the detective assigned to the case, but even she’s too wrapped up in her own decaying marriage to give a genuine effort.
At times, Moore’s performance is pure and convincing; however, her annoying attitude quickly overstays its welcome. While interviewing witnesses, she comes across a mysterious photographer played by Dane Cook, who can’t seem to shake his fiery comic persona. He says he has no knowledge of the killings, despite having developed an odd alliance with Mr. Brooks himself.
Their acquaintance doesn’t add anything interesting to the plot other than another excuse for Earl to kill, so it could’ve easily been done away with. The film’s saving grace comes from the masterful William Hurt, who steals the show as Marshall, the Two-Face to Costner’s Harvey Dent. His twisted sense of humor carries the film most of the way and allows the audience to get inside the unhinged mind of a killer. His only problem is that he’s not on screen enough. It’s a shame the writers didn’t find a better way to handle his character, because they may have really had something.
When the film enters its final act, a great sequence involving Earl’s daughter comes barreling in out of nowhere only to be devalued by reality. Had the film ended with that scene, I may have had a different opinion. Unfortunately, the director had other plans.
- ** ½ out of 4
He kills, because he likes it, yet we’re never really offered any further explanation for his obsession. His life is dark, secret, and often so humdrum that he needs to experience that murderous rush just to keep things on an even keel. He recites the Serenity Prayer and languidly attends A.A. meetings in hopes of curing his addiction, but somehow nothing seems to do the trick.
That’s how director Bruce A. Evans’s film begins. Quite promising, no? At least that’s how I felt, until I realized just how many directions this film was going in. On the one hand, we have a sinister story about a callous sociopath, who goes to great lengths to keep his identity hidden from the people he loves. On the other, we have a morality tale centered around a spiritually inhibited family man with a fear that his daughter has inherited his uncontrollable thirst for carnage. That’s a lot for any movie to juggle. Especially one that refuses to embrace either side and leaves the audience wondering what exactly the director is trying to say about the human condition.
Every move Mr. Brooks makes is questionable, but he’s so clever and meticulous that he never even comes close to being apprehended. Tracy Atwood (Demi Moore) is the detective assigned to the case, but even she’s too wrapped up in her own decaying marriage to give a genuine effort.
At times, Moore’s performance is pure and convincing; however, her annoying attitude quickly overstays its welcome. While interviewing witnesses, she comes across a mysterious photographer played by Dane Cook, who can’t seem to shake his fiery comic persona. He says he has no knowledge of the killings, despite having developed an odd alliance with Mr. Brooks himself.
Their acquaintance doesn’t add anything interesting to the plot other than another excuse for Earl to kill, so it could’ve easily been done away with. The film’s saving grace comes from the masterful William Hurt, who steals the show as Marshall, the Two-Face to Costner’s Harvey Dent. His twisted sense of humor carries the film most of the way and allows the audience to get inside the unhinged mind of a killer. His only problem is that he’s not on screen enough. It’s a shame the writers didn’t find a better way to handle his character, because they may have really had something.
When the film enters its final act, a great sequence involving Earl’s daughter comes barreling in out of nowhere only to be devalued by reality. Had the film ended with that scene, I may have had a different opinion. Unfortunately, the director had other plans.
- ** ½ out of 4
Shrek the Third and Hostel: Part II
Also, "Shrek the Third" was on the menu that weekend. Unfortunately, this one didn't quite taste as sweet. Myers, Murphy, Diaz, and Banderas all return for invaluable voice work, but one word comes to mind while watching this underwhelming sequel: Bland, with a capital B. Where's the fire, the spark, the pop culture pizazz? Lost in translation, I presume.
Instead, we are greeted with minor laughs and jokes not even worthy of a bad SNL skit. Everything seems a bit toned-down and not quite as sharp as the first two. Why the creators chose to settle for this type of product is baffling to me, but I suppose when the price is right, anything can happen.
- ** out of 4
Eli Roth has done it again. "Hostel: Part II" is another over-the-top exploitation flick that really goes for the throat in terms of gore and unpleasantry. His insight into the twisted psyches of wealthy businessmen is a great addition to the mix and brings an even darker and more frighteningly real aspect to an already disturbing concept. High on blood, but not as much as you might think. Shower scene will definitely have people squeamish and Roth's ability to create tension is always a strongpoint.
- *** out of 4
Instead, we are greeted with minor laughs and jokes not even worthy of a bad SNL skit. Everything seems a bit toned-down and not quite as sharp as the first two. Why the creators chose to settle for this type of product is baffling to me, but I suppose when the price is right, anything can happen.
- ** out of 4
Eli Roth has done it again. "Hostel: Part II" is another over-the-top exploitation flick that really goes for the throat in terms of gore and unpleasantry. His insight into the twisted psyches of wealthy businessmen is a great addition to the mix and brings an even darker and more frighteningly real aspect to an already disturbing concept. High on blood, but not as much as you might think. Shower scene will definitely have people squeamish and Roth's ability to create tension is always a strongpoint.
- *** out of 4
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Top 10 of 2007
For me, 2007 was truly an impressive year at the cinema. Gems of every genre seemed to come out of the woodwork and find their niche among the commercial debris that tends to overshadow anything of palpable substance and worth. Whether it was John Carney’s endearing dissection of the creative process in “Once” or Ellen Page’s saucy, star-making turn in “Juno,” this past year seemed to offer something for everyone to pensively indulge in.
The astonishing quality of pictures released from February on is, in my mind, one of the strongest outputs of the decade and should be a promising indication of where Hollywood is headed in the future.Of course, we had the annual onslaught of tedious Summer blockbusters and paltry sequels, but the foreign and independent circuits continued to flourish in ways that many experts never thought possible.
Sarah Polley’s “Away From Her,” Oliver Dahan’s “La Vie en Rose,” and Julian Schnabel’s “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” are just a few of the films that wowed both critics and audiences with their fearless performances and meticulously precise direction, but I assure you, the pot was essentially overflowing with quietly composed excellence. Although they can be difficult to find, these lesser-known works are usually the ones that stick with you long after the year has come to a close.
On that note, I have meditated considerably over the last few weeks to assemble what I believe is an eclectic and well-rounded list of the best films from the last twelve months. As critic David Edelstein says, “So many movies, so little time,” so without further adieu, I present my top ten films of 2007:
1. “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” - Sidney Lumet’s searing tragedy of two bumbling brothers who hatch a half-baked plot to rob their parents’ jewelry store left me stunned with its affinity for wickedness and gut-wrenching emotion. Every scene oozed with Lumet’s fiery brand of excruciating tension and the entire cast was given a chance to act up a storm during some unsettling scenes of dysfunctional family interaction. Even though this was one of the last films I experienced this year, I immediately felt that I hadn’t seen anything that could top its callously unsentimental vibe.
2. “I’m Not There” - If I wasn’t a big Dylan fan before, Todd Haynes’s dazzlingly audacious glimpse into the various facades of one of modern music’s most enigmatic figures certainly did its job to persuade me. The music, the trends, and the politics are brought to life in such a way that standard biopics ought to be ashamed of their run-of-the-mill storylines and unwillingness to take chances. By using six unique actors, Haynes is able to tell Dylan’s story without ever directly including him in the proceedings, which to me, is an extraordinary artistic achievement.
3. “Into the Wild” - Probably the most beautifully constructed film on the list due to Eric Gautier’s awe-inspiring cinematography and director Sean Penn’s intimate connection with the source material. Even if you detested the character of Christopher McCandless, Emile Hirsch’s breakout performance is undeniably terrific considering that he shed forty pounds and used no doubles or stunt-men at any point in the shoot. If that’s not enough, a classic performance from Hal Holbrook and a pungent soundtrack by Eddie Vedder should be more than enough to put it over the top.
4. “Zodiac” - 1970’s San Francisco is the sight for David Fincher’s spellbinding police procedural that takes the viewer deep inside the mania experienced by three men obsessed with cracking America’s most notoriously unsolved serial murder case. First-rate performances from Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, and Robert Downey Jr. crackle with energy and sarcasm as each actor allows himself to get totally swept up in the chaos that eventually unfolds. The 2-hour 37-minute running time seems to fly by as the anxiety builds and the possibility that he may still be on the loose can be both frustrating and unnerving to those unfamiliar with the real police files.
5. “No Country For Old Men” - The Coen Brothers took a major leap by adapting Cormac McCarthy’s best-selling novel, but their courage has paid off in the form of a chilling contemporary western that delves into the pit of human indecency and comes up with a sobering reality in which the decay of moral standards is commonplace. Javier Bardem gives one of the craziest performances of the year as Anton Chigurh and subsequently steals the movie with his menacing idiosyncrasies. Sure, a lot of people had complaints about the dismal ending, but this is filmmaking at its best and the Coens’ greatest work since “Fargo.”
6. “Eastern Promises” - Violent, cruel, and uncontrollably raw, but I loved every minute of it. No one has ever accused David Cronenberg of being subtle, so the first ten blood-spattered minutes of this film should come as no surprise to those familiar with his grisly approach to creating entertainment. He has turned violence into a gruesome art form by eliminating any remnants of Hollywood pizzazz and simply throwing his actors into the fire to see what they can create. Viggo Mortensen spearheads this madness with his usual brutality and poignant distance and Naomi Watts tries to find her place among the predominantly male environment.
7. “There Will Be Blood” - Paul Thomas Anderson’s ardently naturalistic meditation on the savagery of greed and capitalism is an enlightened work of fine art that never ceases to astonish. Every frame invites the viewer into the abrasive psyche of cutthroat oilman Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis is phenomenal) and illustrates how such a pitilessly bleak individual can finagle his way to the top without ever adhering to any particular code of ethics. Regardless of what people think about the wildly inflated final act, I found the entire picture to be one of the most extraordinarily crafted I’ve experienced in quite some time.
8. “Knocked Up” - I usually find it difficult to include a comedy on this list, but with Judd Apatow’s hysterical stoner meets girl raunch fest, the decision was basically made for me. Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl are both in fine comedic form as an unlikely couple expecting a baby, but the supporting cast are the ones who really churn out the laughs. Watching Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann engage in bitter verbal encounters is priceless, because they provide a mirror into what married life might consist of if the main characters choose to take their relationship to the next level. Rarely does a comedy this dirty have this much heart and I think that’s a quality worth acknowledging.
9. “Grindhouse” - For those of you who didn’t have the chance to see this three-hour celebration of schlock and debauchery at the theatre, you missed one helluva great time. Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino serve up a powerhouse double feature full of zombies, lap dances, and car chases that seldom has a dull moment. Their appreciation for the low-budget cult films of the 1970’s is vivid inspiration throughout and although Tarantino’s half is slightly better, they’ve both done their part to reinvigorate the movie-going experience.
10. “The Bourne Ultimatum” - The addition of Paul Greengrass to the Bourne franchise is one of the best executive decisions in recent memory. His rapid camerawork and breakneck pacing have elevated what was already an interesting setup to another plane of technological intensity. Combine that with the brilliant emotional stillness of Matt Damon and you have one of the finest trilogies of all time.
Honorable Mention -
"Michael Clayton"
“American Gangster”
“Charlie Wilson’s War”
“Breach”
“Hot Fuzz”
“Stephen King’s The Mist"
“The Simpsons Movie”
“Superbad”
"3:10 to Yuma"
"Rescue Dawn"
The astonishing quality of pictures released from February on is, in my mind, one of the strongest outputs of the decade and should be a promising indication of where Hollywood is headed in the future.Of course, we had the annual onslaught of tedious Summer blockbusters and paltry sequels, but the foreign and independent circuits continued to flourish in ways that many experts never thought possible.
Sarah Polley’s “Away From Her,” Oliver Dahan’s “La Vie en Rose,” and Julian Schnabel’s “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” are just a few of the films that wowed both critics and audiences with their fearless performances and meticulously precise direction, but I assure you, the pot was essentially overflowing with quietly composed excellence. Although they can be difficult to find, these lesser-known works are usually the ones that stick with you long after the year has come to a close.
On that note, I have meditated considerably over the last few weeks to assemble what I believe is an eclectic and well-rounded list of the best films from the last twelve months. As critic David Edelstein says, “So many movies, so little time,” so without further adieu, I present my top ten films of 2007:
1. “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” - Sidney Lumet’s searing tragedy of two bumbling brothers who hatch a half-baked plot to rob their parents’ jewelry store left me stunned with its affinity for wickedness and gut-wrenching emotion. Every scene oozed with Lumet’s fiery brand of excruciating tension and the entire cast was given a chance to act up a storm during some unsettling scenes of dysfunctional family interaction. Even though this was one of the last films I experienced this year, I immediately felt that I hadn’t seen anything that could top its callously unsentimental vibe.
2. “I’m Not There” - If I wasn’t a big Dylan fan before, Todd Haynes’s dazzlingly audacious glimpse into the various facades of one of modern music’s most enigmatic figures certainly did its job to persuade me. The music, the trends, and the politics are brought to life in such a way that standard biopics ought to be ashamed of their run-of-the-mill storylines and unwillingness to take chances. By using six unique actors, Haynes is able to tell Dylan’s story without ever directly including him in the proceedings, which to me, is an extraordinary artistic achievement.
3. “Into the Wild” - Probably the most beautifully constructed film on the list due to Eric Gautier’s awe-inspiring cinematography and director Sean Penn’s intimate connection with the source material. Even if you detested the character of Christopher McCandless, Emile Hirsch’s breakout performance is undeniably terrific considering that he shed forty pounds and used no doubles or stunt-men at any point in the shoot. If that’s not enough, a classic performance from Hal Holbrook and a pungent soundtrack by Eddie Vedder should be more than enough to put it over the top.
4. “Zodiac” - 1970’s San Francisco is the sight for David Fincher’s spellbinding police procedural that takes the viewer deep inside the mania experienced by three men obsessed with cracking America’s most notoriously unsolved serial murder case. First-rate performances from Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, and Robert Downey Jr. crackle with energy and sarcasm as each actor allows himself to get totally swept up in the chaos that eventually unfolds. The 2-hour 37-minute running time seems to fly by as the anxiety builds and the possibility that he may still be on the loose can be both frustrating and unnerving to those unfamiliar with the real police files.
5. “No Country For Old Men” - The Coen Brothers took a major leap by adapting Cormac McCarthy’s best-selling novel, but their courage has paid off in the form of a chilling contemporary western that delves into the pit of human indecency and comes up with a sobering reality in which the decay of moral standards is commonplace. Javier Bardem gives one of the craziest performances of the year as Anton Chigurh and subsequently steals the movie with his menacing idiosyncrasies. Sure, a lot of people had complaints about the dismal ending, but this is filmmaking at its best and the Coens’ greatest work since “Fargo.”
6. “Eastern Promises” - Violent, cruel, and uncontrollably raw, but I loved every minute of it. No one has ever accused David Cronenberg of being subtle, so the first ten blood-spattered minutes of this film should come as no surprise to those familiar with his grisly approach to creating entertainment. He has turned violence into a gruesome art form by eliminating any remnants of Hollywood pizzazz and simply throwing his actors into the fire to see what they can create. Viggo Mortensen spearheads this madness with his usual brutality and poignant distance and Naomi Watts tries to find her place among the predominantly male environment.
7. “There Will Be Blood” - Paul Thomas Anderson’s ardently naturalistic meditation on the savagery of greed and capitalism is an enlightened work of fine art that never ceases to astonish. Every frame invites the viewer into the abrasive psyche of cutthroat oilman Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis is phenomenal) and illustrates how such a pitilessly bleak individual can finagle his way to the top without ever adhering to any particular code of ethics. Regardless of what people think about the wildly inflated final act, I found the entire picture to be one of the most extraordinarily crafted I’ve experienced in quite some time.
8. “Knocked Up” - I usually find it difficult to include a comedy on this list, but with Judd Apatow’s hysterical stoner meets girl raunch fest, the decision was basically made for me. Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl are both in fine comedic form as an unlikely couple expecting a baby, but the supporting cast are the ones who really churn out the laughs. Watching Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann engage in bitter verbal encounters is priceless, because they provide a mirror into what married life might consist of if the main characters choose to take their relationship to the next level. Rarely does a comedy this dirty have this much heart and I think that’s a quality worth acknowledging.
9. “Grindhouse” - For those of you who didn’t have the chance to see this three-hour celebration of schlock and debauchery at the theatre, you missed one helluva great time. Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino serve up a powerhouse double feature full of zombies, lap dances, and car chases that seldom has a dull moment. Their appreciation for the low-budget cult films of the 1970’s is vivid inspiration throughout and although Tarantino’s half is slightly better, they’ve both done their part to reinvigorate the movie-going experience.
10. “The Bourne Ultimatum” - The addition of Paul Greengrass to the Bourne franchise is one of the best executive decisions in recent memory. His rapid camerawork and breakneck pacing have elevated what was already an interesting setup to another plane of technological intensity. Combine that with the brilliant emotional stillness of Matt Damon and you have one of the finest trilogies of all time.
Honorable Mention -
"Michael Clayton"
“American Gangster”
“Charlie Wilson’s War”
“Breach”
“Hot Fuzz”
“Stephen King’s The Mist"
“The Simpsons Movie”
“Superbad”
"3:10 to Yuma"
"Rescue Dawn"
Eastern Promises
“Eastern Promises” is another hard-to-watch masterpiece from David Cronenberg that takes the viewer deep into the unsavory realm of the Russian Mafia. By not glorifying anything along the way, he paints a savagely realistic image of what these individuals are really like and, personally, I wouldn’t want it any other way. Every frame of this multifaceted picture is raw and in the cut, so even if we find most of their actions to be ethically repugnant, we can’t help but be engulfed by the profound character study that eventually unfolds.
Viggo Mortensen turns in yet another frighteningly engaging role as Nikolai, a driver determined to work his way up the ranks by performing gruesome tasks to prove his loyalty to the family. His conflicted attachment to this brutal underworld becomes even more absorbing when we discover his true motivations, because they come at a point when the audience’s impression of this character couldn’t get any worse.
Mortensen’s fearless dedication to authenticity takes on a whole new meaning during an incredibly fierce scene in a public bath house in which Nikolai fends off two men while covered in nothing but prison tattoos. This is truly a great scene, because Nikolai’s vulnerability manifests itself in such a way that we no longer buy the fact that he’s “just a driver.”
As for the rest of the plot, the central conflict revolves around a woman who dies during childbirth and leaves her daughter with no relatives anywhere near London. Her diary is full of incriminating evidence against the Russian family and later becomes a bargaining chip for Anna (Naomi Watts), the well-meaning nurse who ends up taking possession of it. Once Anna realizes the power that accompanies such a scandalous item, she begins to fear for not only her own life, but the baby’s as well. Watts has a wonderful turn here, but she often feels like the lone woman caught up in this heavily male-dominated atmosphere full of profanity and reckless violence.
In addition to Mortensen and Watts, Vincent Cassel and Armin Mueller-Stahl both deliver Oscar-worthy performances that further contribute to the film’s ever budding moral complexity. When their characters clash on screen, the audience is treated to some classic battles between two despicable human beings who have no place for weakness or accountability in their daily schedules.
Although the subject matter may offend some, Cronenberg has engineered a magnificently crafted piece of crime fiction that may very well be the best of his career. A great film is one that constantly challenges its audience by evoking a wide array of emotions that linger long after the credits have rolled. When we see the final shot of Nikolai sitting alone at a table, that’s exactly how I felt.
- **** out of 4
Viggo Mortensen turns in yet another frighteningly engaging role as Nikolai, a driver determined to work his way up the ranks by performing gruesome tasks to prove his loyalty to the family. His conflicted attachment to this brutal underworld becomes even more absorbing when we discover his true motivations, because they come at a point when the audience’s impression of this character couldn’t get any worse.
Mortensen’s fearless dedication to authenticity takes on a whole new meaning during an incredibly fierce scene in a public bath house in which Nikolai fends off two men while covered in nothing but prison tattoos. This is truly a great scene, because Nikolai’s vulnerability manifests itself in such a way that we no longer buy the fact that he’s “just a driver.”
As for the rest of the plot, the central conflict revolves around a woman who dies during childbirth and leaves her daughter with no relatives anywhere near London. Her diary is full of incriminating evidence against the Russian family and later becomes a bargaining chip for Anna (Naomi Watts), the well-meaning nurse who ends up taking possession of it. Once Anna realizes the power that accompanies such a scandalous item, she begins to fear for not only her own life, but the baby’s as well. Watts has a wonderful turn here, but she often feels like the lone woman caught up in this heavily male-dominated atmosphere full of profanity and reckless violence.
In addition to Mortensen and Watts, Vincent Cassel and Armin Mueller-Stahl both deliver Oscar-worthy performances that further contribute to the film’s ever budding moral complexity. When their characters clash on screen, the audience is treated to some classic battles between two despicable human beings who have no place for weakness or accountability in their daily schedules.
Although the subject matter may offend some, Cronenberg has engineered a magnificently crafted piece of crime fiction that may very well be the best of his career. A great film is one that constantly challenges its audience by evoking a wide array of emotions that linger long after the credits have rolled. When we see the final shot of Nikolai sitting alone at a table, that’s exactly how I felt.
- **** out of 4
In the Valley of Elah and Michael Clayton
Paul Haggis’s heartbreaking Iraq war drama “In the Valley of Elah” is basically a personal showcase for Tommy Lee Jones to construct an exceptional if fairly routine (for him, anyway) performance complete with his usual grace and roughneck concentration. He’s certainly not creating anything fresh here, but the script doesn’t exactly require him to either. The essence of Hank Deerfield is conveyed with such deep-seated compassion and vitality that observing Jones in his element is more than enough to warrant a strong recommendation.
The precarious murder mystery that subtly unfolds allows Charlize Theron and Jason Patric to get caught in the commotion and their inevitable clashing with Jones sets the scene for some emotively compelling moments that provide the film with a much needed spark. If you can look past the overt anti-war sentiment, Haggis actually creates a somber rumination on American patriotism with an intriguing dichotomy at its center.
- *** out of 4
Is it just me or does Tony Gilroy’s smoothly manipulative corporate expose “Michael Clayton” feel as if it could’ve evolved from the cautionary world of Sidney Lumet? The way in which Clooney, Wilkinson, and Swinton aren’t afraid to get down and dirty with the material is, to me, reminiscent of the 1970’s political muck that consumed such masterful films as “Network” and “Serpico,” so Gilroy has clearly chosen the righteous path to travel down.
As demonstrated by his work on the Jason Bourne films, he has a knack for tension-filled scene setting and the caustic dialogue he stirs up for these characters is as explosive as anything I’ve heard in quite some time.
George Clooney has always been an actor who can seamlessly blend the gritty with the suave, so the role of an ethically conflicted legal fixer seems to fit neatly into his artistic wheelhouse. During an especially volatile scene with Tom Wilkinson, his taciturn vulnerability is revealed even while trading verbal jabs with his former mentor and friend. Unlike Tom Hanks’s attempt at self-improvement in “Charlie Wilson’s War,” Clayton genuinely wants out of the muddled abyss his life become and we’re rooting for him all the way.
For supporting roles, Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton are awfully effective at capturing the essence of their characters, so they really become just as integral to the story as Clayton himself.
As Arthur Edens, Wilkinson delivers some of the finest work of his career by immersing himself in the world of a legendary attorney who suddenly has an extreme attack of conscience. Some scenes are so showy that it’s hard to believe that the Academy didn’t bite, but I’m sure he’ll be back soon enough with something just as stellar.
Swinton, on the other hand, did walk away with Oscar gold for playing Clayton’s conniving opposition, Karen Crowder, and although it wasn’t the flashiest part, her final confrontation with Clooney still sticks with me. If anything, her win will familiarize audiences with a spectacular European actress who doesn’t always rely on commercial popularity to earn accolades.
Now, if you’re wondering why I haven’t provided much in the area of plot description, my only response would be that it’s best to go into this one with as little spoiling as possible.
Gilroy takes many unsuspecting turns that only serve to obscure the truth and prompt each character to constantly question their own allegiance, so if you approach with too much passivity, prepare to be just as befuddled about the state of affairs as the people you’re watching.
- **** out of 4
The precarious murder mystery that subtly unfolds allows Charlize Theron and Jason Patric to get caught in the commotion and their inevitable clashing with Jones sets the scene for some emotively compelling moments that provide the film with a much needed spark. If you can look past the overt anti-war sentiment, Haggis actually creates a somber rumination on American patriotism with an intriguing dichotomy at its center.
- *** out of 4
Is it just me or does Tony Gilroy’s smoothly manipulative corporate expose “Michael Clayton” feel as if it could’ve evolved from the cautionary world of Sidney Lumet? The way in which Clooney, Wilkinson, and Swinton aren’t afraid to get down and dirty with the material is, to me, reminiscent of the 1970’s political muck that consumed such masterful films as “Network” and “Serpico,” so Gilroy has clearly chosen the righteous path to travel down.
As demonstrated by his work on the Jason Bourne films, he has a knack for tension-filled scene setting and the caustic dialogue he stirs up for these characters is as explosive as anything I’ve heard in quite some time.
George Clooney has always been an actor who can seamlessly blend the gritty with the suave, so the role of an ethically conflicted legal fixer seems to fit neatly into his artistic wheelhouse. During an especially volatile scene with Tom Wilkinson, his taciturn vulnerability is revealed even while trading verbal jabs with his former mentor and friend. Unlike Tom Hanks’s attempt at self-improvement in “Charlie Wilson’s War,” Clayton genuinely wants out of the muddled abyss his life become and we’re rooting for him all the way.
For supporting roles, Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton are awfully effective at capturing the essence of their characters, so they really become just as integral to the story as Clayton himself.
As Arthur Edens, Wilkinson delivers some of the finest work of his career by immersing himself in the world of a legendary attorney who suddenly has an extreme attack of conscience. Some scenes are so showy that it’s hard to believe that the Academy didn’t bite, but I’m sure he’ll be back soon enough with something just as stellar.
Swinton, on the other hand, did walk away with Oscar gold for playing Clayton’s conniving opposition, Karen Crowder, and although it wasn’t the flashiest part, her final confrontation with Clooney still sticks with me. If anything, her win will familiarize audiences with a spectacular European actress who doesn’t always rely on commercial popularity to earn accolades.
Now, if you’re wondering why I haven’t provided much in the area of plot description, my only response would be that it’s best to go into this one with as little spoiling as possible.
Gilroy takes many unsuspecting turns that only serve to obscure the truth and prompt each character to constantly question their own allegiance, so if you approach with too much passivity, prepare to be just as befuddled about the state of affairs as the people you’re watching.
- **** out of 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)