A lot of people dream about one day dropping everything and embarking on a carefree journey of profound spiritual awakening, but few are able to muster up enough audacity to make their fantasy a reality. Fifteen years after his own unapologetic trek into the heart of the Alaskan wilderness, 24-year-old Christopher McCandless has become somewhat of a larger-than-life icon for those who feel that there’s more to life than just luxury cars and trust funds. His unabashedly idealistic philosophies regarding truth and what it means to be alive are a rallying cry for anyone searching for meaning to their existence or just suffering from a bizarre case of hippie hangover.
Sean Penn’s penetrating new film “Into the Wild” attempts to capture Chris’s story in a way that shows not only what he did, but also the distressing circumstances that compelled him to make such a life-changing decision. We’re given a harrowing look into the soul of an enthusiastic and often frightened Ivy-League graduate in search of something way beyond what any classroom or corporate position could give him. Everything that surrounds him is a constant reminder of what he doesn’t want to become and the growing rift with his parents has finally pushed him over the edge.
Emile Hirsch delivers one of the finest performances of the year as he turns Chris into a likeable young man with an unflappable passion for life and a natural ability to see the good in all of God’s creations. At no time do we feel he’s pressing or unsure of his own ideals, because Hirsch’s talent for getting the audience on his side leaves no room for doubt about whether or not he’s seriously involved in the role. No matter what we think about Chris’s beliefs or decision making, we’re always rooting for him to overcome the boundaries of society and succeed on his quest for a “Great Alaskan Adventure.”
As his travels continue, he comes across a variety of characters that offer even more humor and substance to this already sprawling tale of self-discovery. Vince Vaughn, Catherine Keener, and the great Hal Holbrook all provide their own pieces to Chris’s mystical puzzle and help him get one step closer to personal enlightenment. Holbrook does especially fine work here as Ron Franz, a man who becomes a father-like figure to Chris and eventually offers to adopt him during their touching goodbye scene.
If grand performances and blistering cinematography aren’t enough, Pearl Jam front man Eddie Vedder serves up a visceral soundtrack that ends up elevating the film to another plane of intensity. Since he was personally asked by Penn to contribute, I think his heart was definitely in the right place and each one of these beautifully constructed songs seem to fit perfectly with what Chris was going through at that moment in time.
No matter what move Penn makes, he never loosens his grip on the gut-wrenching reality of what Chris’s situation eventually becomes. Every aspect of this film is genuine from the start and Penn’s splendid storytelling proves that this project came from a personal place that the public isn’t always privy to. I think he may have seen a little bit of himself in Alexander Supertramp (Chris changes his name) and felt this was a story just waiting to be told. For those of us who see it, maybe we feel the same.
- **** out of 4
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Juno
For those of you out there who have fallen head over heels in love with a certain gleefully acid-tongued 16-year-old with a baby in tow, allow me to offer an alternative yet well-balanced perspective as to why “Juno” isn’t exactly what I would call the “bee’s knees.” Don’t get me wrong, I found this film to be very funny and delightful, but its constant reliance on over-the-top hipster lingo proves to be a hindrance to the complete plausibility of screenwriter Diablo Cody’s story. In her world, even the routine convenient store clerk is prepared to sardonically spew out one overripe zinger after another, so while I’m all about on your toes pop culture references, this was just too cutesy and unnatural to embrace with open arms.
The only reason I wasn’t totally turned off by this is the fact that twenty-year-old Ellen Page occupies the title role with such splendor and aplomb that it’s as if the dialogue is an innate institution. Her motor mouth precociousness interspersed with flashes of adolescent naivety is a refreshing sight to see in modern cinema, because rarely are teenage characters portrayed in such an uplifting fashion.
Juno MacGuff is clearly light years ahead of anyone her own age and her societal perception is one of derision and wonderment even while maintaining a schmaltzy side that manages to seep through on occasion. She refers to people as “dude” or “homes” and uses expressions such as “forshizz up the spout,” but is she really that à la mode? I would argue that she’s more of a hypocrite than anything else, but to avoid backlash, I’ll just say that Page deserves every rave review that comes her way for selling this stuff so admirably.
The supporting cast is filled with the talent of J.K Simmons, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, and Michael Cera, but Simmons and Bateman are among the standouts. Each of them have terrific on-screen chemistry with Page and their characters are (I think) the most believable.
I’ve heard many people herald Cera for his truthful depiction of nerdy discomfiture, but could he be any more impassive? He’s basically playing a duller version of his character from “Superbad,” so I’m not completely sold on his overall versatility as an actor. His scenes with Page are ample, but he’s just no match for her effervescent charisma.
As for the whole teen pregnancy thing, I felt that everything was handled with a little too much cleanliness, because Juno didn’t seem to treat the situation with enough gravity to parallel a real life experience. Maybe I’m being overly cynical, but I didn’t buy it for a second. When we see Juno riding her bike during the final scene, I couldn’t help but feel cheated by this absurd cop-out of a conclusion and hope that Cody’s next script is considerably less self-absorbed.
- *** out of 4
The only reason I wasn’t totally turned off by this is the fact that twenty-year-old Ellen Page occupies the title role with such splendor and aplomb that it’s as if the dialogue is an innate institution. Her motor mouth precociousness interspersed with flashes of adolescent naivety is a refreshing sight to see in modern cinema, because rarely are teenage characters portrayed in such an uplifting fashion.
Juno MacGuff is clearly light years ahead of anyone her own age and her societal perception is one of derision and wonderment even while maintaining a schmaltzy side that manages to seep through on occasion. She refers to people as “dude” or “homes” and uses expressions such as “forshizz up the spout,” but is she really that à la mode? I would argue that she’s more of a hypocrite than anything else, but to avoid backlash, I’ll just say that Page deserves every rave review that comes her way for selling this stuff so admirably.
The supporting cast is filled with the talent of J.K Simmons, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, and Michael Cera, but Simmons and Bateman are among the standouts. Each of them have terrific on-screen chemistry with Page and their characters are (I think) the most believable.
I’ve heard many people herald Cera for his truthful depiction of nerdy discomfiture, but could he be any more impassive? He’s basically playing a duller version of his character from “Superbad,” so I’m not completely sold on his overall versatility as an actor. His scenes with Page are ample, but he’s just no match for her effervescent charisma.
As for the whole teen pregnancy thing, I felt that everything was handled with a little too much cleanliness, because Juno didn’t seem to treat the situation with enough gravity to parallel a real life experience. Maybe I’m being overly cynical, but I didn’t buy it for a second. When we see Juno riding her bike during the final scene, I couldn’t help but feel cheated by this absurd cop-out of a conclusion and hope that Cody’s next script is considerably less self-absorbed.
- *** out of 4
I'm Not There
Todd Haynes’s “I’m Not There” is a whirlwind of artistic expression. He takes the audience on a manically hypnotic journey into the weathered soul of one of America’s finest rock legends while completely reinventing the biopic in the process. With its sweeping melodic fortitude and eccentrically spaced-out collage of cinematic whimsy, this film gives six actors an opening to personify Bob Dylan in such a way that even non-fans should feel enamored by his grassroots approach to modern songwriting.
In a year full of pedestrian sequels and mindless noisemakers (Transformers, anyone?), to experience a film such as this is to remind yourself that innovation and bravado are still very much alive in a culture dominated by widespread commercial profiteering.
Marcus Carl Franklin is the youngest actor to dig into the Dylan oeuvre and also the first one the audience gets intricately acquainted with. He takes the name of Woody Guthrie and travels from town to town singing the praises of unionized labor with a quirky dust bowl twang that earnestly channels the working-man’s rugged mentality.
The sheer simplicity of his performance is what really works here, because in a situation that often breeds overacting, he shines with a youthful exuberance that is unquestionably genuine. I challenge anyone not to shed a smile during his spirited rendition of “When the Ship Comes In,” because it’s one of the truly great moments this film has to offer.
Just as we begin to enjoy Franklin’s soulful crooning, the film shifts to a grizzled folk hero named Jack Rollins (Christian Bale), whose music has ignited a frenzy of civil rights activism and led to his ensuing venture into the realm of coffeehouse evangelism. Bale’s inspiring take on Dylan during his Greenwich Village days evokes deep-rooted sentiment in its attempt to explore the poetic nature Dylan often toyed with. By duplicating the soft-spoken delivery he displayed in “3:10 to Yuma,” he handles the material with a level of finely tuned comfort that never strikes a false note.
At this point, Haynes has maintained a minimalist tone that worked effectively during the early segments, but the dynamic entrance of Cate Blanchett quickly changes everything. Her sizzling characterization of pill-popping free spirit Jude Quinn radiates with a degree of brazen energy not seen in many other films this year. The imaginative choice to cast a female in this role should be recognized, because Cate digs uncannily deep and comes up with a tour-de-force so exquisitely orchestrated that an Oscar nomination is surely in her sights. This is indeed the most spot-on portrait of Dylan and may very well be THE performance of the year.
The astonishing magnitude of these three sections more than compensates for the parts such as Richard Gere’s misplaced Billy the Kid that don’t come away with the same measure of success. Heath Ledger and Charlotte Gainsbourg’s depiction of Dylan’s failed marriage operates with considerable emotional depth, but I still felt something was missing to help them really take off.
Even with these minor missteps, Haynes has engineered the most original and vigorous film of the year and staked his claim as a major force in modern filmmaking. I think the point of using six actors to assume these diverse Dylan incarnations is that everyone has their own picture of who Bob Dylan is and none of them are necessarily accurate. He is a never-ending enigma whose every move urges to be examined until nothing is left except the man and his music. Judging from this film, I think he’d like to keep it that way.
- **** out of 4
In a year full of pedestrian sequels and mindless noisemakers (Transformers, anyone?), to experience a film such as this is to remind yourself that innovation and bravado are still very much alive in a culture dominated by widespread commercial profiteering.
Marcus Carl Franklin is the youngest actor to dig into the Dylan oeuvre and also the first one the audience gets intricately acquainted with. He takes the name of Woody Guthrie and travels from town to town singing the praises of unionized labor with a quirky dust bowl twang that earnestly channels the working-man’s rugged mentality.
The sheer simplicity of his performance is what really works here, because in a situation that often breeds overacting, he shines with a youthful exuberance that is unquestionably genuine. I challenge anyone not to shed a smile during his spirited rendition of “When the Ship Comes In,” because it’s one of the truly great moments this film has to offer.
Just as we begin to enjoy Franklin’s soulful crooning, the film shifts to a grizzled folk hero named Jack Rollins (Christian Bale), whose music has ignited a frenzy of civil rights activism and led to his ensuing venture into the realm of coffeehouse evangelism. Bale’s inspiring take on Dylan during his Greenwich Village days evokes deep-rooted sentiment in its attempt to explore the poetic nature Dylan often toyed with. By duplicating the soft-spoken delivery he displayed in “3:10 to Yuma,” he handles the material with a level of finely tuned comfort that never strikes a false note.
At this point, Haynes has maintained a minimalist tone that worked effectively during the early segments, but the dynamic entrance of Cate Blanchett quickly changes everything. Her sizzling characterization of pill-popping free spirit Jude Quinn radiates with a degree of brazen energy not seen in many other films this year. The imaginative choice to cast a female in this role should be recognized, because Cate digs uncannily deep and comes up with a tour-de-force so exquisitely orchestrated that an Oscar nomination is surely in her sights. This is indeed the most spot-on portrait of Dylan and may very well be THE performance of the year.
The astonishing magnitude of these three sections more than compensates for the parts such as Richard Gere’s misplaced Billy the Kid that don’t come away with the same measure of success. Heath Ledger and Charlotte Gainsbourg’s depiction of Dylan’s failed marriage operates with considerable emotional depth, but I still felt something was missing to help them really take off.
Even with these minor missteps, Haynes has engineered the most original and vigorous film of the year and staked his claim as a major force in modern filmmaking. I think the point of using six actors to assume these diverse Dylan incarnations is that everyone has their own picture of who Bob Dylan is and none of them are necessarily accurate. He is a never-ending enigma whose every move urges to be examined until nothing is left except the man and his music. Judging from this film, I think he’d like to keep it that way.
- **** out of 4
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Since “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is David Yates’s first tour through the realm of witchcraft and wizardry, I’m willing to give him a free pass on the condition that his next visit be more stirring and full of life than this one. That’s not to say that this trip isn’t entertaining. It most certainly is. Just not on the same fantastically imaginative level of the prior installments. What was so enjoyable and thrilling about those films is that they playfully indulged in magic without making those who haven’t read the books feel alienated. Here, I’m not so sure that’s the case.
When we first see Mr. Potter, he is standing trial for the unlawful use of spells in the presence of muggles (non-magical people). He’s threatened with expulsion and has almost the entire Ministry of Magic deeming him to be a fabricator following claims that Lord Voldemort has returned.
Luckily for him, Professor Dumbledore comes to the rescue and enables Harry to return to Hogwarts and continue his studies. Harry has changed a lot since we last saw him in 2005 and his overwhelming alienation is reaching unprecedented heights. He has trouble sleeping, the media trashes him, and his fellow classmates are growing tired of his menacing assertions. The only thing keeping him sound appears to be his enduring friendship with Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, who stick with him regardless of the risk or consequences involved.
This time, they’ve convinced Harry to start training other students in preparation for an impending war with Voldemort’s army. Everything seems to be in place for an unyielding defense until school officials get word of their illicit plans and attempt to shut them down.
It’s at this point that we become familiarized with newly hired Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), who has a sadistic obsession with making Harry’s life miserable. Staunton’s biting interpretation of this acid-tongued disciplinarian is simply terrific. Her ability to have you completely hating the character by the end of the film is indeed the sign of a great actress. Umbridge’s egomaniacal personality leaves her with few allies against Harry, so their constant battles provide some of the film’s best moments.
As for the rest of the cast, this one pretty much reads like a Who’s Who among talented British actors. You have Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, and Emma Thompson in some spots and then you have Jason Isaacs, Gary Oldman, and Robbie Coltrane in others. If that wasn’t enough, Helena Bonham Carter and Ralph Fiennes also find their way into the wizarding world. And that’s without even mentioning the three spectacular leads!
Despite this extraordinary collection of talent, the film itself doesn’t deliver as much as fans expect it would. Sure, there are plenty of duels and interesting characters walking around, but in the end, nothing transcendent ever happens. Harry kisses Cho for the first time yet all of the sensitive emotions surrounding that highly anticipated moment are never even discussed. For me, too much was left untouched as far as plot development goes, so I left a bit disappointed. But like I said before, it’s not bad for Yates’s first go-around. I just wanted more.
- *** out of 4
When we first see Mr. Potter, he is standing trial for the unlawful use of spells in the presence of muggles (non-magical people). He’s threatened with expulsion and has almost the entire Ministry of Magic deeming him to be a fabricator following claims that Lord Voldemort has returned.
Luckily for him, Professor Dumbledore comes to the rescue and enables Harry to return to Hogwarts and continue his studies. Harry has changed a lot since we last saw him in 2005 and his overwhelming alienation is reaching unprecedented heights. He has trouble sleeping, the media trashes him, and his fellow classmates are growing tired of his menacing assertions. The only thing keeping him sound appears to be his enduring friendship with Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, who stick with him regardless of the risk or consequences involved.
This time, they’ve convinced Harry to start training other students in preparation for an impending war with Voldemort’s army. Everything seems to be in place for an unyielding defense until school officials get word of their illicit plans and attempt to shut them down.
It’s at this point that we become familiarized with newly hired Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), who has a sadistic obsession with making Harry’s life miserable. Staunton’s biting interpretation of this acid-tongued disciplinarian is simply terrific. Her ability to have you completely hating the character by the end of the film is indeed the sign of a great actress. Umbridge’s egomaniacal personality leaves her with few allies against Harry, so their constant battles provide some of the film’s best moments.
As for the rest of the cast, this one pretty much reads like a Who’s Who among talented British actors. You have Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, and Emma Thompson in some spots and then you have Jason Isaacs, Gary Oldman, and Robbie Coltrane in others. If that wasn’t enough, Helena Bonham Carter and Ralph Fiennes also find their way into the wizarding world. And that’s without even mentioning the three spectacular leads!
Despite this extraordinary collection of talent, the film itself doesn’t deliver as much as fans expect it would. Sure, there are plenty of duels and interesting characters walking around, but in the end, nothing transcendent ever happens. Harry kisses Cho for the first time yet all of the sensitive emotions surrounding that highly anticipated moment are never even discussed. For me, too much was left untouched as far as plot development goes, so I left a bit disappointed. But like I said before, it’s not bad for Yates’s first go-around. I just wanted more.
- *** out of 4
Halloween
Rob Zombie’s “Halloween” plays more like an exhaustingly sadistic ode to 1970’s grindhouse cinema than as a respectable homage to one of the greatest horror films ever created. Fully equipped with sex and gore galore, every frame of this misguided downer seems to be in search of some bloodcurdling significance that just isn’t there. Zombie buries his audience in amusing but otherwise ineffectual back-story that attempts to put the gruesome crimes of Michael Myers into context, but ultimately ends up constructing just another dismal tale of a tortured child turned serial killer.
For fans expecting something new and exciting, I regret to inform you that most of what occurs feels like it could’ve come from any low-budget schlockfest released within the past few decades. Everything that made John Carpenter’s 1978 version a classic appears to be lost in translation as Zombie trudges through the material without any drive or revitalizing passion. At no point did I experience any form of terror or uneasiness, so for a film whose main agenda is to instill fear into its audience, I found it to be very lackadaisical in its execution.
As for the story, not even the characters are capable of gaining any sympathy from the viewer, because they’re too caught up in adolescent sex talk to be taken seriously. 18-year-old Scout Taylor-Compton steps into the role of babysitter Laurie Strode, but lacks the earnest likeability that Jamie Lee Curtis so prominently displayed in the original. Her unabashed potty mouth doesn’t fit with the character’s previous behavior and eventually hinders the ability for her performance to work on any level.
At 6’8, former pro wrestler Tyler Mane becomes the tallest actor to portray Michael Myers and for the most part, he does it convincingly. But then again, the role doesn’t exactly require much more than a physically intimidating presence, so I guess you’re limited as to just how far this character can go. Zombie tries to bring a human side to this homicidal boogeyman, but I think the premise was a lot scarier when no explanation for his rampage was ever provided. In the end, he becomes more of a novelty than anything else and the eerie mystique he once possessed evaporates rather quickly.
Did I expect this to be an instant classic? Of course not, but I hoped that Zombie would at least offer a refreshing take on the story by providing enough thrills and intrigue to justify the film’s existence. Unfortunately, things don’t always work out that way. The only reason to see this film should be for the stellar performance of Malcolm McDowell as Michael‘s psychiatrist, because he literally holds things together when Zombie goes on cruise-control. Zombie’s unique talents as a director are evident, but until he finds an effective method of displaying them, the results will not be pretty.
- * ½ out of 4
For fans expecting something new and exciting, I regret to inform you that most of what occurs feels like it could’ve come from any low-budget schlockfest released within the past few decades. Everything that made John Carpenter’s 1978 version a classic appears to be lost in translation as Zombie trudges through the material without any drive or revitalizing passion. At no point did I experience any form of terror or uneasiness, so for a film whose main agenda is to instill fear into its audience, I found it to be very lackadaisical in its execution.
As for the story, not even the characters are capable of gaining any sympathy from the viewer, because they’re too caught up in adolescent sex talk to be taken seriously. 18-year-old Scout Taylor-Compton steps into the role of babysitter Laurie Strode, but lacks the earnest likeability that Jamie Lee Curtis so prominently displayed in the original. Her unabashed potty mouth doesn’t fit with the character’s previous behavior and eventually hinders the ability for her performance to work on any level.
At 6’8, former pro wrestler Tyler Mane becomes the tallest actor to portray Michael Myers and for the most part, he does it convincingly. But then again, the role doesn’t exactly require much more than a physically intimidating presence, so I guess you’re limited as to just how far this character can go. Zombie tries to bring a human side to this homicidal boogeyman, but I think the premise was a lot scarier when no explanation for his rampage was ever provided. In the end, he becomes more of a novelty than anything else and the eerie mystique he once possessed evaporates rather quickly.
Did I expect this to be an instant classic? Of course not, but I hoped that Zombie would at least offer a refreshing take on the story by providing enough thrills and intrigue to justify the film’s existence. Unfortunately, things don’t always work out that way. The only reason to see this film should be for the stellar performance of Malcolm McDowell as Michael‘s psychiatrist, because he literally holds things together when Zombie goes on cruise-control. Zombie’s unique talents as a director are evident, but until he finds an effective method of displaying them, the results will not be pretty.
- * ½ out of 4
Day Night Day Night
“Day Night Day Night” is a film whose evident purpose is to show how terrorism isn’t limited to any particular religion, gender, or ethnicity. Writer/Director Julia Loktev makes that painfully clear during her opening scene as we witness a 19-year-old girl (with no obvious race or accent) preparing to become a martyr for an unknown cause. The girl known only as “she,” spends most of her time in a gloomy hotel room waiting for the right moment to carry out her mission. Since it’s filmed mostly in a pseudo-documentary style, we are given one too many mundane shots of her brushing her teeth, taking a bath, and sitting around doing absolutely nothing. The only possible explanation I could muster is that Loktev wanted to keep things as normal and tranquil as possible as she slowly builds toward the climax.
That is, of course, the entire reason for investing in a film such as this. No matter how unhurried things felt, I always found myself captivated by the very essence of what this girl was going through. On the outside, she was calm, cool, and collected, but inside, she was spiritually and emotionally knotted. In her big screen debut, Luisa Williams turns in a performance of both frightening ease and haunting intensity. Her subtle facial expressions combined with Loktev’s delicate camera work more than compensate for the film’s lack of dialogue. She hits the right note in every scene and brings an element of lugubrious realism that is often misused in other films.
At times, this plays like a How-To on suicide bombing, but the main focus continues to be on this girl’s conscious decision to give her life for something she believes in. Her fear is palpable and every step she takes is one step closer to the end. What that end is exactly, I can’t really say. Her arrival in Times Square is marred by a sudden anxiety attack, so whether or not she actually goes through with it remains to be seen. For the final scene, Loktev toys with her audience at many points and uses dizzying camera angles to hopefully take their minds off the fact that nothing critical is happening. Luckily for her, the strength of Williams’ performance is enough to carry the film to the finish line. As for any political connotations, I’ll let you be the judge.
- *** out of 4
That is, of course, the entire reason for investing in a film such as this. No matter how unhurried things felt, I always found myself captivated by the very essence of what this girl was going through. On the outside, she was calm, cool, and collected, but inside, she was spiritually and emotionally knotted. In her big screen debut, Luisa Williams turns in a performance of both frightening ease and haunting intensity. Her subtle facial expressions combined with Loktev’s delicate camera work more than compensate for the film’s lack of dialogue. She hits the right note in every scene and brings an element of lugubrious realism that is often misused in other films.
At times, this plays like a How-To on suicide bombing, but the main focus continues to be on this girl’s conscious decision to give her life for something she believes in. Her fear is palpable and every step she takes is one step closer to the end. What that end is exactly, I can’t really say. Her arrival in Times Square is marred by a sudden anxiety attack, so whether or not she actually goes through with it remains to be seen. For the final scene, Loktev toys with her audience at many points and uses dizzying camera angles to hopefully take their minds off the fact that nothing critical is happening. Luckily for her, the strength of Williams’ performance is enough to carry the film to the finish line. As for any political connotations, I’ll let you be the judge.
- *** out of 4
Charlie Wilson's War
“Charlie Wilson’s War” is a hilariously energetic look at how a hard-drinking congressman/womanizer, a bubbly socialite, and a gritty CIA specialist came together to end the Soviet Union’s merciless attack on Afghanistan during the 1980’s. Even with some scattered blitz-like war sequences, the bulk of the film revolves around a world of glitzy elitists who suddenly become concerned about 250,000+ miles of mountainous land that most of them can’t even identify on a map. That said, I love the way director Mike Nichols allowed his actors to cut loose from the somewhat limited source material and create a fresh, quick-witted movie that is purely a joy to watch.
Tom Hanks dives right into the title role and looks to be having loads of fun engaging in the boozy escapades that often accompany a life in politics. His razor-sharp delivery of the dialogue is a reminder of how funny he can be when given the chance to open up. As sincerely committed as Wilson wants to be, his overall temperament remains pretty stagnant throughout and nothing about him seems to evolve at any point in the picture. This flaw isn’t a major blow to the film’s success, but it does, however, prevent its ascendance into the cream of the crop for 2007. I feel that a story’s main character should undergo a significant transformation during the course of the plot and Charlie’s attempt at self-improvement didn’t quite cut it for me.
Luckily, Philip Seymour Hoffman (who’s had a barnburner of a year) was around to electrify the screen from the onset as Wilson’s partner-in-crime Gust Avrakotos, who does all the dirty work while Wilson secures the funds to keep the operation above water. The fact that Hoffman can go from zero to a hundred in an instant only adds to the awkwardness that his droll sense of humor often creates, so his impressive work here should earn him a second academy award nomination.
As for Julia Roberts, her first post-pregnancy role is admirable and she does look stunning in a bikini, but the cosmetic overkill at times puts her somewhere between Michael Jackson and a porcelain doll. I usually fancy her as an actress, but this character wasn’t really meaty enough to generate anything too noteworthy.
In the end, the film concludes rather abruptly and never directly addresses how the Afghans are currently using our own weapons against us. But I suppose screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (of “West Wing” fame) wanted to keep things jovial and focus primarily on the positive. Looking back on the austere tone of many films produced in 2007, I can’t really blame him.
- *** ½ out of 4
Tom Hanks dives right into the title role and looks to be having loads of fun engaging in the boozy escapades that often accompany a life in politics. His razor-sharp delivery of the dialogue is a reminder of how funny he can be when given the chance to open up. As sincerely committed as Wilson wants to be, his overall temperament remains pretty stagnant throughout and nothing about him seems to evolve at any point in the picture. This flaw isn’t a major blow to the film’s success, but it does, however, prevent its ascendance into the cream of the crop for 2007. I feel that a story’s main character should undergo a significant transformation during the course of the plot and Charlie’s attempt at self-improvement didn’t quite cut it for me.
Luckily, Philip Seymour Hoffman (who’s had a barnburner of a year) was around to electrify the screen from the onset as Wilson’s partner-in-crime Gust Avrakotos, who does all the dirty work while Wilson secures the funds to keep the operation above water. The fact that Hoffman can go from zero to a hundred in an instant only adds to the awkwardness that his droll sense of humor often creates, so his impressive work here should earn him a second academy award nomination.
As for Julia Roberts, her first post-pregnancy role is admirable and she does look stunning in a bikini, but the cosmetic overkill at times puts her somewhere between Michael Jackson and a porcelain doll. I usually fancy her as an actress, but this character wasn’t really meaty enough to generate anything too noteworthy.
In the end, the film concludes rather abruptly and never directly addresses how the Afghans are currently using our own weapons against us. But I suppose screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (of “West Wing” fame) wanted to keep things jovial and focus primarily on the positive. Looking back on the austere tone of many films produced in 2007, I can’t really blame him.
- *** ½ out of 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)