HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY (**1/2) - Starring Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, Doug Jones, Jeffrey Tambor, Luke Goss, John Hurt, Anna Walton, James Dodd and Seth MacFarlane.
Directed by Guillermo Del Toro.
Some changes are in place for this sequel, free of the shackles of origin-establishing. Gone is John Myers, the through-his-eyes character from the first one that might have been in the sequel if he'd been played by an actor more famous than Rupert Evans. Gone is David Hyde Pierce's voice for Abe Sapien, for now bodymaster Doug Jones can do it himself. Added to the mix are more goblins and creatures that would have been equally at home in Pan's Labyrinth.
Hellboy's still got working-man troubles, but his agency is under more pressure to keep their existance secret, as YouTube is really making cover-ups difficult. Meanwhile the Prince of the underground creatures has decided that enough hiding, it's time to conquer the surface and the ungrateful humans who walk the Earth.
The movie turns into a colorful explosion of CGI, like a better-produced Spy Kids after a while. The gooey fluidity of it all made me lose interest. If the movie's effects are making me think of Spy Kids movies, that's not a good thing.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - DVD Review
EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED (**1/2) - Starring Ben Stein.
Directed by Nathan Frankowski.
If you've ever wondered what a right-wing Michael Moore movie would look like, this is a fairly decent example. Moore loves to play fast and loose with facts, inserting snippets of movie scenes or propaganda pieces to invoke an emotional reaction, and so do Stein & Frankowski. Moore likes to be coy and pretend to be a rube, and so does Stein. So why should I take Stein's arguments any more seriously than I do Moore's?
The movie starts out as an examination of how the science community is shunning and firing professors who are open-minded about intelligent design. It slowly builds its case that Darwinists are closed-minded atheist fascists, often showing the Berlin Wall as its metaphor. Darwinists are Soviets guarding East Germany from the evil capitalists of West Germany.
I think an argument could be made for Darwinism and intelligent design overlapping somewhere, but this movie isn't interested in making that argument. It pokes holes in Darwinism without really explaining how intelligent design works. Like Moore's, this movie preaches to its choir, and my skepticism on what Stein was really trying to do came early, when he said mainstream scientists were adamantly opposed to even broaching the subject, and then he has a series of one-liner dismissives. But one of them was Christopher Hitchens, a noted columnist and best-selling author of "God Is Not Great" (an argument for atheism), but I would not call Hitchens an establishment scientist.
So Stein's point ultimately boils down to Darwinists are atheists with their own agenda of killing God, and he's not above comparing how Hitler used elements of Darwinism to support his own Master-Race propaganda. In fact, the Jewish Stein tours a concentration camp site, pondering the Holocaust, and then interviews the author of "From Darwin to Hitler" to talk about eugenics. Yeah, not subtle. It also leads to Darwinist theories justifying abortion, euthenasia, etc. By the time Stein visits Darwin's home, the soundtrack suggests it might as well be Auschwitz.
It was gigantically unfair for Moore to try to blame Charlton Heston for the Columbine shootings in his movie, and even Moore fans pointed that out. I'd say it's equally unfair of Stein to blame Darwin for the Holocaust. And then he loops it back to the scientists, those close-minded liberal fascists who trample anyone who whispers "I.D." Academic Freedom in America is Dead! Da da dummmmm.
But then the real killers comes in, the final interview with atheist Darwinian scientist Richard Dawkins. It's an amiable chat, and if more of the movie had been this, it would have been a better movie. It also reminded me of one of Moore's strengths: his interviews. They're gotcha interviews, but it's always interesting to see who will allow themselves to get caught how. Stein gets a gotcha on Dawkins, where Dawkins admits intelligent design would certainly explain some things (as long as it's not God!)
I tend to like Moore's movies in spite of themselves, and I liked a lot about this movie. But it is what it is, a seriously stacked deck, which seems to be what more and more documentaries are becoming in order to make money.
Directed by Nathan Frankowski.
If you've ever wondered what a right-wing Michael Moore movie would look like, this is a fairly decent example. Moore loves to play fast and loose with facts, inserting snippets of movie scenes or propaganda pieces to invoke an emotional reaction, and so do Stein & Frankowski. Moore likes to be coy and pretend to be a rube, and so does Stein. So why should I take Stein's arguments any more seriously than I do Moore's?
The movie starts out as an examination of how the science community is shunning and firing professors who are open-minded about intelligent design. It slowly builds its case that Darwinists are closed-minded atheist fascists, often showing the Berlin Wall as its metaphor. Darwinists are Soviets guarding East Germany from the evil capitalists of West Germany.
I think an argument could be made for Darwinism and intelligent design overlapping somewhere, but this movie isn't interested in making that argument. It pokes holes in Darwinism without really explaining how intelligent design works. Like Moore's, this movie preaches to its choir, and my skepticism on what Stein was really trying to do came early, when he said mainstream scientists were adamantly opposed to even broaching the subject, and then he has a series of one-liner dismissives. But one of them was Christopher Hitchens, a noted columnist and best-selling author of "God Is Not Great" (an argument for atheism), but I would not call Hitchens an establishment scientist.
So Stein's point ultimately boils down to Darwinists are atheists with their own agenda of killing God, and he's not above comparing how Hitler used elements of Darwinism to support his own Master-Race propaganda. In fact, the Jewish Stein tours a concentration camp site, pondering the Holocaust, and then interviews the author of "From Darwin to Hitler" to talk about eugenics. Yeah, not subtle. It also leads to Darwinist theories justifying abortion, euthenasia, etc. By the time Stein visits Darwin's home, the soundtrack suggests it might as well be Auschwitz.
It was gigantically unfair for Moore to try to blame Charlton Heston for the Columbine shootings in his movie, and even Moore fans pointed that out. I'd say it's equally unfair of Stein to blame Darwin for the Holocaust. And then he loops it back to the scientists, those close-minded liberal fascists who trample anyone who whispers "I.D." Academic Freedom in America is Dead! Da da dummmmm.
But then the real killers comes in, the final interview with atheist Darwinian scientist Richard Dawkins. It's an amiable chat, and if more of the movie had been this, it would have been a better movie. It also reminded me of one of Moore's strengths: his interviews. They're gotcha interviews, but it's always interesting to see who will allow themselves to get caught how. Stein gets a gotcha on Dawkins, where Dawkins admits intelligent design would certainly explain some things (as long as it's not God!)
I tend to like Moore's movies in spite of themselves, and I liked a lot about this movie. But it is what it is, a seriously stacked deck, which seems to be what more and more documentaries are becoming in order to make money.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Quantum of Solace - Movie Review
QUANTUM OF SOLACE (**1/2) - Starring Daniel Craig, Olga Kurylenko, Mathieu Amalric, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright, and Giancarlo Giannini.
Directed by Marc Forster.
I'm a big Bond fan. In 1999, for lead-up to The World Is Not Enough, my friend and I watched every Bond movie in order within a month's time. They had to be the Broccoli Bonds, which meant we skipped Woody Allen's Casino Royale and Sean Connery's Never Say Never Again, which was basically a remake of Thunderball. My wife has hated Bond ever since, but it was a great pop-culture overloading experience. (I eventually saw the wacky Casino Royale version. Never saw the black-and-white Jimmy Bond made for American TV in the 1950's.)
Now of Pierce Brosnan's four movies, I consider GoldenEye the best and The World Is Not Enough the worst, although Die Another Day was the movie that had the shark-jumping moment of Bond riding the wave with obvious help from CGI. Bond stunts should always be primarily done by stuntmen so we can believe people could do this. Once CGI-Bond surfed, Brosnan's time as Bond was over.
Which means Quantum of Solace will likely be to Craig what Tomorrow Never Dies is to Brosnan, what Thunderball is to Connery, what The Man with the Golden Gun is to Moore. Not the best of his Bonds, but not his worst, and an easily forgettable chapter in the library. Craig's only had two, and Casino Royale was better, and if QoS winds up being Craig's worst Bond movie, good for him.
This Bond is still bitter over the betrayal and death of his one true love Vespa, and in seeking revenge, he stumbles across an international conspiracy by a multi-fingered power-ring called QUANTUM, which is the 21st century's SPECTRE. We don't know who the head is but I do hope in a couple more movies we learn it's a cat-stroking bald guy named Blofeld. But I digress.
Marc Forster seems like a good, quirky choice to direct a Bond film, and you'd think he'd bring to Bond what Paul Greengrass brings to the Jason Bourne series. Good direction on the acting parts, and quick-choppy editing on the action parts. But for my taste, the action scenes were too choppy and too quickly-edited. Many times I couldn't tell what was going on, to the point that I wished the movie had one or two less action sequences than it did.
The Bond-girl here is a generic model/actress type named Olga Kurylenko. I'd put her on the same memorable level as Carole Bouquet. Who? Exactly. (For Your Eyes Only.) Mathieu Amalric, brilliant in The Diving Bell & the Butterfly, plays the villainous Dominic Greene, who's the corporate backer of a military coup in Bolivia. I thought he did well. I can see why Amalric asked if he could have a scar or something, but his eyes are memorable enough.
As for Bond, my hope for the third movie is he gets his sense of fun back. Craig's Bond is an angry cold-blooded killer, and that's cool and all, but I'd like to see Q show up, see Bond crack a smile here and there. Bourne can be Bourne; now let Bond be Bond.
Directed by Marc Forster.
I'm a big Bond fan. In 1999, for lead-up to The World Is Not Enough, my friend and I watched every Bond movie in order within a month's time. They had to be the Broccoli Bonds, which meant we skipped Woody Allen's Casino Royale and Sean Connery's Never Say Never Again, which was basically a remake of Thunderball. My wife has hated Bond ever since, but it was a great pop-culture overloading experience. (I eventually saw the wacky Casino Royale version. Never saw the black-and-white Jimmy Bond made for American TV in the 1950's.)
Now of Pierce Brosnan's four movies, I consider GoldenEye the best and The World Is Not Enough the worst, although Die Another Day was the movie that had the shark-jumping moment of Bond riding the wave with obvious help from CGI. Bond stunts should always be primarily done by stuntmen so we can believe people could do this. Once CGI-Bond surfed, Brosnan's time as Bond was over.
Which means Quantum of Solace will likely be to Craig what Tomorrow Never Dies is to Brosnan, what Thunderball is to Connery, what The Man with the Golden Gun is to Moore. Not the best of his Bonds, but not his worst, and an easily forgettable chapter in the library. Craig's only had two, and Casino Royale was better, and if QoS winds up being Craig's worst Bond movie, good for him.
This Bond is still bitter over the betrayal and death of his one true love Vespa, and in seeking revenge, he stumbles across an international conspiracy by a multi-fingered power-ring called QUANTUM, which is the 21st century's SPECTRE. We don't know who the head is but I do hope in a couple more movies we learn it's a cat-stroking bald guy named Blofeld. But I digress.
Marc Forster seems like a good, quirky choice to direct a Bond film, and you'd think he'd bring to Bond what Paul Greengrass brings to the Jason Bourne series. Good direction on the acting parts, and quick-choppy editing on the action parts. But for my taste, the action scenes were too choppy and too quickly-edited. Many times I couldn't tell what was going on, to the point that I wished the movie had one or two less action sequences than it did.
The Bond-girl here is a generic model/actress type named Olga Kurylenko. I'd put her on the same memorable level as Carole Bouquet. Who? Exactly. (For Your Eyes Only.) Mathieu Amalric, brilliant in The Diving Bell & the Butterfly, plays the villainous Dominic Greene, who's the corporate backer of a military coup in Bolivia. I thought he did well. I can see why Amalric asked if he could have a scar or something, but his eyes are memorable enough.
As for Bond, my hope for the third movie is he gets his sense of fun back. Craig's Bond is an angry cold-blooded killer, and that's cool and all, but I'd like to see Q show up, see Bond crack a smile here and there. Bourne can be Bourne; now let Bond be Bond.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
War, Inc. - DVD Review
WAR, INC. (**) - Starring John Cusack, Hilary Duff, Marisa Tomei, Joan Cusack, Dan Aykroyd and Ben Kingsley.
Directed by Joshua Seftel.
This satire isn't as clever or timely as it thinks it is. Maybe three years ago it would have felt more so, but its targets are obvious, and the dark humor doesn't translate to laughs very often.
John Cusack works for a company called Tamerline (which seems to be what Halliburton and Blackwater would be if they merged). They're a private company that the US contracts out to conduct their wars for them, and they're run by a former US president, played by Dan Aykroyd, who uses facial tics somewhere between Dick Cheney and Jonathan Winters. Tamerline has conquered the Middle East country of Turaqistan, and Cusack is the assassin/manager running the place.
There's some Dr. Strangelove aims of madness here, but it reminded me more Southland Tales, another ambitiously messy movie. Some ideas work better as ideas than actually acted out, and some are just bad ideas.
Directed by Joshua Seftel.
This satire isn't as clever or timely as it thinks it is. Maybe three years ago it would have felt more so, but its targets are obvious, and the dark humor doesn't translate to laughs very often.
John Cusack works for a company called Tamerline (which seems to be what Halliburton and Blackwater would be if they merged). They're a private company that the US contracts out to conduct their wars for them, and they're run by a former US president, played by Dan Aykroyd, who uses facial tics somewhere between Dick Cheney and Jonathan Winters. Tamerline has conquered the Middle East country of Turaqistan, and Cusack is the assassin/manager running the place.
There's some Dr. Strangelove aims of madness here, but it reminded me more Southland Tales, another ambitiously messy movie. Some ideas work better as ideas than actually acted out, and some are just bad ideas.
Kung Fu Panda - DVD Review
KUNG FU PANDA (***) - Starring Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Ian McShane, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, Lucy Liu, David Cross and Randall Duk Kim.
DreamWorks's bright and zippy CG-animated tale may have looked slight compared to Wall-E, but I'll take Po the Panda over Shrek any day.
Jack Black is the front-and-center vocal star of this amiable send-up of kung fu movies. Somehow Po stumbles into the middle of a prophecy, and master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) must train this inept, doughy thing into a martial-arts master so he can fulfill said prophecy.
The message - "Believe in yourself" - is simplistic, but I enjoyed Po's unflappable optimism, even as Shifu and all his students are trying to get Po to quit. There's plenty of laughs from the physical humor, in grand Looney Tunes tradition. The budget exceeded $100 million, so the animation is lush and vivid, much better than the quick cheapies like Happily N'Ever After.
DreamWorks's bright and zippy CG-animated tale may have looked slight compared to Wall-E, but I'll take Po the Panda over Shrek any day.
Jack Black is the front-and-center vocal star of this amiable send-up of kung fu movies. Somehow Po stumbles into the middle of a prophecy, and master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) must train this inept, doughy thing into a martial-arts master so he can fulfill said prophecy.
The message - "Believe in yourself" - is simplistic, but I enjoyed Po's unflappable optimism, even as Shifu and all his students are trying to get Po to quit. There's plenty of laughs from the physical humor, in grand Looney Tunes tradition. The budget exceeded $100 million, so the animation is lush and vivid, much better than the quick cheapies like Happily N'Ever After.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Visitor - DVD Review
THE VISITOR (***) - Starring Richard Jenkins, Hiam Abbass and Danai Gurira.
Written & directed by Tom McCarthy.
Richard Jenkins is a character actor who's been around for years (Fargo, Step Brothers), but in his first starring role, he proves he has the chops to carry a film. He may be a dark horse for a Best Actor nomination. He plays Walter, a widower and a teacher who's lived life on auto-pilot for years. He reconnects with another human being in Tarek, an illegal immigrant living in his old apartment. At first there is mistrust, but the way the relationship evolves between Walter and Tarek is believable and ultimately rewarding.
Written & directed by Tom McCarthy.
Richard Jenkins is a character actor who's been around for years (Fargo, Step Brothers), but in his first starring role, he proves he has the chops to carry a film. He may be a dark horse for a Best Actor nomination. He plays Walter, a widower and a teacher who's lived life on auto-pilot for years. He reconnects with another human being in Tarek, an illegal immigrant living in his old apartment. At first there is mistrust, but the way the relationship evolves between Walter and Tarek is believable and ultimately rewarding.
Transsiberian - DVD Review
TRANSSIBERIAN (***1/2) - Starring Emily Mortimer, Woody Harrelson, Ben Kingsley, Kate Mara, Eduardo Noreiga and Thomas Kretschmann.
Directed by Brad Anderson.
Horror may be stuck in a rut forever, but the suspense thriller still holds tons of promise. The train has always been a wellspring of claustrophobic potential cinematically, and it's put to good use here.
This might have made more money with a bigger named actress but I loved Emily Mortimer as Jessie. She and her husband Roy (Woody Harrelson) are traveling on a Russian train after a church mission in China when they meet a young couple also traveling. I don't want to give much away from the early moments, as I had no idea what was going to happen when I saw it. Needless to say, Ben Kingsley plays a Russian detective who has interest in this train, and it's unclear who's good or bad for a while, but the movie hinges on Mortimer, who gets herself into some high-suspense moments.
It's an intelligent, thoughtful thriller, with belieavable, breating characters. And a quick check to Rottentomatoes.com has it at 92%, so I'm not alone.
Directed by Brad Anderson.
Horror may be stuck in a rut forever, but the suspense thriller still holds tons of promise. The train has always been a wellspring of claustrophobic potential cinematically, and it's put to good use here.
This might have made more money with a bigger named actress but I loved Emily Mortimer as Jessie. She and her husband Roy (Woody Harrelson) are traveling on a Russian train after a church mission in China when they meet a young couple also traveling. I don't want to give much away from the early moments, as I had no idea what was going to happen when I saw it. Needless to say, Ben Kingsley plays a Russian detective who has interest in this train, and it's unclear who's good or bad for a while, but the movie hinges on Mortimer, who gets herself into some high-suspense moments.
It's an intelligent, thoughtful thriller, with belieavable, breating characters. And a quick check to Rottentomatoes.com has it at 92%, so I'm not alone.
Sundance boycott idiocy
I think rational minds will prevail over the initial whisperings of boycotting the Sundance Film Festival over Prop 8 passing. Here's a great blog post that follows the money, state by state:
http://www.variety.com/blog/1390000339/post/60036406.html?nid=4361
Hollywood is more likely to hurt the Yes on Prop 8 voters by boycotting the Oscars.
http://www.variety.com/blog/1390000339/post/60036406.html?nid=4361
Hollywood is more likely to hurt the Yes on Prop 8 voters by boycotting the Oscars.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Journey to the Center of the Earth - DVD Review
JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH (**1/2) - Starring Brendan Fraser, Josh Hutcherson, Anita Briem and Seth Meyers.
Directed by Eric Brevig.
This is an unabashed carnival ride, a roller-coaster tilt-a-whirl of a movie that was probably more fun on the big screen in 3D. In fact, that's my biggest complaint. Amidst a coal-mine ride out of Indy's Temple of Doom and carnivorous plants off Pete Jackson's King Kong island, I kept wishing I could see this thing at 40 feet tall, wearing the glasses. As a 2D DVD, it's merely okay, a kids adventure made palatable by cool if uneven special effects and the can-do light-hearted leadership of Mummy vet Brendan Fraser.
Directed by Eric Brevig.
This is an unabashed carnival ride, a roller-coaster tilt-a-whirl of a movie that was probably more fun on the big screen in 3D. In fact, that's my biggest complaint. Amidst a coal-mine ride out of Indy's Temple of Doom and carnivorous plants off Pete Jackson's King Kong island, I kept wishing I could see this thing at 40 feet tall, wearing the glasses. As a 2D DVD, it's merely okay, a kids adventure made palatable by cool if uneven special effects and the can-do light-hearted leadership of Mummy vet Brendan Fraser.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Love Guru - DVD Review
THE LOVE GURU (*1/2) - Starring Mike Myers, Jessica Alba, Justin Timberlake, Romany Malco, Meagan Goode, Verne Troyer, Ben Kingsley, John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, Jim Gaffigan and Telma Hopkins.
Directed by Marco Schnabel.
The Cat in the Hat is still the worst movie Mike's ever made, but this movie is a hodge-podge of Myers humor crammed together under a thin excuse of a plot, and most of the jokes fall flat. Why would a self-help guru be so mean to midgets? On what planet is Jessica Alba remotely believable as the owner of a hockey team? What is so inherently funny about Ben Kingsley's character having his eyes crossed?
Guru Pitka is hired to help a star hockey player get his confidence back. His methods are unorthodox and arbitrary, and filled with potty humor. Example of the humor level: Justin Timberlake plays a French goalie nicknamed "Le Coq" because of his big you-know-what. Tee hee.
Directed by Marco Schnabel.
The Cat in the Hat is still the worst movie Mike's ever made, but this movie is a hodge-podge of Myers humor crammed together under a thin excuse of a plot, and most of the jokes fall flat. Why would a self-help guru be so mean to midgets? On what planet is Jessica Alba remotely believable as the owner of a hockey team? What is so inherently funny about Ben Kingsley's character having his eyes crossed?
Guru Pitka is hired to help a star hockey player get his confidence back. His methods are unorthodox and arbitrary, and filled with potty humor. Example of the humor level: Justin Timberlake plays a French goalie nicknamed "Le Coq" because of his big you-know-what. Tee hee.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Death Defying Acts - DVD Review
DEATH DEFYING ACTS (**) - Starring Catherine Zeta-Jones, Guy Pearce, Saoirse Ronan and Timothy Spall.
Directed by Gillian Armstrong.
It starts out promising enough. It reminded me of The Illusionist and The Prestige with its period approach to magicians, and Guy Pearce is game as Houdini, but the story is really more about the mother-daughter con team of Zeta-Jones and Atonement's Ronan. Eventually, though, Zeta-Jones's Mary falls in love with her mark, Houdini, and the movie gets less interesting as it gets more predictable.
Directed by Gillian Armstrong.
It starts out promising enough. It reminded me of The Illusionist and The Prestige with its period approach to magicians, and Guy Pearce is game as Houdini, but the story is really more about the mother-daughter con team of Zeta-Jones and Atonement's Ronan. Eventually, though, Zeta-Jones's Mary falls in love with her mark, Houdini, and the movie gets less interesting as it gets more predictable.
Changeling - Movie Review
CHANGELING (***1/2) - Starring Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Jeffrey Donovan, Michael Kelly, Colm Feore, Geoff Pierson, Amy Ryan and Denis O'Hare.
Directed by Clint Eastwood.
This movie makes the old-fashioned new again. We have an old-fashioned mystery that spins and spirals into different genres, as the unfolding of the story takes us in new directions.
Except that it's based on a true story. So if you don't already know the events surrounding this tale, I recommend seeing this first and then doing your research. I didn't know, and I was enthralled.
Jolie plays Christine Collins, a single mother in Los Angeles 1928. One day when she comes home from work, her son is missing. The LAPD won't help in the first 24 hours, but five months later, they claim to have found him in Illinois. Trouble is, the boy is not her son. He claims he is, the police claim he is, and when she continues to protest, the sneering detective has her thrown into an insane asylum.
So we go down a tumultuous road that is reminiscent of One Flew Over a Cuckoo's Nest, but also has elements of Chinatown and Norma Rae. Jolie, for her part, is great in a role that doesn't have too many notes beyond steely determination. She must say the phrase "my son" over 200 times. Her plight is scary; there is more intensity in the asylum than in 95% of horror films. What I love about Eastwood is his ability to move from genre to genre and master it. I think of how diverse and yet how competant movies like Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby and Letters from Iwo Jima and this are. (Although now that I think about it, I wonder if he could pull off a comedy.)
There's a melodrama to it I liked. It follows the 1970's tradition of Act One being setup, Act Two being injustice, and Act Three will either be triumph or destruction. And false endings aside, it squeezed a tear out of me, which movies very rarely do.
And the actual true story could spawn a slew of movies from different angles.
Directed by Clint Eastwood.
This movie makes the old-fashioned new again. We have an old-fashioned mystery that spins and spirals into different genres, as the unfolding of the story takes us in new directions.
Except that it's based on a true story. So if you don't already know the events surrounding this tale, I recommend seeing this first and then doing your research. I didn't know, and I was enthralled.
Jolie plays Christine Collins, a single mother in Los Angeles 1928. One day when she comes home from work, her son is missing. The LAPD won't help in the first 24 hours, but five months later, they claim to have found him in Illinois. Trouble is, the boy is not her son. He claims he is, the police claim he is, and when she continues to protest, the sneering detective has her thrown into an insane asylum.
So we go down a tumultuous road that is reminiscent of One Flew Over a Cuckoo's Nest, but also has elements of Chinatown and Norma Rae. Jolie, for her part, is great in a role that doesn't have too many notes beyond steely determination. She must say the phrase "my son" over 200 times. Her plight is scary; there is more intensity in the asylum than in 95% of horror films. What I love about Eastwood is his ability to move from genre to genre and master it. I think of how diverse and yet how competant movies like Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby and Letters from Iwo Jima and this are. (Although now that I think about it, I wonder if he could pull off a comedy.)
There's a melodrama to it I liked. It follows the 1970's tradition of Act One being setup, Act Two being injustice, and Act Three will either be triumph or destruction. And false endings aside, it squeezed a tear out of me, which movies very rarely do.
And the actual true story could spawn a slew of movies from different angles.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Saw V - Movie Review
SAW V (**1/4) - Starring Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Scott Patterson, Julie Benz, Meagan Good and Betsy Russell.
Directed by David Hackl.
If you've seen the first four, you will feel about this one about the same way you felt about the three previous sequels.
The Saw franchise is my guilty pleasure. The first one was a shot in the arm to horror. The acting was all over the place, but I couldn't help but relish Cary Elwes going way out there as Dr. Gordon, the man who has to cut off his own foot if he wants to live. It also had Michael Emerson doing his bug-eyed bad-guy thing. Saw also had one of my favorite twist(ed) endings of any horror film the past six or seven years.
The sequels have had varying success with their twist endings, and I would say if you ranked them, this one had the weakest.
Unlike other horror franchises, this one requires you to see them all for it to make sense, even though if you think about it, there is a giant abandoned warehouse somewhere full of booby traps, and every time the cops sweep the area in the aftermath of a Saw movie, they miss that one secret door that leads to five or six more rooms of torture devices.
This movie relies on flashbacks to all the other movies, and it creates new ones as we get the back story on Hoffman (Costas Mandylor), revealed as the twist ending in Saw IV as the new water-carrier for Jigsaw, who died at the end of Saw III. Turns out that hey, Hoffman was behind the scenes all along, helping Jigsaw and Amanda with their elaborate traps. Mandylor, who looks like Brenda Fraser's less successful alcoholic brother, does fine as Hoffman, a cop who wanted revenge but saw the "light", at least the light Jigsaw offers.
Saw V blatantly introduces items and details with no explanation, setting groundwork for Saw VI. So while you could see any of the Friday the 13ths and they stand alone, Saw is not that way. And if I had to choose between seeing another Saw sequel or seeing Hostel III, Texas Chainsaw Massacre III, or Hills Have Eyes 3, it'd be no contest.
Directed by David Hackl.
If you've seen the first four, you will feel about this one about the same way you felt about the three previous sequels.
The Saw franchise is my guilty pleasure. The first one was a shot in the arm to horror. The acting was all over the place, but I couldn't help but relish Cary Elwes going way out there as Dr. Gordon, the man who has to cut off his own foot if he wants to live. It also had Michael Emerson doing his bug-eyed bad-guy thing. Saw also had one of my favorite twist(ed) endings of any horror film the past six or seven years.
The sequels have had varying success with their twist endings, and I would say if you ranked them, this one had the weakest.
Unlike other horror franchises, this one requires you to see them all for it to make sense, even though if you think about it, there is a giant abandoned warehouse somewhere full of booby traps, and every time the cops sweep the area in the aftermath of a Saw movie, they miss that one secret door that leads to five or six more rooms of torture devices.
This movie relies on flashbacks to all the other movies, and it creates new ones as we get the back story on Hoffman (Costas Mandylor), revealed as the twist ending in Saw IV as the new water-carrier for Jigsaw, who died at the end of Saw III. Turns out that hey, Hoffman was behind the scenes all along, helping Jigsaw and Amanda with their elaborate traps. Mandylor, who looks like Brenda Fraser's less successful alcoholic brother, does fine as Hoffman, a cop who wanted revenge but saw the "light", at least the light Jigsaw offers.
Saw V blatantly introduces items and details with no explanation, setting groundwork for Saw VI. So while you could see any of the Friday the 13ths and they stand alone, Saw is not that way. And if I had to choose between seeing another Saw sequel or seeing Hostel III, Texas Chainsaw Massacre III, or Hills Have Eyes 3, it'd be no contest.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Appaloosa - Movie Review
APPALOOSA (***1/2) - Starring Ed Harris, Viggo Mortensen, Renee Zellweger, Jeremy Irons, Timothy Spall, Lance Henriksen, Tom Bower and James Gammon.
Directed by Ed Harris.
The classic Western is back, even if we only get one a year. It deserves to stand alongside 3:10 to Yuma, The Assassination of Jesse James, and Open Range as a good movie on its own, and then bonus points for being a good ol'-fashioned cowboy movie. It wasn't that long ago American Outlaws and Texas Rangers about killed the genre.
Ed Harris stars, directs, co-writes, and co-produces in this thing. He even sings a song over the closing credits. He and Viggo plays Virgil Cole and Everett Hitch respectively, gunmen who roam from town to town takin' the law jobs, cleanin' up the place, then movin' on. Seems the town of Appaloosa is a might run over by Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons), your typical rich landowning bad guy.
I enjoyed the deepened relationship between Cole and Hitch the most. The looks that say everything, the spare, laconic dialogue. It's hilariously understated. I could see Gary Cooper and Robert Mitchum having just such conversations. I also loved the emphasis on honesty in the old West. If you gave your word, you gave your word.
My one quibble - Renee Zellweger. She was the weak link in Leatherheads and the weak link here. I don't enjoy her as a performer anymore. I would've much rather seen Kate Beckinsale or Molly Parker or Emily Watson or Francis O'Connor or any number of different actresses in this role. Maybe it's the Academy curse. Maybe she hasn't been able to lose the weight from her face since the Bridget Jones sequel, so now when she smiles, her cheeks squish her eyes shut. I don't know what it is.
Directed by Ed Harris.
The classic Western is back, even if we only get one a year. It deserves to stand alongside 3:10 to Yuma, The Assassination of Jesse James, and Open Range as a good movie on its own, and then bonus points for being a good ol'-fashioned cowboy movie. It wasn't that long ago American Outlaws and Texas Rangers about killed the genre.
Ed Harris stars, directs, co-writes, and co-produces in this thing. He even sings a song over the closing credits. He and Viggo plays Virgil Cole and Everett Hitch respectively, gunmen who roam from town to town takin' the law jobs, cleanin' up the place, then movin' on. Seems the town of Appaloosa is a might run over by Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons), your typical rich landowning bad guy.
I enjoyed the deepened relationship between Cole and Hitch the most. The looks that say everything, the spare, laconic dialogue. It's hilariously understated. I could see Gary Cooper and Robert Mitchum having just such conversations. I also loved the emphasis on honesty in the old West. If you gave your word, you gave your word.
My one quibble - Renee Zellweger. She was the weak link in Leatherheads and the weak link here. I don't enjoy her as a performer anymore. I would've much rather seen Kate Beckinsale or Molly Parker or Emily Watson or Francis O'Connor or any number of different actresses in this role. Maybe it's the Academy curse. Maybe she hasn't been able to lose the weight from her face since the Bridget Jones sequel, so now when she smiles, her cheeks squish her eyes shut. I don't know what it is.
Chicago 10 - DVD Review
CHICAGO 10 (**1/2) - Starring the voices of Hank Azaria, Nick Nolte, Dylan Baker, Mark Ruffalo, Roy Scheider and Jeffrey Wright.
Written & directed by Brett Morgen.
This stylized documentary outstylized the Errol Morris doc I just saw, although I really appreciated what Morgen was going for here. My main problem was that he couldn't shape it in a way where a story was told, where a series of events are strung together where we can follow cause and effect, this lead to that. To understand what actually happened, it's good to already have your own familiarity with the 1968 DNC riots and subsequent Chicago 7 trial, or do your own reading before or after viewing, as the movie is full of cool images and powerful scenes, but it's missing the crucial element of narrative.
It cuts back and forth between 1968, leading up to the riots, and 1969, during the farce of a trial. In 1968, we have all real footage, and where we don't have the actual footage, we have actors covered with rotoscope animation (like in Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly and those soulless Charles Schwab commercials). In 1969, we have the trial, and all dialogue is taken from the transcipts, but we have actors doing the parts. Hank Azaria is Abbie Hoffman and Allen Ginsburg, for instance. This allows for editorializing. The judge, as voiced by Roy Scheider, might as well be Strother Martin ("what we've got here is failure to communicate") but when you look at what the judge said and did during the trial, it seems pretty fair.
For me, the 1968 footage is much more effective. We see the players - Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, et al - saying their words and doing what they'll do. We see the perfect storm brewing at the DNC. History's been kinder to LBJ; it's easy to forget just how hated he was in 1968. There seems to be an effort to tie the fervor of 1968 to anti-war sentiments of 2008, but it was a much different time. Most importantly, there was a draft back then. But the most chilling moment was when one of the protestors, talking to the crowd, said they will march to the convention and enter "by whatever means necessary." Oo, that's not going to end well.
Jumping back and forth between the two time periods might have worked if each followed a natural linear progression, but the 1968 order of things is jumbled. The 1969 line is better at this, but it lacks the impact. I thought both storylines had built to climaxes that were coming in the next scene, but suddenly the credits are rolling and we get a bunch of epilogue cards. How extensive were the injuries at the riots? Why did the lawyers for Hoffman and crew wind up serving more jail time than the accused? I don't know. I guess I can do more of my own reading.
Written & directed by Brett Morgen.
This stylized documentary outstylized the Errol Morris doc I just saw, although I really appreciated what Morgen was going for here. My main problem was that he couldn't shape it in a way where a story was told, where a series of events are strung together where we can follow cause and effect, this lead to that. To understand what actually happened, it's good to already have your own familiarity with the 1968 DNC riots and subsequent Chicago 7 trial, or do your own reading before or after viewing, as the movie is full of cool images and powerful scenes, but it's missing the crucial element of narrative.
It cuts back and forth between 1968, leading up to the riots, and 1969, during the farce of a trial. In 1968, we have all real footage, and where we don't have the actual footage, we have actors covered with rotoscope animation (like in Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly and those soulless Charles Schwab commercials). In 1969, we have the trial, and all dialogue is taken from the transcipts, but we have actors doing the parts. Hank Azaria is Abbie Hoffman and Allen Ginsburg, for instance. This allows for editorializing. The judge, as voiced by Roy Scheider, might as well be Strother Martin ("what we've got here is failure to communicate") but when you look at what the judge said and did during the trial, it seems pretty fair.
For me, the 1968 footage is much more effective. We see the players - Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, et al - saying their words and doing what they'll do. We see the perfect storm brewing at the DNC. History's been kinder to LBJ; it's easy to forget just how hated he was in 1968. There seems to be an effort to tie the fervor of 1968 to anti-war sentiments of 2008, but it was a much different time. Most importantly, there was a draft back then. But the most chilling moment was when one of the protestors, talking to the crowd, said they will march to the convention and enter "by whatever means necessary." Oo, that's not going to end well.
Jumping back and forth between the two time periods might have worked if each followed a natural linear progression, but the 1968 order of things is jumbled. The 1969 line is better at this, but it lacks the impact. I thought both storylines had built to climaxes that were coming in the next scene, but suddenly the credits are rolling and we get a bunch of epilogue cards. How extensive were the injuries at the riots? Why did the lawyers for Hoffman and crew wind up serving more jail time than the accused? I don't know. I guess I can do more of my own reading.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Standard Operating Procedure - DVD Review
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (**) - Directed by Errol Morris.
Music by Danny Elfman.
Most Iraq/Abu Ghraib documentaries connect the dots up the chain of command and blame Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, etc., for what happened. Not this one. I'm not sure what this one is aiming for. To exonerate the soldiers of Abu Ghraib? Not exactly. To condemn them? Not really that either. It takes a close, uncomfortable look at the photos from Abu Ghraib and pieces together a timeline of events, and it has interviews with most of the soldiers involved. It came down to a modern-day example of The Experiment with no one there to stop it.
The Experiment took place a few decades ago, and it took normal people and put them in a prison setting. It was to last 30 days but it was stopped prematurely because the "guards" were getting violent with the "prisoners." These soldiers were to watch the prisoners and interrogate them, but with no rules and no oversight, things got out of control. Well, there were some rules. Rules like it was okay to sexually humiliate the prisoners.
My problem with this documentary is that Errol Morris is too in love with his own filmmaking skills to bother focussing the narrative. It's like a 113 minute opening credit sequence. It's littered with recreations, ghostly images, animation, re-enactments, so that sometimes we don't know what's real. At one point I thought I was watching real video of the human pyramid set-up, only to realize it was actors recreating it, filmed in a grainy Zapruder-like fashion. At one point a soldier talks about Saddam Hussein, on the run, bursting into someone's house to make an egg. We then see soft-light on a hairy hand, cracking the egg in slo-mo, the egg falling into the pan and splattering, the slow sizzle, with added CGI sparkles around it.
The natural villain to the proceedings here would seem to be Gen. Janis Karpinski, in charge of Abu Ghraib. But she's one of the interviewees, so it wasn't her fault. Lynndie England, she of the infamous double-point to a prisoner's exposed privates, is made human, telling her story of a 20-year-old soldier who fell in love with her married 34-year-old superior, Sgt. Charles Graner. Most of the interviewees talk about this pose or that picture as Graner's idea, Graner's plan, Graner's doing. Graner is not interviewed. But his wife is, and Graner is humanized too. Soldiers refer to their superiors, to unnamed bigwigs who gave Graner orders, superiors who said to interrogators "we did this at Gitmo; try it here."
One sad result of Abu Ghraib is that the military didn't get much helpful information out of these prisoners. They were basically tortured and humiliated for nothing. A couple of them were murdered, but that was easier to cover up because there were no photos.
As uncomfortably compelling as some of this could be, it would be sabotaged by ominous cords from Danny Elfman's score. I love Danny Elfman, but the soundtrack felt more suitable for the upcoming Da Vinci Code prequel. And then we'd closeups of a soldier beating on a prisoner. Not actual footage, just actors, with quick editing of different film stocks so it looks like very third minute is directed by Oliver Stone.
It concludes by telling us that no one above the rank of Staff Sergeant went to prison for Abu Ghraib, and that Charles Graner is still serving his ten-year sentence and the US Military will not let him be interviewed. I'll wager when he gets out, he'll name some names. But if Errol Morris interviews him, he'll probably have the letters fly out of his mouth as he talks.
Music by Danny Elfman.
Most Iraq/Abu Ghraib documentaries connect the dots up the chain of command and blame Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, etc., for what happened. Not this one. I'm not sure what this one is aiming for. To exonerate the soldiers of Abu Ghraib? Not exactly. To condemn them? Not really that either. It takes a close, uncomfortable look at the photos from Abu Ghraib and pieces together a timeline of events, and it has interviews with most of the soldiers involved. It came down to a modern-day example of The Experiment with no one there to stop it.
The Experiment took place a few decades ago, and it took normal people and put them in a prison setting. It was to last 30 days but it was stopped prematurely because the "guards" were getting violent with the "prisoners." These soldiers were to watch the prisoners and interrogate them, but with no rules and no oversight, things got out of control. Well, there were some rules. Rules like it was okay to sexually humiliate the prisoners.
My problem with this documentary is that Errol Morris is too in love with his own filmmaking skills to bother focussing the narrative. It's like a 113 minute opening credit sequence. It's littered with recreations, ghostly images, animation, re-enactments, so that sometimes we don't know what's real. At one point I thought I was watching real video of the human pyramid set-up, only to realize it was actors recreating it, filmed in a grainy Zapruder-like fashion. At one point a soldier talks about Saddam Hussein, on the run, bursting into someone's house to make an egg. We then see soft-light on a hairy hand, cracking the egg in slo-mo, the egg falling into the pan and splattering, the slow sizzle, with added CGI sparkles around it.
The natural villain to the proceedings here would seem to be Gen. Janis Karpinski, in charge of Abu Ghraib. But she's one of the interviewees, so it wasn't her fault. Lynndie England, she of the infamous double-point to a prisoner's exposed privates, is made human, telling her story of a 20-year-old soldier who fell in love with her married 34-year-old superior, Sgt. Charles Graner. Most of the interviewees talk about this pose or that picture as Graner's idea, Graner's plan, Graner's doing. Graner is not interviewed. But his wife is, and Graner is humanized too. Soldiers refer to their superiors, to unnamed bigwigs who gave Graner orders, superiors who said to interrogators "we did this at Gitmo; try it here."
One sad result of Abu Ghraib is that the military didn't get much helpful information out of these prisoners. They were basically tortured and humiliated for nothing. A couple of them were murdered, but that was easier to cover up because there were no photos.
As uncomfortably compelling as some of this could be, it would be sabotaged by ominous cords from Danny Elfman's score. I love Danny Elfman, but the soundtrack felt more suitable for the upcoming Da Vinci Code prequel. And then we'd closeups of a soldier beating on a prisoner. Not actual footage, just actors, with quick editing of different film stocks so it looks like very third minute is directed by Oliver Stone.
It concludes by telling us that no one above the rank of Staff Sergeant went to prison for Abu Ghraib, and that Charles Graner is still serving his ten-year sentence and the US Military will not let him be interviewed. I'll wager when he gets out, he'll name some names. But if Errol Morris interviews him, he'll probably have the letters fly out of his mouth as he talks.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
This Week on NBC's Heroes
I like how Mohinder is turning into The Fly, complete with that rattlesnake shaking in the soundtrack during his scenes. (Actually he's more like the Spiderthing Gary Oldman turned into in Lost in Space). I like how the overarching theme is clear, even if all the subplots are all over the place. I love Robert Forster joining the cast, and that they found a way to bring back Malcolm MacDowell. I think all the time-travel stuff is too messy, and I think they made a mistake not killing off Sylar at the end of the first season. They're now doing what they always do on TV shows: taking a cool villain and turning him into an anti-hero. The more air-time they give Nathan and HRG, the better off the show is. And Parkman, once they get him out of Africa.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Savage Grace - DVD Review
SAVAGE GRACE (**) - Starring Julianne Moore, Stephen Dillane and Eddie Redmayne.
Directed by Tom Kalin.
This movies proves that Moore and Dillane are great actors, and that it's all for naught if they can't use those talents in a story worth telling. It's the true story of a dysfunctional family of the icky kind, showing rich people in their decadent glory. Money can't buy happiness, but families like these are good arguments for wealth redistribution.
It's the true story of Brooks, Barbara and Antony Baekeland. Brooks is heir to the billions left by his grandfather, who invented plastic. Brooks is a cold, ambivalent father; Barbara is a clingy, unstable mother; and Antony never really had a chance, but he grows up to be a cross between Augusten Burroughs and Jean-Baptiste Grenouille.
This isn't so much a story as a series of events in the family's lives that spans across the decades. Picture Michael Apted with his 7 Up series, but he stops in on this family at the worst possible times. "Oh dear, the father is sleeping with his teenage son's girlfriend; let's try again in seven years." Seven years later. "Oh, my, what's the mother doing in bed with her son and his boyfriend?"
Moore gives a ferocious, devastating performance as Barbara, who'd rather have her son be oedipal than gay. It's one of those roles where I hope now she can do some rom-com's or adventures or something less soul-crushing.
Directed by Tom Kalin.
This movies proves that Moore and Dillane are great actors, and that it's all for naught if they can't use those talents in a story worth telling. It's the true story of a dysfunctional family of the icky kind, showing rich people in their decadent glory. Money can't buy happiness, but families like these are good arguments for wealth redistribution.
It's the true story of Brooks, Barbara and Antony Baekeland. Brooks is heir to the billions left by his grandfather, who invented plastic. Brooks is a cold, ambivalent father; Barbara is a clingy, unstable mother; and Antony never really had a chance, but he grows up to be a cross between Augusten Burroughs and Jean-Baptiste Grenouille.
This isn't so much a story as a series of events in the family's lives that spans across the decades. Picture Michael Apted with his 7 Up series, but he stops in on this family at the worst possible times. "Oh dear, the father is sleeping with his teenage son's girlfriend; let's try again in seven years." Seven years later. "Oh, my, what's the mother doing in bed with her son and his boyfriend?"
Moore gives a ferocious, devastating performance as Barbara, who'd rather have her son be oedipal than gay. It's one of those roles where I hope now she can do some rom-com's or adventures or something less soul-crushing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)