Tyler Perry's Madea's Family Reunion

Tyler Perry’s Madea’s Family Reunion
directed by Tyler Perry and Elvin Ross
written by Tyler Perry
starring Tyler Perry, Isaac Caree, Sonya Evans, D’Atra Hicks, Gary Jenkins, Pebbles Johnson, David Mann, Tamela J. Mann, Mike Storm, Zakiya Williams, Terrell Philips

Madea’s packing heat and smacking down anyone fool enough to question her perfect tyranny of order and substance. The play features a funeral and wedding wrapped around the throat of a family reunion. Along the way life lessons are taught, emotional mayhem reigns, and basic confusions are remedied.

Madea’s (Perry) granddaughter Lisa (Evans) is getting married to the abusive but terribly wealthy Ronnie (Storm) despite having not killed her feelings for Madea’s handyman A.J. (Jenkins). It’s one of a number of thick emotional knots that Perry gradually works out over the course of this production. Throughout there is a considerable amount of melodrama that emerges between the cracks and Perry manages to keep each life afloat over the course of the narrative. Through it all, is the totemic presence of Madea who represents a swift, hard slap upside the face to anyone’s whose feeling uppity.

The story itself involves a series of life ailments that afflict each of the characters in various measures. There is the ubiquitous crack whore Tina (Williams) who drags a baby along she just doesn’t have enough sense to care for properly. Madea’s other granddaughter Jackie (Hicks) is married to an ex-con named Kevin (Philips) and their little garden is upset when Tina comes on to Kevin and then accuses him of trying to rape her. Money and jewels go missing and it’s fairly clear that Tina is responsible for the thefts.

The play is populated with a number of gospel-tinged songs that enhance the thrust of the narrative. They are either spiritual or sentimental in nature and they manage to slow things down considerably, affording the audience the opportunity to prepare themselves for the next assault. The songs serve at touchstones that provide a considerable amount of grounding that is necessary as personalities claw at each other through various disturbances. The spiritual songs most certainly promote a very specific point of view which is paramount to fully gaining a firm understanding of the play’s intent. This is a celebration of God’s love and it informs every utterance, every note. The play is a declaration of joy, of family, and remaining true to God’s word. Certainly there are moments of strife, disillusion, pain and sorrow but in the end it all comes down to a militant spiritual core that is necessary for defeating life’s myriad demons.

The play does often feel like an exaggerated soap opera replete with grand displays of emotion and histrionics. There is always a feeling that the key issues will be resolved and that the overarching emotional content will lead to something approaching catharsis. In this play, the reunion is really just an excuse to bring together a great number of relatives from near and far. It’s a chance for the clan to ease out of their personal torments and simply enjoy each other’s company. The bulk of the play deals with strained relations and conflicts of interest.

Nothing particularly strange or unnerving happens in this play as it reflects a generic, easily digestible series of scenarios that are assimilable for the audience and easily comprehended. Everything put forth in this play is readily accessible and simply rendered. The emotions are complicated but the presentation of these emotions is absurdly simple. Also, the moral of each play is never remotely ambiguous. Everything is seen through the prisms of Christian salvation and there is a tremendous amount of giving thanks to various degrees in nearly every scene. Still, there is also a less religious aspect to this play that relates to the necessity of remaining honest to oneself and one’s values. Lisa is torn between the more humble man who can express what she does for him and one who is more financially solvent but who treats her like a trophy. It’s a classic posture for Perry as the superficially upstanding man seems to be a ready made theme in his productions. He looks for all the world like a successful, focused businessman who knows how to properly take care of things. Rather, he’s a self-centered punk who doesn’t know how to treat his woman in the right way and is in fact abusive.

Overall, Tyler Perry delivers another solid, Christian-orientated play replete with inspirational music and a clear cut message about putting one’s life in order so that it is centered around Christ and the godly path. There are also elements that deal with caring for each other despite seeming differences that threaten to eternally sever the ties that bind. These are over the top characters who behave in extreme ways and the result is a consistently funny appraisal of the intricacies that are inherent in any familial relationship dynamic. Madea is a divining rod who always finds the most volatile aspects of any situation and exploits them for her own fun and profit. She is insulting, coarse and vulgar yet her intent is pure and she always manages to do precisely the right thing when it is most needed.

Film Review--The Return of the Pink Panther

The Return of the Pink Panther
directed by Blake Edwards
written by Frank Waldman, Blake Edwards
starring Peter Sellers, Christopher Plummer, Catherine Schell, Herbert Lom, Peter Arne, Peter Jeffrey, Gregroire Aslan, Graham Stark, Eric Pohlmann, Burt Kwouk

The fourth installment in the Pink Panther franchise sees the return of Peter Sellers, Blake Edwards, Henry Mancini and the Pink Panther diamond.

As the film opens the infamous Pink Panther Diamond is being rescued from its high security prison at the Lugash National Museum by a thief who leaves the calling card of the Phantom: a single monogrammed white glove. Clouseau is put on the case and quickly bumbles his way through the initial investigation phase. He starts to trace Lady Claudine Lytton (Schell), the wife of Sir Charles (Plummer), the infamous phantom. Through a series of none-to-cunning disguises Clouseau tries to out wit his royal prey but is wholly unable to do so altogether.

Clouseau’s bumbling is less frenetic here than in the earlier two Sellers films. Instead, he tends to get physically stuck in situations rather than fall down or trip over everything in sight. The result is a more agonizing, prolonged comedic thrill as the viewer knows firmly that Clouseau is absolutely incapable of escaping unscathed and the joy is watching him become progressively more ensnared in his own trap.

The story involves the search for the persons or persons involved in the great theft of the Pink Panther diamond. Sir Charles has been clean for over four years and he lives a life or relative seclusion with his lovely wife. Sir Charles leaves for Lugash to look into the possibility that he has been set up. Clouseau moves in on Lytton Manor and manages to uncover absolutely zero useful information before being fooled into following Lady Claudine to Switzerland. He tails her very closely indeed and spends much of the film trying to accumulate evidence to nail her but he routinely fails.

So, we are left with a fool who doesn’t quite know he’s a fool looking in all the right places despite himself. It’s the standard Pink Panther formula where Clouseau manages to solve the case at the very end without accumulating even a shred of actual evidence in the process.

Inspector Clouseau is a bit more methodical in his inanity this time around. The scenes that encase his idiocy here offer elaborate set pieces that allow him to freely run amok within their structures. The sets are built with all of their disparate traps and Sellers is quickly inserted into the quiet scene and chaos mightily ensues. In this film, Sellers often walks dead into a situation that he impressively manages to make much worse. He gets caught in a revolving door, he pretends to vacuum Lady Claudine’s hotel room and nearly destroys it, he gets caught in a desk, he can’t get out of the bath without destroying the bathroom. It’s all classic Sellers and this film brings much of his genius to bear on the material.

The physical humor overall in this film is not as extensive as earlier films in the series. There is a nice bit with Catherine Schell where she slips on the floor and slides around a pole. Mostly, it comes down to less sporadic chaos and more deliberately-paced show pieces that the film is subsequently built upon. Much of the pleasure in watching Peter Sellers comes not from what he has done but rather with what he might do. With a vacuum nozzle in his hand Sellers is a very dangerous man as made evident by his witless path of destruction in that scene. One always wants to see him destroy everything that comes in his path; the pleasure comes in anticipating the potential aftermath for such a display. In this film the damage is minimal but the chaos is inspired.

Peter Sellers once again sells Clouseau’s blistering genius for getting the job done. Clouseau and Sellers were starting to forge into one being after this film. It soon became impossible to talk about one without the other. In this film, Sellers gives us the slow grind. We aren’t splattered with as much debris here but are provided with a sort of absolution through the tyranny of error. Chief Insp. Charles Dreyfus (Lom) is again driven slowly mad by the machinations of Clouseau. It’s good fun to watch Lom’s eye start twitching signaling that his character is beginning to lose it. Lom is excellent at playing it both straight and crazed and in this film he offers us both in all their flowering. Christopher Plummer is hard and lean throughout the film. He’s dashing and exceedingly persuasive as the world renowned Phantom.

Overall, this film doesn’t wholly deviate from the set, successful formula, but it does manage to stretch out key scenes of mayhem to their most illogical extremes. Clumsiness has been replaced by a lack of clear foresight. Clouseau performs a specific act and is unable to ascertain the consequences of that act. The story itself connects it to the first Panther film through the theft of the Pink Panther diamond and the work of the Phantom. It pursues Dreyfus’s insanity and overarching loathing of Clouseau through a series of humorous gags. Ultimately, the film stands as a consistently amusing installment in the franchise and sets the stage for many moments of sheer lunacy to come.

Film Review--Street Fighter (1995)

Street Fighter
written and directed by Steven E. de Souza
starring Jean-Claude Van Damme, Raul Julia, Ming-Na, Damian Chapa, Kylie Minogue, Roshan Seth, Wes Studi, Byron Mann, Peter Navy Tuiasosopo

Yet another film based on a video game, Street Fighters tackles the presence of man who is portrayed as an Evil Warlord by the proper world and as a man of peace by the dictator himself. General M. Bison (Julia) has plans on taking over the world and forcing every population to bow down before him in a grisly display of universal capitulation before the throne of the mighty one. He is facing a direct threat by the Allied Nation forces who are led by Colonel William F. Guile (Van Damme) who are hellbent on bringing him down because he has kidnapped a number of AN workers and is demanding 20 billion dollars.

The film focuses on the antics of a number of personages as they attempt to thwart the machinations of Bison and his forces. Chief among these is a local reporter named Chun-Li Zang (Ming-Na) who has a serious, long-standing grudge against Bison for a crime against her family. She’s also adept at martial arts and slinking about in sexy get-ups that are definitely a must see.

The film offers some decent martial arts fighting although it isn’t particularly special. It lacks elegance and any poetry but it isn’t bad as far as it goes. Van Damme certainly knows how to look most impressive when he’s delivering a drop kick or smashing someone’s skull. But, what makes him stand out is certainly his charisma which is patently obvious throughout the film. He immediately establishes a likability which is necessary for any heroic figure if he or she is to capture the audience and drag them along to the fight. In this case, Van Damme does this rather well; unfortunately he doesn’t have much to play with.

The story is one dimensional as it all targets the devilment of General Bison. In great Hitler fashion he is seen pondering the glorious structures he is to build once his world empire is effectively established. He is a gleeful man, filled with whimsy, and utterly unable to understand just why everyone keeps calling him a warlord. Certainly he used to be a drug lord but he simply wants everyone to get along peaceably. Of course this cannot occur until the world is his and he decides what goes and what stays. Perhaps its due to the charm of Raul Julia but Bison comes off as a wholly sympathetic character who is far more intriguing that all of the others save perhaps Guile (and that is again up to charm and charisma which few action heroes can match).

So, everything ends up at Bison’s compound and eventually a terrible battle ensues. It’s predictable, trite, and lacking in legitimate thrills. It’s like every other mediocre fighting sequences that has ever been filmed. It’s rudimentary, styleless, and coarse. It’s also cartoonish and comical at times. Bodies fly unpoetically about as the heroes make their push into the heart of the grinning beast.

As is often the case in these films the villain is far more fascinating than anyone else trudging through the film. Bison is simply a man with a divine purpose. He wants to create the ultimate soldier in order to facilitate his designs on world domination. It’s an understandable plan but of course we are supposed to consider it demonic and a grave threat to the integrity of the human race which it no doubt is in Bison’s hands. But there is just something about the way Bison prances about like a tit. His gestures are too grand, too demonstrative. At one point he even laughs manically after laying out the fabric for his master plan. In many ways it’s a caricature of the mad despot although he doesn’t actually flail his arms about or succumb to a hissy fit like a disgruntled little girl mad with power.

The film contains many familiar elements and does nothing particularly unusual with them. It’s a generic heroic mission against a tyrannical power with pretenses for global domination. The bad man must be stopped and his plan foiled. It’s up to the heroes to penetrate his lair and take him down. There are a few attempts at witty banter, many fight sequences, and one character who puts himself into direct contact with the enemy thereby risking his or her life for the good of all.

Overall, the film is nothing more than a vehicle for Jean-Claude Van Damme to represent as the anchor of a feature who can carry the weight all by himself. For the most part he succeeds but he does have some help by Ming-Na and Raul Julia who demonstrate their commitment to the project throughout the film.

Film Review--Push

Push
directed by Paul McGuigan
written by David Bourla
starring Djimon Hounsou, Dakota Fanning, Camilla Belle, Neil Jackson, Chris Evans, Cliff Curtis, Ming-Na, Nate Mooney, Maggie Siff

This convoluted, unintentionally funny film is consumed with flash and cortisone at the expense of a coherent, watchable story.

The story certainly must make sense on paper. All of the angles, strange weavings, side traps, and frustrating curvatures must be absolutely clear to whomever pitched the film but to the audience, not so much. It isn’t simply that it’s almost impossible to figure out everything that is happening, it’s that the film is so excruciatingly stylistic while it is jerking one’s chain and expecting one to adore it for that very style that is so strangling. Yes, it looks interesting at times but no more interesting that the Bourne films, “Revolver”, “The Transporter” any Bond film, or even the first couple Pink Panther movies. Indeed, the style quickly becomes a liability as it fails ultimately to serve enough as a diversion to take people’s minds off of the fact that there is no story here.

What story there is seems to involve a collection of individuals who all have various talents for mucking up time and space. They can scream to shatter glass and whatever else is in the way, some can program people’s thoughts, some can move objects around at will, and some see the future. There are many others but it isn’t clear just what they all do. What is clear is that these folks are the enemy of “The Division”, a government body who does experiments, allegedly based on those performed by th Nazis, who are said to have tested various subjects with potent new drugs designed to make them stronger and pliable to the Division’s will.

So, all of these characters push each other around as the film’s focus comes into play. There is a briefcase with something of tremendous value in it and a Watcher named Cassie Holmes (Fanning) believes it to contain $6 million US. She is working with a Mover named Nick (Evans) and she keeps reading clues and writing them down in day glo art pieces that are actually not half bad. So, she sees something and they head off to figure out what the hell they are supposed to find. Much of the film plays out this way until they realize it isn’t money that’s in the briefcase but drugs. Specifically some drug that will change the face of medicine forever. So, it’s really serious and if it gets into the wrong hands, it could create a whole race of super robotic humanoid warrior killers. And if it doesn’t fall into the Division’s hands, who knows how ugly it might get.

The film is passable at times mostly because of Dakota Fanning’s performance. She’s naturally gifted at doing the minimum necessary to make a scene work. There are no wasted movements with her for the duration of the film. She knows clearly what she wants in a scene and she conveys it every time, expertly. So, when she is on the screen, the film has an economy that it otherwise lacks. It tries to make up for this lack with fancy montages and pretty color schemes. Granted, there is an icy cool to some of the interiors but they aren’t anything we haven’t seen done better in “Eyes Wide Shut”, “A Clockwork Orange” and many other films. In fact there is nothing unusual or truly fascinating about the camera work at all in this film and the result is just another paint by the numbers attempt to fool the audience with style without giving them anything to sink their fangs into.

The film has the potential to create unsettling vistas that might make audiences truly discomforted throughout the film. But, bright lights and big city are as far as the imagination will take these people who certainly know how to put on an empty show that is nonetheless loud and vibrant. Yes, they have an understanding of color schemes and set design so that everything has a particular look and seems to fit in nicely but in the end it matters not because the story hasn’t been thought out in advance and is muddled. Actually, it’s not terribly difficult to get the general idea of what is going on but rather it is simply none too easy to understand why it is going on. Apparently the Division has kidnapped or brought in a variety of these freaks and have attempted to shoot them up with a super drug that will give them amazing powers only they keep dying. A woman named Kira Hudson (Belle) escapes after being injected and manages to be the first person to ever survive the procedure. She’s important to the others for reasons that aren’t necessarily fathomable.

The entire film was shot in Hong Kong and the film takes advantage of locations that provide the film with an immediacy that is nevertheless no more advanced than any number of superior films that have proceeded it. There is no shortage of energy although the film still manages to seem over long and its vitality is long been tapped out by the film’s conclusion. Also, the ending itself seems designed strictly for a sequel which will never be made because this film has failed to be even remotely successful financially.

Certainly the idea here is rather interesting in that the film suggests that the Nazi’s were responsible for conducting psychic research in order to create a race of superior fighters who might be able use their powers to more effectively disarm the enemy. Whether or not this is true is not of much interest. The point is to link the Nazi’s with the Division who are treated as a sinister entity bent on fulfilling its own dark agenda. It’s a neat trick and doesn’t quite work because we never quite get a handle on just what the Division does and has done to earn such opprobrium.

Overall, the look of this film isn’t special and its story possesses little nuance or purpose. It simply doesn’t stand out visually enough to trick audiences into imagining there is something more here that there actually is. What is here is vapid, superficial, and coldly calculating to elicit a particular response that never arrives. In the end it’s just loud, fast, and wholly pointless. It wastes some fine performances from Djimon Hounsou and Dakota Fanning and remains too engrossed with its spectacle to create something worth investing in.

Film Review--Gran Torino

Gran Torino
directed by Clint Eastwood
written by Dave Johannson and Nick Schenk
starring Clint Eastwood, Christopher Carley, Bee Vang, Ahner Her, Brian Haley, Geraldine Hughes, Dreama Walker, Brian Howe, John Carroll Lynch, Chee Thao

A crotchety old racist laments the incursion of Hmong residents in his neighborhoods. Everywhere he looks he is confronted with evidence that the codified, white world he once knew has been essentially eradicated by the new immigrant population.

Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) loathes all of the Hmong peoples that have moved into his neighborhood. He despises them and refuses to move out of the neighborhood he has called home for a great number of years. He laments the state of the modern world and wishes things could return to their pristine, all white state. He looks around and all he sees is an incursion of the “gooks” he confronted during his tenure in the Korean War. He is under siege and it is coming at him from all sides.

Clint Eastwood delivers an astonishingly tempered performance as a character whose rough edges slowly soften; Walt is initially grim-faced and reticent. Gradually, his face registers pleasure and excitement. Eastwood captures the slow transformation with delicacy and great finesse. There are few things more resonate in film than the lines on Eastwood’s face. They tell the viewer that this man has experienced much of what constitutes living and that his tales are vast and imaginative.

This film explores the death of whiteness and the difficulty it faces in attempting to protect itself from outside forces intent on wholly quashing it. Walt is a throwback to a different age where his neighborhood was entirely white and his prejudices really had no opportunity for expression. He knew his place and was comfortable with what he experienced. He worked hard making cars at the Ford factory and had established himself as a trusted, honorable man in the community. Then, however, the mass incursion of Hmong arrived and gradually everyone moved out but him. He is steadfastly hanging on to the old ways because he doesn’t want to admit a total capitulation. It’s the old soldier in him that refuses to allow him to give in and give up. So, he stays on, despite the increasing levels of discomfort which meet him whenever he leaves his house.

The film opens with the funeral of Walt’s wife. Here Walt witnesses an example of something else that grieves him. He sees his grand-niece Ashley saunter into the service with her navel pierced and her midriff exposed. It is more than bad taste. It is disrespectful, something that Walt decries about the youth of today.

Walt’s greatest adversary in the film comes in the form of Father Janovich (Carley), a man who seems perpetually to be searching for answers but whose religious views Walter just cannot stomach. Father Janovich wants Walt to go to confession because he clearly sees a pain in Walt and he assumes that it can be remedied by the act of unburdening his transgressions. Walt scoffs at the notion even though he is carrying around with him a considerable amount of guilt for his actions during the war. The priest refuses to back down and gradually begins to gain Walt’s confidence in the matter.

When new neighbors move in next door, Walt is necessarily chagrined. It’s just another example of what has gone terribly wrong and he resigns himself to his circumstances while vocalizing to himself his great disdain. Yet he is unable to avoid interaction which begins when his neighbor Thao tries to steal his Gran Torino to impress a gang. Walt apprehends the boy with a shotgun and lets him go. Then after Thao upsets the gang they return to his house and try to abduct him. Walt responds to the fracas, not because he wants to protect Thao, but because the fighting has spilled over onto his lawn. Still, his actions prompt the entire community of Hmong to reward him with food and plants that they place on his porch and steps. Walt cannot understand the meaning of their generosity at first because he rightfully feels that he didn’t do anything to deserve it. His actions were strictly in the spirit of self-preservation yet they were interpreted as heroic. Walter knows heroism and he realizes the circumstances that foster it. His actions do not warrant such grandiose gestures especially from a community of people who cause Walter such continuous grief merely by their proliferation and continuance.

Walter is an equal opportunity racist as evidenced by his confrontation with a trio of oversexed black males who are sizing up Thao’s sister Sue (Her) as a probable rape victim. He refers to them as “spooks” before he shoves a shotgun in their face and escorts Sue home. It is this gesture that spawns a friendship between Sue and Walt. Most of this is at her dogged insistence because she’s determined to melt Walt’s harsh exterior and it works after a fashion.

The key to this film comes in Walt’s discovery that his neighbors are not the same people who he fought during the Korean War. He begins to see them simply as people with really good food who are merely trying to establish themselves in the same way he did fifty years ago. This doesn’t altogether alter Walt’s basic outlook regarding the other. It’s an instance where one allows a certain degree of lapsing to occur when it comes to individuals one has actually gotten the chance to experience on their terms, as they actually live. This doesn’t necessarily alter the basic assumptions being made but it does alleviate some of the tensions Walt is experiencing in the neighborhood.

After Thao tries to steal Walt’s car he is punished by his parents who force him to work for Walt. In doing so Thao demonstrates both that Hmong have integrity and can work hard and that young people aren’t entirely worthless. We see Walt taking Thao under his wing and providing him with useful, practical knowledge that enriches the boy and allows Walt to share his vast storage of knowledge to someone who is willing to listen. Walt’s two sons seem only interested in getting Walt into a home and there is a grave disconnect between them and Walt. In one devastating scene Walt calls his son Mitch (Haley) is a wistful, fragile mood. He clearly just wants to be close to his son but Mitch cuts him off because of concerns he feel are more pressing. It’s a terribly sad scene played beautifully by Clint Eastwood who captures the hurt Walt feels expertly.

Walt is indicative of the ethos of hard work and capacity for creating a viable life that is both necessary and complete. He toiled for forty years at a plant assembling cars. He knows what it means to build one’s life up brick by brick and this is made clear by his collection of tools that Thao marvels at.


The performances in this film are all supremely effective. As mentioned Clint Eastwood gives us a man of infinite complexities who is nevertheless uncomplicated in his essential worldview as the film opens. His trials are psychological and emotional and he has been living with grave decisions he was forced to make as a soldier. Eastwood is decisive and forthcoming in this film. Walt is the kind of man who shakes one’s hand with vigor while looking one dead in the eye. He says you can tell a lot by how a man shakes your hand and there was a time when this observation was actually applied. Much of the joy in this film comes in watching how Eastwood moves. His body expresses itself in deliberate, elegant movements. Christopher Carley is impressive as Father Janovich. He’s grounded, solid and immovable in this film. One believes this character has the strength of his convictions and that he honestly cares about bringing about change in people’s lives. Bee Vang captures his character’s initial meekness and his gradual evolvement to a boy of legitimate strength and vitality. Ahney Her is vivacious and wholly delightful in this film. Sue’s boundless energy is a perfect counterpoint to Walt’s severity.

Overall, this film tells an exceedingly compelling story that is both poignant and decisively realistic. It’s a story that is ably told by a master who knows how to get the best out of his actors. Each of the principals in this film come together to create a lasting piece of great beauty that will remain with us, in our memories, for many years to come. The film deals with issues that continue to plague us and will so unless we are able to finally actualize common denominators between peoples in this country. Walt begins the film solidly expressing racist views that reduce several ethnic groups to gross stereotypes. He is fearful and cannot fathom why his entire neighborhood has been infested with so many of them. Yet he doesn’t want to abandon his experiences to a foreign horde of invaders. He doesn’t want to give up his place in the world despite the incursion of so many odd looking people with their peculiar ceremonies and rituals. Yet, he is brought into the strange new world and actually likes what he sees. It is mostly the environment that pleases him as well as his connections with the kids who act like a conduit between him and the elders in the family although the grandmother (Thao) continues to abhor him. Walt lives his life facing a huge brick walk that slowly crumbles to reveal a window from which he can look out and see a different kind of world from the one he is accustomed to.

Film Review--Hotel for Dogs

Hotel for Dogs
directed by Thor Freudenthal
written by Jeff Lowell, Robert Schooley
starring Emma Roberts, Jake T. Austin, Don Cheadle, Johnny Simmons, Kyla Pratt, Lisa Kudrow, Kevin Dillon, Troy Gentile, Ajay Naidu

An early contender for worst film of the year, this tawdry exercise in absolute pablum features too many dogs, hideous and charmless children, and the sadly wasted talents of Don Cheadle and Lisa Kudrow.

Indeed, one has to wonder how Don Cheadle chooses what he’s going to allow to be the vehicle through which he emotes grandly and eloquently. How did his agent sell this film because even on paper it screams Nickelodeon tv movie. It should have never made it beyond a small screen treatment but somebody greased the right poles and it inexplicably received a wide release. Don Cheadle essentially gives on of the best great actor in a terrible movie performances of recent memory. He’s consistently the only thing worth paying attention to in this ludicrous retread. Lisa Kudrow manages to get everything she can out of her role and does a pretty amazing job with limited material. She’s funny but it’s mostly her posture and body movements which score the biggest laughs. She’s just so pent up and restrained and her character does most when she’s not actually saying anything or reacting to a situation before her.

Firstly, the kids all lack even a modicum of personality except perhaps for the fat kid Mark (Gentile) who acts a bit outrageously like all fat kids do in these films. Gentile always brings a freshness into his films because he’s a fairly gifted comedic actor with excellent timing and within the limited script he manages to elicit a few laughs in this film. Otherwise, it’s the most charisma deprived gallery of kiddies one could ever hope to find. Even Gentile burns off after a while leaving a chubby husk doing tricks for food. It isn’t strictly a wretched script holding this film face down in the feces but it doesn’t help. It’s true that whenever the kids are on screen, the audience cannot wait for them to be off the screen. It’s fairly simple for me. In order, the most desirable things to see in this film are: Don Cheadle, a few of the dogs, the sidewalks and eateries, Lisa Kudrow and Kevin Dillon, a few more dogs, the closing credits, more dogs, and perhaps maybe a kid or two at the most.

Unfortunately, one has to deal with the kids in this film as at least one of them is in nearly every scene that doesn’t involve the dogs tearing through the hotel. I can’t quite ascertain just what the young people in this film are supposed to elicit out of the audience. They are so utterly generic they might as well have been cut out of a JC Penney newspaper advert. Are we supposed to identify with them and vicariously experience their journey as our own? Regardless, it’s just not a journey that is infused with any particularly fresh ideas.

The story is straightforward enough. Two moppets named Andi (Roberts) and Bruce (Austin) have a dog named Friday. Friday runs afoul of the law and gets himself locked in the pen where our heroes spring him. On the way back to their foster home, where they have not told their parents about Friday’s existence for reasons left out of the film, Friday sneaks through an opening into a derelict hotel. The kids follow him in and discover two more dogs inhabit the joint. Ultimately, this leads to Andi and Bruce rescuing every stray dog they can find and setting them up in the hotel.

The kids lost their parents five years ago and have bounced from home to home since that time. They hate their current parents, the Scudders, Lois (Kudrow) and Carl (Dillon), who spend most of their time writing dodgy guitar driven pop ditties and ignoring the kids. Naturally, the grinding wheels of the Child Welfare Services system threaten to turn the lovelies into mulch. But, such a sappy film as this is not going to let that happen because happy endings are the stuff from which such movie experiences are made. It couldn’t possibly be any other way and the film delivers a sickly, predictable, and saccharine ending that pleases noone in the end.

Well trained and cinematic dogs are always an easy sell in films. They are cute, they do tricks, and they are mostly infused with charismatic appeal. In this film it’s no different as several of the dogs stand out as having purely adorable personalities that are a joy to behold. However, a film needs much more than dogs to be effective and this film fails to deliver a story worth getting behind. Too much of a good thing can have an adverse effect on any experience and in this film there is simply too much footage of the dogs gallivanting about doing what dogs know best. With no story behind all the canine nuttiness, the scenes with the dogs actually become tiresome after a fashion.

Despite everything else that is wrong with this film the gadgetry that is devised to keep the dogs occupied in the hotel is somewhat ingenious. Great work went into creating the various contraptions that feed and entertain the dogs when the humans are elsewhere. Of course we are supposed to believe that a kid, however technically gifted, is able to construct this elaborate schema but it’s just one of many improbabilities in this film. Regardless, they are entertaining and certainly add something of value to the film.

I wonder how difficult it is to find actors who are viable enough not to be overtaken by animals in films. There just has to be a great number of young talent who could have carried this film with much more charisma and individuality than these dreadful, cookie-cutter models of everything that is wrong with contemporary American cinema. They offer nothing, serve no purpose, and deliver not a single moment of joyful surrender in their performances. This seems to be a trend that is only becoming more pronounced over time. Yet a few like young Troy Gentile are carving out a niche for themselves as energetic, thrilling and dynamic personalities who will one day be able to carry a film on their own. But they are clearly the exception and this film proves it.

Overall, this film offers nothing of note that can possibly be considered edifying. The dogs are entertaining up to a point, Don Cheadle is brilliantly understated and straightforward, Kyla Platt gives a memorable turn as Bernie’s (Cheadle) wife Heather, and there are many fine machines that serve particular purposes. Otherwise, it’s a drab, flat affair that puts the film on the fast track to the worst film of this or any year. It would be a total write off without Cheadle but even he is not able to rescue the film from its overarching inanity. He’s only in it for a handful of scenes and cannot prevent the train from leaving the tracks turning its entire passenger load into scorched sausage.

Film Review--Pray the Devil Back to Hell

Pray the Devil Back to Hell
directed by Gini Reticker

War and famine. 1990's. It’s the same old bloody story that articulates an essential characteristic of the human animal. In Liberia, a country haunted by conflict, strife, and a wholesale disregard for the well being of its population, the women were getting fed up. Instead of sitting idly by and witnessing the continuous killing and maiming of their people with no respite, they organized. This film is their story and it is both terrifying and uplifting. The film suggests that grassroots resistence can make an impact on facts on the ground and that peoples need not mask their voices when faced with various agonies that immediately effect the course of their lives.

These are mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, nieces, etc. and slowly but methodically they began to gather forces in a quest to impact the government of Liberia in finding a viable solution toward ending the bitter civil war between the embattled government of President Charles Taylor and insurgents such as Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD).

The film documents images that are deeply unsettling including children being recruited or kidnapped into bearing arms and fighting in the war. These young boys are given drugs to lower their inhibitions making them more malleable killing machines. We see them in groups being carted around in trucks, their special rifles gleaming, and a blank, expressionless look in their eyes.

As the civil war continued its unstable pace, women both Muslim and Christian unite in a singular force and begin their quiet protest. They gather and wait hoping to gain the President’s ear but are ultimately rebuffed. They weather extreme hot and hold their position perfectly unwilling to give up their fight for calm and peace. One of their leaders is a woman named Leymah Gbowee. She’s affable and driven in manner that is exceedingly rare and courageous. Eventually there are hundreds of women all wearing white t-shirts, itself an open protestation directed at the corrupt regime. They argue that women ought to deny their husbands sex until the conflict is settled.

Ultimately the women hold a sit-down protest at the Presidential palace in Ghana as negotiations are finally attempted between the two sides of the conflict. They refuse to move and are threatened with arrest but they remain firm. The film points out that the talks ultimately fail but that Charles Taylor is accused of crimes against humanity and other charges. He flees to Nigeria only to eventually resign as president in 2003. The question remains. Just how influential were these women in initiating a regime change that leads triumphantly to the rise to power of the first ever female African President, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf? The film would make it out that they were directly responsible for the removal of Taylor but these situations are often far more complex than a simple documentary film, however well constructed and ably told, can possibly reveal.

We are left with a very strong impression regarding the great potential for simple protests in impacting outrageous political circumstances. We come away with a belief that these demonstrations actually work in altering the landscape into something less rife with violence and fear-mongering. The film does a fine job setting up the conditions under which the majority of the population was forced to endure for a great many years that preceded Taylor’s reign.


This film celebrates a plea for peace in the region, and by extension, throughout the world. These women express outwardly an open, demonstrative desire to affect real and lasting change that clearly other means cannot remedy. Are they heroic or just opportunistic? Is it heroism to simply do what is the right thing to do when faced with circumstances that call for protest? Perhaps not, but there remains an impetus here that is focused entirely on facilitating the end of bloodshed, a termination of senseless violence that does not, cannot, recognize the will of those people who are caught in the crosshairs and give their lives to a struggle they can scarcely comprehend.

Film Review--Shotgun Stories

Shotgun Stories
written and directed by Jeff Nichols
starring Michael Shannon, Douglas Ligon, Barlow Jacobs, Natalie Canderday, Glenda Pannell, Michael Abbott Jr., Travis Smith, David Rhodes, Lynnsee Provence

A man dies leaving three sons by two wives. Tensions that have been building up for years between the two sets of brothers finally erupt after the old man’s funeral.

The three Hayes boys by the first woman either do not have or choose not to go by proper names. They are referred to as Son (Shannon), Kid (Jacobs) and Boy (Ligon). Son is the quiet, restrained leader who nevertheless is fully capable of action when the situation requires it. He seems to be burning with a terrible rage that he manages to keep under control. His work is trawling at a fish factory along with Kid. He has a wife named Annie (Pannell) but she’s been staying at her mother’s because whatever Son is doing isn’t right. Mostly it’s gambling because Son has himself a system that he plans on using at all the major casinos to make himself independently wealthy. Annie thinks he’s full of it and subsequently has left Son to bemoan her absence.

At his father’s funeral Son leaps out of his chair and demands to be allowed to say a few words about his dear old daddy. He proceeds to tell everyone his opinion of what a lousy rotten bastard his dad was and then he spits on his coffin. This doesn’t sit well with the three other sons, Mark (Smith), John (Rhodes) and Steven (Provence). They take the first step towards setting things right by butchering the well-loved dog owned by Boy Hayes. This leads to Kid smashing Mark in the head with a rod and either John of Stephen stabbing Kid. Both men die leaving huge gaping wounds in each family.

The feud idea is as old as cinema itself. It is handled relatively easily here and is properly maintained. The tension is felt throughout the film and a great and terrible vengeance could come down on the heads of any one of the brothers at any time. There is always a chance that it will erupt again, leaving even more dead and nobody any closer to getting to the bottom of the feud. It has been going on in words mostly for many years, probably ever since the mother was out of the picture either by death or disownment and married a new woman with three new boys to contend and compete with. Especially if you think about the psychological manipulation at play when you can’t even name your children properly and the other boys do have normal names. Add the fact that the abusive, conniving father who truly was rotten to these boys has suddenly transformed himself into a model father. There are countless reasons that resentment has been fostered here between these two sets of brothers. Each side sees the other side as weak and unviable.

We don’t get a whole lot about the boy hoods of these two groups. We also don’t find out a hell of a lot about the beginning of the feud when the father married a new woman and took on the responsibility of raising three other boys who the first lot must have viewed as intruders. Much of this feud does start with Son and co. because of all the factors mentioned but there is two sides to every battle and the other side is readily perpetuating the feud as their counterparts are.

This film capitalizes on its Midwest setting. Everything is wide open and the characters have a large area of space to maneuver themselves around. Each Hayes son in this film has the opportunity to spread out, to forget about the feud and to get back to their lives without anyone getting hurt. Unfortunately Kid loses his head and winds up getting himself killed for his brief burst of anger and frustration. It doesn’t seem like something Son would ever do; he’s more together and less likely to snap over the death of a dog. Indeed, Son is quite like Cleamon Hayes (Abbott Jr.), the eldest brother of the other clan. He’s not involved in the feud for the most part yet he is clearly capable of doing his part if it is required of him. Both he and Son want peace but aren’t sure what price they are willing to pay for it.

Shampoo (G. Alan Wilkins) is Kid’s friend who brings news regarding the other side’s actions and comments. Son and his brothers learn that the two younger Hayes boys were at the scene of the crime when Kid was murdered. This causes a direct action by Boy who ends up getting laid low by a large group of farm hands who nearly kill him with their assault. He responds by threatening to murder Cleamon in front of his children and so it goes.

It isn’t a particularly fresh film. It doesn’t do anything in an exciting, new way. But within its limits it’s an effective film that conveys what it intends to without too much wasted effort. The Hayes spawn in this film nearly all get caught up in an unnecessary feud that is severe enough to cost each side a brother. It seems ridiculous from the outside but one of the film’s merits is that it allows the viewer to get inside the heads of its characters just enough to gain an opportunity to figure out their motivation for this behavior. Still, it’s difficult to see much of anything due to the thick fog of confusion that hovers over every scene.

These are characters who are frustrated on different levels throughout the film. Their lives contain a certain core of misery that plagues them as they go about their daily existence bound by some strange oath to take care of those who threaten their autonomy or who simply piss them off in a particular way. They are ready to exert their grand physicality in a cause that resonates with them in a most specific way. Keeping the peace is not part of the program. They are merely waiting for an opportunity to strike hard, strike fast, while avoiding any repercussions in the purchase. Young Steven and John are young, trigger-happy, and exceedingly dangerous. They do not possess enough control on their own and must be reeled in by Cleamon lest they murder Boy who makes a truce gesture in a dramatic scene that at first doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It isn’t until one realizes the simplicity of his offer that it becomes more clear.

The performances in this film are all rather impressive. Michael Shannon plays Son with quiet ferocity that propels him forward throughout the film. Son is a character who seems a bit resigned to his fate and would rather avoid any direct confrontation with the other boys. Shannon provides him with a tendency to lose his bearings now and again and the resultant confusion is clearly played on Shannon’s face. Barlow Jacobs is solid in his role as Kid. He plays kid with an energy that occasionally threatens to override him. Jacobs captures the slight madness that causes Kid to take his fateful step into oblivion. Travis Smith conveys much of his characters drive and ambition. Mark is a bit hot-headed and Smith gets into his skin. He’s not a particularly deep character and there is little room for understanding. Still, the end result is an important character who is central to understanding the key argument.

Overall, this film is a satisfying investigation into the nature of conflict as it falls into the hands of those who are essentially unable to fully take responsibility for it. Actions in this film have fatal consequences that can never be washed off. Yet, there is no justice only more and more retribution until it threatens to get to a point of acute oblivion where there is but one left. To the film’s credit, it gives its characters dilemmas to work with toward the end that greatly affect the nature of the mini war.

Film Review--China Blue

China Blue
directed by Micha Peled

A fifteen year old girl leaves home and heads off to work in a jeans factory. This film documents the lack of worker’s rights and the occasionally abysmal working conditions at the factory.

Jasmine is just like many young girls who are forced to seek work rather than stay in school. She starts working as a thread cutter and spends sometimes eighteen hours per day prettifying jeans that will be sold all over the world for prices that are often more than one of these girls make in a month.

Granted, the cost of living is exceedingly cheap with a cup of tea going for half a yuan (3 c, US) and apparently college costing 3000 yuan, so the misery reports that continue to circulate aren’t entirely accurate. Still, it’s clear that the workers at this particular factory get no money for overtime, do not have sick or pregnancy leave, work insanely long hours and are fined at every turn for the most insignificant infraction. Their lives are consumed with work and they do the same, dull and repetitive task day in and day out. Seven days per week. Some get off better than others. There is one girl who learned to sew zippers and she gets off way earlier than most of the others do. She can go out and hang out with her boyfriend and go to discos. For the others there are no such opportunities as they often work well past midnight and must suffice on three or four hours per sleep per night.

Jasmine’s story is most likely typical. Girls are preferred because they are considered easy to manipulate and won’t fight back. In the film the workers do threaten to strike as their wage packets are held back for weeks. The owner, who is facing a shipping deadline that he must meet or risk losing valuable clients, relents and finally pays his employees. The girls return and work until three o clock the next day to complete the order.

Clearly very few fashionistas spend even a fleeting thought pondering just where their fancy pair of new jeans originates from. They remain painfully ignorant of the simple fact that a group of young girls have essentially performed slave labor for a wage way below the minimum just so they can fit their bony asses into the latest jeans. And should they care? Does it truly matter where something is made as long as it is made and displayed for hungry consumers who just must have it because it’s for sale? Of course it does but we don’t feel obligated to do anything about it. Everything must be new, immediate, and available. To a Chinese girl, there is a different focus. Jasmine is crestfallen because she cannot afford to go see her parents at New Years. A bus ticket home costs a month’s pay and she’s new so she’s stuck.

Wages are most likely insufficient in terms of actual spending money. One girl has enough to pay her debts, pay for room, board and food and has a little left over to send to her parents. That’s it. Working day and night nonstop with no breaks and no chance to do anything fun just so Europeans and Americans can wear designer labels does seem a trifle unbalanced. Fashion seems to require suffering although only a few zealots even seem to be pointing out the nature of the dilemma. Most of us are just dazzled by the feel of new jeans and the lowly existences of poor Chinese girls are bereft of meaning. That’s just the nature of things.


There are whistle blowers who are supposed to determine if certain factories are mistreating their workers but the film points out that they never seem to find anything. The film then goes on to state that this is because the owners and managers of the factories train the girls how to lie to make it seem that they are truly happy doing what they do. But who could be happy in such conditions? What kind of pleasure or opportunity for growth can there be in such a situation? Apparently not much although Jasmine has created a super heroine character who flies away from the absolute boredom that afflicts her life. It most likely keeps her sane in an utterly insane situation.

Overall, this film shows that all of China’s pretenses toward democracy are not improving the lives of its factory workers. It’s clear that these girls are being exploited because there is nobody who will stand up for them if their conditions become intolerable. They can risk a strike but ultimately it would just cost them their jobs. There is absolutely no protection because unions are outlawed and there is no recourse for grievances. They did manage to get their wage packets weeks late but only because they refused to work. If there wasn’t the tremendous pressure on the factory staff to meet the deadline, perhaps they might not have been so lucky.

Film Review--Triage: Dr. James Orbinski's Humanitarian Dilemma

Triage: Dr. James Orbinski's Humanitarian Dilemma
directed by Patrick Reed

As a guiding light in world humanitarian efforts, Dr. James Orbinski has seen more than his share of utter heart break. He accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999 on behalf of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) for which he was a field doctor during the Somali famine and the Rwandan genocide. In this film he traces his steps 15 years since he first took the assignment and put his best foot forward in the effort to save lives.

Dr. Orbinski, a native of Toronto sets aside his daily life as a professor at the University of Toronto and as a doctor in order to reinforce memories that have haunted him from afar for the decade and a half since his work ended there.

Dr. Orbinski seems destined to apply his many medicinal talents to the project of easing misery in some of the most hostile territory on the globe. He is focused and driven in a way that few human beings ever are. The film shows us three countries as they stand today. Somalia, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo become for Orbinski a chance to come to terms with what he has seen and what he hopes to see in the future.

We learn that human life can be and is treated with almost a sense of disdain in places where there is no stability and lives are lost for a variety of reasons that are wholly unnecessary. The militant government in Somalia, to take one example, often stymied the influx of foodstuffs that were so desperately needed by a population slowly succumbing one person at a time. In this climate of political unrest and rampant famine, Dr. Orbinski worked against incredible odds to reduce suffering as much as it was possible and to bring hope to the region. His safety was always threatened and there were many instances where there was simply nothing he could do to save a life.

By his own estimation, Dr. Orbinski and his team were able to aid over 80,000 sick and starving individuals who most likely would have died without the assistance. They built dozens of MSF clinics and a hospital which enabled them to perform their tasks more effectively.

The effect of the film is deeply troubling and moving. There is a genuine feeling of despair that cannot be washed off. Poverty, disease, and limited access to medicine and hospitals have ravished these populations and led to moments of outcry from the few who recognize the horrors imbedded in the landscape. Dr. Orbinski is one of those who has come face to face with the ultimate enemy of mankind. He has experienced all of human kind’s darkest instincts and has written a book to help himself make sense of all of the chaos, pain, and mayhem that he has witnessed firsthand. He is described in the film as both cynical and optimistic about what can be done to further ease the burden of suffering that so many must endure on a daily basis. He is cynical about mankind’s ability or interest in solving these glaring problems that continue to plague such large and imposing groups of people.

In Rwanda, he was there during the mass killings that took the lives of at least 500,000 persons. He saw firsthand what politically sanctioned death initiatives can do to an entire population. In this film he bears witness to the suffering simply be describing what he has seen and where he has been. He doesn’t preach any message save compassion for those who are so unduly afflicted and are too weak to establish even a modicum of their rights as participants in the whole human experiment. The film can be seen as an open call to those qualified to help and who are willing to subject themselves to great stress and danger for the pure purpose of saving lives. He never lets the audience forget just how treacherous this particular life can be but he also reminds them that without the continuing efforts of doctors, scientists, and others the situation would be a whole lot worse.

Overall, this film is yet another reminder of the struggle for decency in embattled regions that continues to seem like an almost unwinnable situation. Nevertheless, it puts forth a strong case that despite all of the horrors and difficulties the work remains and will always remain paramount because to do nothing is to sanction the atrocities, the sickness and the death. Dr. Orbinski is an example of a lone individual who has chosen to put himself at risk in a true humanitarian sense and has come back from his experiences with enough material to forge a book that will undoubtedly shed even more light on various health crises that continue to plague various regions throughout the world.

Film Review--It Came from Outer Space

It Came from Outer Space
directed by Jack Arnold
written by Harry Essex
based on a story by Ray Bradbury
starring Richard Carlson, Barbara Rush, Charles Drake, Joe Sawyer, Russell Johnson, Kathleen Hughes

In this rather drab and unexceptional film adaptation of a Ray Bradbury story, aliens crash land near a mine field in Arizona causing a bit of a glaring concern. Admittedly, the 3-D effects add to the overall impact of the film but they aren’t enough to make up for a formulaic story utterly lacking substantive necessity.

John Putnam (Carlson) is an astronomer and a writer. He’s hanging out with his frigid girlfriend Ellen Fields (Rush) when a meteor like objects makes impact nearby. Naturally he investigates and learns that there is more to it than meets the eye. He makes several failed attempts he gets Sheriff Matt Warren (Drake) to believe his cockamamie story about the alien’s joy of kidnapping humans, replicating them, and walking around pretending to be their captives. Eventually he succeeds but Warren is more interested in blasting the critters to oblivion than attempting to learn anything from them. The aliens do nothing at all interesting with their amazing ability. They kidnap some transients and others but they could have done so much more. Indeed, there isn’t a whole lot of imagination on display in this film. The set designs are uninspired and mostly very ugly. The aliens themselves are not nearly as hideous as they are made out to be. They are supposed to be too ugly for humans to look at and they aren’t even mildly repulsive. They look like the inside of a refrigerator.

Ellen Fields is a bored teacher who seems to have no other role in this film than to pretty much go along with everything the men determine to be right. There is a scene where she’s standing high on a ledge of a cliff wearing a foxy dress and she actually looks aloof and glamourous. Of course she’s been replicated and what we are seeing is the alien inhabiting her body. She lets loose with a laser straight at the audience and the result is the most thrilling use of 3-D technology in the film. Otherwise she keeps her mouth shut and remains frustratingly in the background.

The absolute best moments in the film involve a very brief scene with a woman named Jane (Hughes). Hughes is only in the film for a couple of minutes but she makes a dramatic impact that is lost on the other actors in the film. She comments on her husband Matt’s hunger and the way she says it makes it clear what she is really talking about. Then when she leaves the room she says goodbye in such a way that it too is clearly suggestive of something quite naughty indeed. Unfortunately, her scene comes and goes and it’s soon back to figuring out what to do with the aliens.

The film is exceedingly claustrophobic but not in an exciting, sickening way where the film feels like it is about to crush the viewer. No, this film is simply limited to a few people who have an encounter with an ingenious race of beings who have a secret mission that is not fully revealed. It would have been thrilling to see them turning on the humans, especially the police force, but they don’t. They are wholly benign save of course their tendency to capture stray humans who get in their way.

All that is left is a 3-D experience that does manage to add a viable element to the production. There is great depth and objects are set apart from their backgrounds in an intriguing way. On occasion something like a rock flies into the audience’s faces but these moments are few and far between. Still, it’s absolutely worth seeing in this format because it is how it was intended to be seen and it’s always important to take advantage of these opportunities for novelty.

The story itself is certainly intriguing. The ideas behind it are fascinating and possess limitless possibilities in terms of application. The idea that an alien race of beings could in fact copy humans and inhabit their bodies for any purpose imaginable definitely has its merits. If only it were attacked here with more enthusiasm; perhaps it would have become something truly vital and terrifying. Aliens are supposed to scare us to death and we demand that they be frightening and capable of searing our minds with terrible images that have a lasting impact. Or, if they don’t fit into this category, they should at least have some sort of erotic appeal that is aesthetically stimulating. These creatures are just a junk heap and it’s a shame.

I wanted to at least watch the replication process. I wanted to witness the terror in the eyes of the captives, particularly Ellen. I wanted to see her when she is unduly scared. Science Fiction films get a lot of traction out of the fear exhibited by their female stars. Of course most of them just gawk and do nothing to save themselves from the imminent catastrophe. In this one Ellen just gets herself caught and is totally at the mercy of the alien forces coupled with the men outside’s ability to solve the dilemma. She is unable to effectively extricate herself from the dire situation and is essentially a victim for much of the film.

Charles Drake gives the Sheriff a rustic tenacity that is a grounding point in the film. Warren is rough and fully capable of at least initiating a mission to protect the population from any further incursions into their way of life. He’s the one solid and true character in the film and his actions make sense throughout. Richard Carlson is not utterly bereft of charm but he masks it in his everyman persona which the film is clearly going for in Putnam’s characterization. Subsequently, he’s bland and neutral which means he’s as boring as sitting around with your fat aunts Helen and Helga watching “The Price is Right” reruns. Barbara Rush has been described as pretty but not too pretty. It actually works in this film because otherwise she’d be a distraction and because the film is so dreadfully blase the male viewer would cast their gaze entirely on her. She’s frigid, certainly, but her buttoned up sexuality isn’t really present. There is nothing here just begging to be released by some cruel lover. Kathleen Hughes sells immediate sex in a few words and one gesture. It is the only sex in the entire film and it stands out for its frankness and immediacy.

Overall, this film enjoys legitimate cult status that most likely grows every year. I’m not certain what people are seeing when they view it but I find it lacking a real sense that the aliens represent some sort of danger that must be averted. They merely appear, do some mighty fine tricks, and are gone again. The humans, save a couple, are spiritless like many characters in sci-fi, unfortunately. One doesn’t quite care what happens to them and would rather they be systematically disposed of in as cruel and heartless a manner as possible. Of course this is not that sort of film and it probably shouldn’t be. It is most likely designed to make the audience uneasy but it doesn’t manage to successfully pull this off. There is no sense of panic. A thoroughly menacing and terrifying film might have come out of these ideas but this isn’t it.

Film Review--The Reader

The Reader
directed by Stephen Daldry
written by David Hare,
based on the novel by Bernhard Schlink
starring Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes, David Kross, Vijessna Ferkic, Hannah Herzsprung, Bruno Ganz, Lena Olin, Alexandra Maria Lara,

In this gripping British drama film, based on the German novel by Bernhard Schlink, loyalty and the purity of young lust is examined with clarity and precision.

The film follows the lives of two individuals whose paths meet rather by chance. Michael Berg (Kross) gets off a tram in the pouring rain and vomits in an alleyway. He is attended to by a woman named Hanna Schmitz (Winslet) who cleans him up a bit and walks him partway home. Michael comes down with Scarlet Fever and is bedridden for three months. After recovering he pays a visit to Hanna and the pair quickly become sexually involved.

The film treats the affair rather artfully, with a lot of close ups of quivering flesh, soft lighting and a light, breezy score. One cannot help but retain the knowledge that this is a wholly illicit and in many places illegal coupling. We are supposed to view it as a lovely thing, wholesome, and beautiful for itself. It is untrammeled passion between two people utterly famished for the opportunity.

The relationship is built around both sex and texts. Michael brings books and begins to read them to Hanna. He reads “The Odyssey”, “Hucklelberry Finn”, Sappho, Schiller, and most prominently “The Lady with the Dog” by Chekov. Hanna revels in this experience even managing to cry during a particularly tragic moment. They read, satiate themselves, and read some more. Hanna points out that Michael is an excellent reader, an observation that is important for the rest of the film.

The salient aspect of this relationship is Hanna’s position of power. She controls most everything that occurs from the type of position she wants to employ to when they will be reading to the time they are to meet. She dominates the entire spectrum of behaviors that the couple engage in and Michael has little say about how events are orchestrated. Of course he doesn’t seem to mind considering how he’s dipping his wick every day in a real life grown up woman who is able and willing to fulfil his every desire. She gives him what he confuses for sex and he gives her another trophy on her mantle piece. She claims to love him but only after telling him that he doesn’t matter to her. Regardless, she has commandeered the relationship and is in a position of direct authority.

The film fast forwards six years or so and Michael is in law school under the tutelage of Professor Rohl (Ganz) who takes the small class into the courtroom to observe a trial. Michael is fidgety, looking nervously about until his eyes fix on the defendant. It is Hanna and she is being tried for war crimes. Michael becomes flush and nearly nauseous. Yet he is transfixed by the alleged crimes his former lover committed.

The trial of Hanna Schmitz takes up a considerable portion of the film. She is being charged in relation to a specific event that happened when she was a guard in the S.S. According to the affidavit Hanna and five other guards herded a large group of Jewish women into a church and bolted the doors. In the night a bomb hit the church and set it alight. As the women rushed the door screaming and wailing, none of the guards came to their aid. They let three hundred women die in the fire. When drilled for an explanation Hanna ridiculously states that the prisoners were their responsibility. They couldn’t let them go because the resultant chaos would be impossible to manage.

The film hinges on a special piece of information that Michael has been made privy to regarding Hanna. He says it is something that could change the course of her trial if not exonerate her. The only problem is that Hanna is too embarrassed by the information and would never want it made public. Regardless, it’s a narrative trick that seems designed to portray Hanna in a more forgiving light. It shows her as vulnerable, human.

Hanna is certainly a complex enough woman for several film treatments. When we first meet her she is working as a tram conductor in the late fifties. She is roughly fifteen years beyond the war and has seemed to have put it behind her. Unfortunately a woman named Ilana Mather (Lara) has written a book that features the issue of the church fire. Her mother Rose (Olin) was in the fire and in fact was the only one who escaped. Without the book it is unlikely that Hanna would have ever been tried but once the story made it into print, her fate was effectively sealed. As it is both the author and mother make appearances in the trial and there is much hand ringing. Hanna gives no indication, before her arrest, of looking over her shoulder. She presents herself as an exceedingly officious person with a keen sense of detail and order. Her job position affords her the opportunity to exploit the same tendencies that made her such an effective Nazi guard. Still, one gets the impression that she misses the codified world she inhabited when she was pushing Jewish women about and exhibiting all of the fine characteristics expected from her position. It appears on her face that she knows she is slumming a bit and that certain faculties are not being properly exercised in her present position.

The film makes its case for humanizing Hanna through many close ups that show her in various states of confusion and distress. At least it wants the audience to entertain the option that she is actually a human being who merely acted under orders. It’s an exceedingly complicated thing that cannot be fully actualized. On the one hand we see a woman capable of expressing instances of genuine affection. She laughs, she’s a good lay, etc. In the end she makes one grand gesture that of course makes up for nothing but it at least demonstrates she’s capable of a type of generosity. On the other hand there is the issue of all the Jews she actively allowed to go to their deaths. In most people’s minds, not manipulated by the affects of cinema, the Nazi activity trumps every other kind deed and she is thereby a wholesale monster deserving of whatever fate is meted out to her. I’m not so sure if that’s how we are supposed to feel. Perhaps we’re not supposed to feel any particular way; we’re only to keep a few possible reactions in mind while we pursue our analysis of this film.

We hear quite a bit about the church fire but we do not actually see it. For dramatic purposes I wonder how much harsher the reaction to Hanna would be if we witnessed everything that is alleged to have happened that day. Would it change anything if we saw her and the other guards standing about smoking cigarettes and chatting amongst themselves while the prisoners screamed in terror and the church burned? Or would this disrupt the finely honed balance between sympathy and disgust that the film is so carefully trying to maintain? Would it visually, and therefore too readily, create a portrait of her that can never be redeemed? Speculation, without visual documentation, can be skewed many different ways. But once you see what she has done, your mind is most undoubtedly set. Unless of course you take the position of the guards and sympathize with the job they are forced to do and can understand the difficulties they would face if any of the women managed to escape.

Kate Winslet gives a performance that certainly deserves to be considered one of those most likely to take home an Oscar although I liked her performance in “Revolutionary Road” more. Still, it’s controlled, intelligent, and it’s really near impossible not to sympathize with her on some level. She captures a certain aloofness and her character has a chilliness about her throughout the film that doesn’t ever wash off. Even when Hanna is in the throes of ecstatic release there is a remarkable distance between her and the body she is employing to sate her wanton lusts. Winslet plays Hanna as something of an enigma and it is difficult to ascertain the impetus for her crumbling pronouncements. Ralph Fiennes creates a character who is eternally possessed and haunted by his boyhood sexual experiences with Hanna. There is a sadness about his eyes that is consistent throughout the film. He seems lethargic at times and stuck in place. David Kross brings a youthful enthusiasm into his role as Hanna’s young paramour. Michael demonstrates a deep appreciation for the word and Kross uses this as a guide to maneuver his way throughout the film. Michael is driven, focused unswervingly on the future. Still, he is horrified by what he apprehends when he sees Hanna in the courtroom. Kross captures all of the sickly emotions tied in to such a painful moment.

Overall, this film doesn’t articulate any intended response it designs to elicit out of it’s audience. Hanna is a character who has committed reprehensible actions but who possesses real human traits such as tenderness and warmth. She is a common woman who is thrust into a most uncommon situation and she simply followed orders without question. Of course this is no excuse for letting your humanity slip to the point that you can stand by while three hundred individuals with lives and families are burnt to death. Ultimately, the film unleashes a litany of questions about what makes one a “good” person and how it may change over time. What is “good” about Hanna is battling with all of her atrocious deeds in the eyes of the viewer. Yes, she is responsible for the deaths of many women. But she also sheltered certain prisoners and protected them from the gas chambers. It’s a wholly complicated situation that proves how difficult it is to make a fair assessment about anyone. In this case, Hanna is certainly to be held responsible for any crimes against humanity that can be unilaterally proven against her. She should also not be allowed to go about recruiting young boys to satisfy her sexual needs. But, the question remains. What sort of person is Hanna Schmitz? Can inhuman acts be seen as an anomaly in someone’s character? Should they always define that person or is some sort of rehabilitation possible in the eyes of the civilized world?

Film Review--This Dust of Words

This Dust of Words
written and directed by Bill Rose

In 1999, fifty year old Elizabeth Wiltsee went missing. This film traces her steps from her precocious childhood to the final journey she undertook after saying she was going home.

By all accounts Elizabeth Wiltsee was exceedingly uncommon. Rated with an IQ of 200 she was always on the fast track for tremendous success. She read Homer in the original Greek, taught herself Mandarin Chinese, and was equally adept at both Science and Literature. She possessed an uncanny ability to penetrate into the very heart of things and much of this film is based upon an essay written by one of her Stanford English Professors, a man named John Felstiner. Felstiner relates his take on Elizabeth and its fraught with tension and tenderness and allows for something of a portrait to emerge.

After Graduation Elizabeth eschewed furthering her education and au paired in Paris for a bit before moving to Spain for a year. She moved back to the States and found work in various libraries along the way. She also wrote feverishly completing two novels, numerous plays, and critical essays. She took a job as a proofreader but she couldn’t restrain herself from adding her own editorial commentary on the works as well. Eventually, she ended up in California where she rented a room in Watsonville. A few years later she was kicked out and became from that point on a homeless person. At some point she began hearing voices and became acutely paranoid that her phone was being tapped and that she was being watched.

Elizabeth’s family have put the pieces together and concluded that she suffered from Paranoid Schizophrenia although she was never properly diagnosed mainly because she both feared and loathed the prospects of visiting a doctor for any reason. She fell ill with adult-set measles when she was thirty and her family believed that the difficulties she later faced were born with that sickness. This is never discussed in the film because director Bill Rose felt it would pervert the narrative.

Regardless of the source of her illness, one cannot help but ponder over the connection between near genius and mental illness. Elizabeth seemed to be the classic free spirit who refused to be pinned down and who moved around without constraint. There is no explanations here about what happened to her or why. All we are left with is a portrait of a beautiful, vivacious young woman who managed to slip into the skull of Samuel Beckett in her 1970 senior thesis.

This is a story that proves the adage, “There but by the grace of God go I”. The line between mental illness and so-called normalcy is of course paper thin. One feels baffled that such a gifted person, with rare and possessive talents, could ever find herself grappling with imaginary voices and periodic fits of absolute rage. She took refuge in a parish and slept in the doorway. She spent her days in Watsonville at the library where she studied Chinese poets and read everything she could get her hands on. One wonders about her lucidity and perhaps if she did indeed retain her unassailable ability to see more clearly than just about everyone else. What solace did it give her if any? What does a brilliant mind do when parts of it start to shut down?

Elizabeth Wiltsee is a phantom who haunts this film from start to finish. Through a voice over artist we hear her words from her novel as the camera moves slowly over water. It’s calming, soothing, but her words are deeply melancholic and fueled with dread and a quiet resignation.

A key aspect of this documentary are the individuals who stretched out a hand when Elizabeth was sleeping on the steps of the parish. One concerned woman named Toni Breese gave her peanut butter, yogurt and apples as well as a list of all the church goers along with their pictures so she might be able to connect with them. Another was a man named Walter Washington, a language arts teacher at the school attached to the parish, who brought her into the Fishes and Loaves soup kitchen and managed to get her to open up to him about her past. In fact a reporter wrote a piece on Elizabeth whom everyone seemed to know and concluded that the entire town had pitched in and were supporting her.

This film does not attempt to capture its subject because she will always remain elusive. She is an enigma that forever will remain distant and strange to anyone who attempts to solve her if only for a short while. All that is left are fragments that do not remotely express a viable truth about this single individual. Indeed, this film articulates a basic fact that will always separate even the closest friends. It is impossible to effectively read every facet of another person and there will always be gulfs that develop, lacks of understanding and empathy. Elizabeth Wiltsee lived through texts. They became her escape and most likely kept much of the violence in her head from spilling out in even more dramatic outbursts.

Elizabeth existed in a mental realm populated by the very few. Clearly her life was consumed with a mad array of possibilities regarding any type of future she might have desired. She turned her back on it and decided to pursue a more low-key existence on her own terms. It’s not easy to understand the nature of her motivation for skipping out on the brilliant future others had already mapped out for her. Perhaps it has most to do with her disdainful attitude for academe. She wrote furiously for much of her life and many of her later works were politically-oriented plays although she herself did not confess to being remotely political. Somewhere along the line the words betrayed her and began to come at her in frightening and unpredictable ways. She who filled her mind with phrases, formulas, arguments was ultimately crushed underneath their collective weight.

Overall, the film provides a rich portrait, one of many possible portraits, of a complicated woman who was difficult for many to effectively know as far as it is possible to know another person. Her mind soaked up everything she encountered and she is remembered as impossibly bright, vibrant, and consumed with an overarching desire to know everything. She never lost her thirst for knowledge, not even when the voices were attempting to impede her progress. There is something terribly romantic about someone spending most of her day obsessing over this or that special text. One can’t help but wonder if her ability to process all this material changed as her disorder worsened. Did she move from more or less a full understanding to one that was more fragmented or were the fragments always there? Are there always signs that precede the development of major mental afflictions? Can these be extracted from her Samuel Beckett thesis, plays and novels?

Film Review--A Shot in the Dark

A Shot in the Dark
directed by Blake Edwards
written by Blake Edwards and William Peter Blatty
based on the play “L’idiot” by Marcel Achard
starring Peter Sellers, Elke Sommer, George Sanders, Herbert Lom, Tracy Reed, Graham Stark, Moira Redmond,

In the second installment in the manic Pink Panther franchise, sex and murder create a mesmeric backdrop against which high lunacy plays itself out.

A lovely maid named Maria Gambrelli (Sommer) is the target of a murder investigation after her boyfriend is shot dead and she is discovered holding the still smoking murder weapon. Inspector Jacques Clouseau (Sellers) is put on the case and it doesn’t take him long to determine that Maria is not guilty of the crime. Most of his analysis has no basis in fact and he is indeed going strictly with both his instinct and his carnal lust for Maria. The film spends a lot of time orchestrating the budding romance between the two as the bumbling and idiotic Inspector continues to work toward solving the case. He has Maria released from prison mostly because he wants to goggle at her while pursuing his strict romantic interests.

Soon, there is a total of four murders and each time Maria is implicated. Each time Clouseau has her released and these actions irritate the Commissioner Charles Dreyfuss (Lom) who routinely ponders the legitimacy of having Clouseau on the case. Clouseau is repeatedly taken off and reinstated as Benjamin Ballon (Sanders), the owner of the home where the murder was committed, manages to have him put back on the case.

The formula is followed rather succinctly in this filming. Clouseau is a clumsy jackass who fails at every attempt to get any closer to the murders. He ruins suits, falls into a fountain, and embarrasses himself at every turn. He even tears poor Maria’s dress during a fumbling attempt at lovemaking. He simply hasn’t a clue yet despite everything he manages to solve the crime which in the end is his only mission. He is known for his acute sensory memory which aids him well during his struggle to formulate a plan. He simply sees and hears things that nobody else does and this ability gives him an edge over the others in his field. He is hired because he is always the best man for the job and clumsiness aside he proves this with his tremendous success rate.

The sight of a naked Clouseau stumbling through a nudist colony is exceedingly funny. Particularly as he insists on covering his naughty bits with an acoustic guitar that makes him conspicuous and even more ridiculous. He manages to get himself arrested on four different occasions for purely absurdist reasons including painting and selling balloons without a license.

In essence Inspector Clouseau in this film is nothing short of a horn dog chasing and capturing tale that he can not afford to lose sight of. Maria for her part is perfectly willing to go along with whatever whim Clouseau introduces into her prim little world.

Elke Sommer is the perfect combination of mischievous little girl and satanic tigress waiting for the right moment to pounce. Sometimes her face is the model of innocence and it betrays the sweltering heat that dwells within her candy breast. She is one of the more succulent damsels to appear in a major film production. It’s a pleasure just watching her move across the screen; she is impossibly elegant and always impressively stylish. It’s charming to imagine her as a mass murderer but of course the film does not afford one such luxuries. It’s no mystery that she is not responsible for the killings but for a brief moment one can entertain the idea and it’s scintillating.

Inspector Clouseau is of course now rightly recognized as one of the seminal characters in cinematic history. His unbalanced antics have charmed film goers in a total of eleven films including the recent remakes. In this film Peter Sellers begins to add to his character’s repertoire a series of bumbled French phrases which would become synonymous with the trip-happy Inspector. The combination of cleverly constructed physical comedy with the French language torture is irresistible especially how Sellers presents it.

Peter Sellers must have found it peculiarly challenging to master the sheer lunacy embodied by his Inspector Clouseau. There are moments where the character is chillingly serious but one knows another accident is just around the corner and that it will be dramatic and over-the-top. There haven’t been too many, if any, bumbling Inspectors in cinema so it’s true when director Blake Edwards states that the character is something of an original. Sellers certainly brings a freshness to the role that is demonstrated most clearly in his boundless energy and ability to redeem himself after so many lousy spills.

Overall, this film furthers the mysterious oddity that is Inspector Clouseau and follows him as he stumbles blindly through a case he knows instinctively he is going to solve. It is demonstrated in this film that Clouseau is simply cursed by a lack of symmetry with physical objects. He’s idiotic in his relationship with things but at his core he’s actually a very capable Inspector. He simply knows things that others fail to see and it is this extraordinary capacity that leads him to his man or woman time and time again. He’s just a bit hapless when it comes to performing fundamental tasks that most people, bereft of the affliction, take for granted. The film features Elke Sommer at her titillating best which is always a cause for celebration. She adds a massive amount of sex appeal that never wanes over the course of the film. The stunts are immaculately performed and elaborately staged. They tend to drive the film forward as they become more necessary as the film progresses. It simply becomes a matter of waiting for the next great fall and occasionally but rarely the tomfoolery supercedes the actual story. Still, it’s a fascinating tale and filled with memorable moments that are as infectious as that little pout Elke Sommer delivers to cement her place as one of the centuries truly great sex kittens.

Film Review--The Pink Panther (1963)

The Pink Panther (1963)
directed by Blake Edwards
written by Maurice Richlin and Blake Edwards
starring Peter Sellers, David Niven, Robert Wagner, Capucine, Brenda De Banzie, Claudia Cardinale,

In the first installment in the Pink Panther franchise, the infamous idiot Inspector Jacques Clouseau (Sellers) battles a world renowned jewel thief known only as “The Phantom”.

A lovely Princess named Dala (Cardinale) is in possession of the largest diamond in the world which is flawed deep inside with the shape of a leaping Pink Panther, thus its name. It was a gift from her father, the Shah of Lugash, when she was a little girl and naturally it’s desired by nefarious creeps the world over. The Princess is a slinky thing, purring enticingly as she quietly observes the dissolute revelers around her. She is referred to in the papers as “The Virgin Queen” and falls into the waiting arms of Sir Charles Lytton (Niven) who attempts to woo her by plying her with too much champagne. Charles is also attempting to steal her diamond as he is the one and only Phantom, a thief who has been confounding authorities for more than twenty years. During this entire run he has struck every year at one of the many parties thrown by socialite Angela Dunning (Banzie), a chatty broad who takes her elevated lot in life a bit too seriously.

The film has a swingin’ sixties vibe to it as it seems to be filled with wealthy types who apparently have too much free time on their hands. They dance, they drink, and they carry on like hogs at a feeding trough. There is a hint of scandal in the air as the crowds swoon and titter about nothing in particular. Angela’s parties are always lavish affairs and this one includes a mad array of costumes including a zebra, two gorillas and a number of strange and slightly elegant concoctions.

Inspector Clouseau’s naughty little wife Simone (Capucine) is sneaking around behind his back with Sir Charles. She’s also helping the master thief in his attempt to realize his latest score. Of course the bumbling Clouseau has no clue about anything whatsoever especially the filthy maneuverings of his treasured wife.

The film is based around the clumsiness and buffoonery of Clouseau. He routinely falls down, runs into things, destroys clothing and other objects, and essentially anything that isn’t nailed down. Peter Sellers is indeed deserving of his reputation as a comedic genius because it can’t be all that easy to behave so destructively on purpose. Falling down is as old a staple in comedy as comedy itself. There are few who turn it into ballet however and Sellers is certainly one of those. It’s one of those things that gets funnier the more you see it and this isn’t the case with many who have lived and died by the pratfall. Indeed, Sellers is one of the few who have elevated the discipline to high art.

The film oozes with bawdy sex appeal as the party goers dance and flirt playfully throughout the course of the evening. There is a ribald essence to each maneuver and the players all seem ready for some illicit encounter or another. Of course the most succinct player is Sir Charles who it is described can juggle ten women at once and not drop a single one. David Niven certainly has the correct approach in this film. He infuses Sir Charles with the proper intensity and charisma which it is clear can not be resisted by any woman fool enough to get caught in his lair. Sir Charles is the best kind of anti-hero. He’s more attractive and genuine than any other man in the room and his confidence knows no bounds. His luck with the ladies proves that ambition coupled with an overarching desire can be insistent enough to convince just about any woman to slip out of her clothes for a special rendezvous. Of course there is always a Princess Dala to make things interesting.

The film isn’t as much about the Pink Panther as it is about selling a free and loose lifestyle enjoyed by those who can afford most of life’s pleasures and take advantage of this fact at every turn. There are several long scenes between characters who suffer various frustrations that afflict them in interesting ways. One such scene depicts the Princess and Sir Charles as he attempts to lay on the charm and sway her into his bed. Unfortunately for Sir Charles she is devoted to her virginal status and manages to pass out on champagne before he can make his move.

Sir Charles’s son George shows up straight from Yale with the sole intention of stealing the diamond and blaming the theft on the Phantom. Unfortunately he discovers that his dad is the master thief which puts a bit of a kink in his plans. Subsequently he spends all of his time trying to get into Simone’s panties. Simone is relegated to fending off all of his many advances and he seems unwilling to take no for an answer. It’s but another relationship trouble that is prevalent throughout the course of the film. The only one not benefiting from the slippery sexual politics is Inspector Clouseau who seems too bent on causing inadvertent mayhem through his bumbling stupidity. He’s forced to eschew sexual gratification in order to solve the case once and for all after failing so many times before.

As mentioned Peter Sellers is supremely entertaining throughout this film if witnessing a buffoon stumbling about and knocking everything over in his path is particular to one’s brand of comedic bliss. But what really impresses is the solidity of his performance when he’s not falling down and making an ass out himself. He’s very good at playing it straight and mock-serious as the audience awaits the next great physical demonstration. David Niven has all of the attributes one expects from a Lothario who can bed any woman he desires. Sir Charles is cool, well ordered, and exceedingly graceful throughout. His ease of movement is intoxicating and it’s easy to live through him as he goes about the business of securing the holy diamond and trying to bed any woman he encounters. Niven captures ever aspect of the ideal male character with such ease that it’s almost perverse. His charm is ruthless and brutal in its effectiveness. Capucine captures her character’s core desirability and her insatiable sexual appetite. Claudia Cardinale is perfectly cast as Princess Dala. She’s highly believable as the luxurious sex pot who refuses to give her self up to just any man, including the celebrated Sir Charles. Yet Cardinale plays her as robust and genuinely affected but there is but a hint of sadness to the character that Cardinale reveals mostly through her eyes.

Overall this is a top notch comedy of errors that has the extra bonus of the perennially baffled Inspector Clouseau irritating everyone about him with his foolish antics. He does everything wrong and the exaggerated results of his faulty actions lend the film an air of absurdity which it uses effectively. Clouseau is simply one of the few characters whose actions are immediately recognizable and Sellers remains for many the seminal portrayer of this menacing pest who is a real and lasting threat to himself and others. His behavior is just one of the many reasons that make this film so successful. It’s got mystery, sex, and betrayal and these components work together to create a thoroughly engrossing film that never loses its momentum.

Film Review--The Wrestler

The Wrestler
directed by Darrin Aranofsky,
written by Robert D. Siegel
starring Micky Rourke, Marisa Tomei Evan Rachel Wood, Ernest Miller

Two people struggle to come to terms with the ravages of age and the feeling that life has become increasingly more difficult at every turn.

Robin Ramzinski known to his legions of fans as Randy “The Ram” Robinson (Rourke) used to be a wrestling champion who once fought a match against the Ayatollah (Miller) at Madison Square Garden in front of 20,000 fans. Twenty years on he’s picking up weekend matches on the local circuit while working part time unloading at a grocery store. Pam, known as “Cassidy” to her customers at a local strip club, is no longer as desirable as a lap dancer as she once was. She’s a thirty plus mother of an eight year old boy and she knows instinctively that she needs to get out of the game of selling the illusion of sex for cold hard cash.

Randy is one of Cassidy’s regulars and she insists on treating him like a customer because it’s the law of the club that she is prohibited from fraternizing with him. She tries to cement this idea in Randy’s head but he refuses to listen. He convinces her to have a beer with him and they share a brief kiss. It’s handled with great delicacy and comes across as utterly significant. It clearly illustrates the difficult situation Cassidy finds herself in because she wants more but is too afraid to admit it to herself. Citing the rules of the club is just a means of attempting to use policy to protect herself from getting hurt. The tension between these two characters is intense for the duration of the film.

The film hinges on these two performances and both of them are total daggers straight through the heart. Mickey Rourke possesses a massive presence that resonates throughout the film and it isn’t necessarily related to his physicality. Randy is an enormous person inside, completely separate from the body which threatens to break down at every turn. Indeed, Rourke has created here a character who has fallen so far down that he’s not sure where he needs to stand to start climbing back up. A rematch is scheduled with the Ayatollah and Randy considers this the first step back up to the top. It’s not beyond the possible but in viewing his body it’s difficult to imagine that it could ever hold up long enough to make the climb. Especially after he suffers a heart attack and is forced to undergo a bypass surgery. He is told not to wrestle ever again. He is told to stop taking steroids.

Mickey Rourke gives a heartbreaking performance that is consumed with a brutal silence that resonates in every frame. He makes the audience feel every cut, every gouge, and every other wound that is inflicted upon his flesh. There is a very real sense of the transforming nature of pain, of suffering, as it is experienced in real time. Rourke’s work in this film is as subtle as it is imposing as his character battles both his opponents and the tyranny of time. Admittedly, I was near tears for the first half of the film and this is the result of the way Randy carries himself throughout the early part of the film. It’s devastating to watch his body move so agonizing slow as it’s clear he’s enduring considerable pain that he suffers because of his untrammeled marriage to the ring, the glory, and the experience of being lauded by his current fans many of whom remember what it was like when he was wrestling for serious money. Rourke captures the breadth of Randy’s insistence to return to the ring time and again knowing the impact it is having on his health. He makes us believe in Randy’s need for this, his addiction to the accolades that still pour over him like light whenever he enters the ring. They still cheer for him and such a response provides him with a boost that he can get nowhere else. Life has let him down but the ring still remains a place in which he can be appreciated mainly for the stallion he once was and by rights will never be again.

Randy embodies the once great performer who has been reduced to a shadow of the totemic presence he once inflicted on the circus of primacy which informed the ring in which he stood supreme. His fall from the pinnacle of greatness has been gradual and almost imperceptible. It has landed him in a small trailer working a job he hates. After deciding to back out of the rematch with the Ayatolla he agrees to take on extra hours working the deli counter at the grocery store. We follow Randy until he stands on the precipice before entering the deli and the soundtrack of the film plays applause. We view his work at the deli as something of a crushing blow. He is humiliated and it’s clear the film wants us to view this experience as uniformly degrading to such a man who once commanded the allegiance of tens of thousands of rabid fans to whom he was an icon of terrible strength and skill. It’s a mighty step down and one can sense the frustration on Randy’s face as he dishes up ham and pesto salad from behind the imprisoning counter. Yet he is able to put on a happy little face which only proves to be more devastating.

The film presents a wide array of contemporary Professional wrestlers who provide the film with authenticity. It’s humorous to watch the wrestlers who have been pitted against each other back stage going over their game plan with one another for the audience. One such match is exquisitely difficult to watch as it includes staple guns, barbed wire and broken glass. Randy is particularly wounded by the barb wire and it leaves a nasty gash above his stomach. It’s a reminder of the insatiable desire for barbarism and the desperation of the wrestlers to remain in the public’s eye if only for just one more match.

After Randy suffers a heart attack he is faced with an almost impossible dilemma. The thought of giving up wrestling is abhorrent to him because the prospect of life outside the ring fills him with
such dread. He simply cannot bear the fact that he might be prevented from doing the one thing that has ever brought him joy. Cassidy convinces Randy to seek out his daughter Stephanie (Wood) after having been absent from her life for many years. At first Stephanie is hesitant and exceedingly angry. On the second visit he convinces her to spend the afternoon with him. They agree to meet the following Saturday but Randy does coke and gets laid, waking up after the agreed upon meeting time. He goes to Stephanie’s home late that evening and is immediately chastised by her. She tells him their relationship is over and that she never wants to see him again.

Marisa Tomei plays a decisively strong and fiercely independent character who is really two people. She is the devoted mother who cares for her son and does everything a good mother ought to. She is also a stripper who grinds on a pole and sells herself cheaply to any man with enough cash to order her to move in a most specific manner. She insists that the two selves do not bleed into one another but it’s impossible to believe that this is indeed true. There is too much sadness in Cassidy eyes that is slowly lifted over time as she works toward pulling herself up and out of the quagmire. It’s a tribute to Tomei’s work here that she doesn’t allow Cassidy to fully collapse in on herself. Cassidy makes great strides to extricate herself from her prison and it’s profoundly moving to watch her make the effort.

Evan Rachel Wood gives a startling performance as Stephanie. She’s not in the film very often but one gets a legitimate sense of her character’s rage as she faces the father she has all but declared as dead. All the promises broken, all the shattered hopes, are written clearly on Wood’s face. In many ways it’s a terrifying performance because it expresses with clarity how wrong Randy has been regarding his obligations to his flesh and blood. Stephanie has suffered Randy’s lack of commitment to her and Wood brings this all to bear with her work in this film.

Overall, this film consistently pulls the rug out from under the viewer. Emotional truths are handled with conviction but they never come across precisely as expected. This is a daring film that captures all of the wrecked vitality of its two leads without ever succumbing to sentimentality. These characters are cruelly realistically and their relationships are gratifyingly complicated. There are no easy answers in this film and the final sequences contain mysteries they maintain straight up to the end. This film offers portraits of individuals who all possess a very real pain that afflicts them with tremendous pressure much of the time. Yet, there is also much more here and this is the product of the performers who lay themselves out in some of the most naked performances I have ever seen. This is a raw, difficult film that comes off as exceedingly honest, hard, and supremely forthcoming.