Cosmic Film Trigger

Film Review--Severance (2007)

2009-03-18T11:42:00.001-07:00

Severance
directed by Christopher Smith
written by James Moran and Christopher Smith
starring Toby Stephens, Claudie Blakley, Andy Nyman, Babou Ceesay, Tim McInnery, Laura Harris, Danny Dyer, David Gilliam, Juli Drajkó, Judit Viktor

Someone is out in the woods and they’ve got a nasty habit of gutting people who stumble into their lair. This film is a tale of just such butchery and it’s glorious ramifications.

As the movie opens a man and two Russian hotties are running desperately through the woods. The girls fall into a trap and the man is disemboweled. The film backs up a few days and a group of associates for Palisade, a weapons firm, are in a bus heading for a nice get-to-know-you weekend at a fancy lodge. They are stalled in the road by a tree in the roadway and their driver refuses to go on. He drives off leaving them to walk to a lodge that is far from fancy.

The film involves the picking off one by one of the workers as they attempt to improve company morale through various exercises. But, unfortunately for them they stumble into the territory of a very hostile group of thugs that wants nothing to do with their team-building games. Indeed, they rather enjoy the sport of hunting humans and quickly the group is decimated for their ill-timed adventure.

There are several theories surrounding the lodge and it’s purpose. According to various accounts it was either a mental hospital, a prison, or a “love” hospital teeming with sexy nurses satisfying the needs of tottering old fools succoring on their immaculate breasts. The film never fully explains specifically who the men are and what they want only that they are Russian, they know about Palisade, and that they are wholly demonstrative animals with a keen eye on establishing a giddily high body count out of the poor saps caught in their cross hairs. Also they are bloody efficient and fulfilling the edicts of their overall plan. The victims are easy prey having no knowledge of the area and no easy mode of transportation to take them away from their de facto prison.

The film can best be described as a black comedy for those who take delight in the niceties of butchery tempered with clever one-liners that are designed to take the edge off of the horror. To everyone else the film is incessantly brutal with graphic depictions of violence against characters to whom one has grown sympathetic. Still, there are those here whose deaths are not particularly minded, even wished for based on their behavior during the initial stages of the film.

The final third of the film features two characters in full-on survival mode. Maggie (Harris) and Steve (Dyer) become the ultimate hunted game as they desperately attempt to elude capture and imminent death. Maggie is particularly fierce and proves herself to be agile and fully capable with weapons. As is always the case an exquisite female form handling herself with shotguns is terribly sexy especially when the camera lovingly hovers over her immaculate face caked in blood.

The film possesses a tremendous amount of energy both before and during the hunting sequences where the characters are driven out of their precious comfort zones and forced to fend for their lives. Most of them prove to be easy enough to capture and it’s only the final two who put up much of a fight. The group spends a time arguing amongst themselves about the best possible action to leave the cabin and get back to civilization upon the discovery that someone has been peering through Jill’s window. There is a sense for a while that the infighting is going to cause considerable damage to the participants and sully the integrity of their mission. It takes a real catastrophe such as certain death to rid them of their pretense and force them to concentrate on the problem facing them all.

There are moments during the final sequences where the film allows its audience to question the legitimacy of the Palisade corporation. It strikes one as a sinister organization who supplies weapons to anyone who needs them ostensibly including terrorists. The company is a specter that hangs over the entire film. Harris finds boxes of records regarding Russian men who may be patients or inmates featuring the company’s logo. It becomes even more sinister when several members of the group discover a prison set up in the lower regions of the building.

We learn at the end that the two girls running through the woods are Russian escorts that Steve has hired for a bit of good, clean fun.

The performances in this film are stellar throughout. Laura Harris is clearly present and focused for the duration of the film. She establishes her character’s grim determination to survive at all costs. One gets a very real sense of Maggie’s intensity which is demonstrated early in the film before she’s forced to engage in behavior that has always been a part of her but which she has kept in reserve. Maggie is a bit cold and distant for the first half of the film and it isn’t until the chase is on that she opens up and releases a torrent of emotions. Danny Dyer’s character offers some comic relief early in the film with his slightly daft mushroom trip where he temporarily freaks out and has to be led on a rope by Maggie. Dyer is convincing as a bit of a loose canon who doesn’t take the mission all that seriously. Andy Nyman plays Gordon as centered and grounded until he loses his leg and he becomes necessarily hysterical; Steve gives him some ecstasy to help with the pain and he starts blabbering to Maggie that he loves her in classic e-speak.

Overall, this film is intoxicating from beginning to end. It deftly establishes all the characters creating the potential that the audience may actually find something in them worth caring about. For the most part the characters are entirely sympathetic although there are degrees as to which some are more worth bothering over. It’s a very funny film that deals with a horrific situation that really calls for humor. The film suggests that it’s the only way to deal with such a ghastly situation as this. The nameless and mostly faceless killers are an interesting lot considering that so little is known about them and that the film refuses to disclose any information that might help the audience make a positive identification. They remain wholly other and outside the realm of proper judgement; they are ciphers who storm in and cause considerable mayhem before slinking back into the dark night. Ultimately, this film satisfies the longing for torn flesh throughout and plays like a dark fable about avoiding strange woods where sinister creatures haunt the night.

Film Review--He's Just Not that Into You

2009-03-17T12:47:00.000-07:00

He’s Just Not That Into You
directed by Ken Kwapis
written by Abby Kohn and Marc Silverstein
based on the book “He’s Just Not That Into You”: The No Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys by Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo
starring Ginnifer Goodwin, Ben Affleck, Jennifer Connelly, Jennifer Aniston, Justin Long, Kevin Connolly, Bradley Cooper, Scarlett Johansson, Drew Barrymore

Ah, love with the tenacious fangs of fear pressed against one’s throat. This film explores the myriad ways the beasts creeps in to devour the unwitting who necessarily succumb to its charms and derelictions.

The film follows the lives of numerous characters as they walk the tightrope between pleasure and emotional pain. Gigi (Goodwin) is a sweet girl who finds her self struggling to understand the motives and behaviors of guys. She frets that Conor (Connolly) hasn’t called her back after a single date. Desperately she consults her friends Beth (Aniston) and Janine (Connelly) and they aren’t quite able to calm her down. Out of desperation she asks bar owner Alex (Long) for advice and he informs her that if a guy doesn’t pursue a woman directly he’s not interested. This advice helps Gigi and leads her in a direction that ultimately allows her to find someone who is into her completely and effortlessly.

Beth and Neil (Affleck) have been seeing each other for seven years but Neil refuses to pop the question because he doesn’t believe in marriage. Beth takes it in stride although she repeatedly makes her feelings felt on the matter. Janine and Ben (Cooper) have been married for seven years and consider themselves happy. However, Ben meets Anna (Johansson) at a grocery store and beings a romance with her. It is revealed that the marriage isn’t exactly ideal and that Janine is upset that Ben has lied to her about not smoking. Anna is sort of dating Conor but she won’t sleep with him again and this arrangement upsets Conor who wants more. Mary promotes Conor’s real estate business but is the only character who is not pursuing nor is pursued by any potential suitors.

The film does an adequate job juggling its many narratives. There’s a naturalness about each of the characters and their plights are presented in a matter-of-fact way that is bereft of sentimentality and over-reaching. Once the dynamics are set up the film just allows the characters to follow their perspective paths until they ultimately collide in various levels. There is tremendous strain in this film as ideas about what each character wants continually shift. There is no set grounding for any of the characters as mooring is repeatedly kicked aside in a painstaking effort for release of some sort.

Gigi is the narrator and perhaps the most significant character in the film. Her hysterical reactions to feeling left out and abandoned resonate throughout the entire film. She longs for the one true love and seems to want to be rescued from herself and her neurotic tendencies. She is the image of impatience and demands that it happen to her right now. It isn’t until she realizes her folly that she is able to open herself up to love and indeed it takes the release of very harsh but revealing words to a man for the air to be cleared leaving true feelings to reveal themselves. She lambasts him and he realizes that her rings sting with truth. Up to that point he had denied his true feelings for Gigi and even pushed her off when she tried to kiss him after staying until 3 in the morning helping him clean up after a party. She is able to read his signals of desire that he is not able to recognize. It is clear upon their first meeting that they are going to hook up by film’s end. Indeed, all the relationship issues solve themselves eventually.

The film navigates through decidedly treacherous waters. There is deceit, suppressed longing and insecurities on display as each character demonstrates a not so perfect grasp on their situation. There is pain here but it is superceded by contentment. There doesn’t seem to be any unabashed demonstration of love, however. Every character lazily moves about and nothing they do seems to suggest intense and undying love. Mostly what is on display here is the belief that a person isn’t quite whole unless they have convinced another person to share entirely in their life. These characters are all fragmented and works in progress. None of them seem particularly fulfilled in their lives despite their various careers and the fact that they have found that someone who may or may not to prove themselves willing and ready for the long haul. Still, that seems to be the direction the film is heading although there is an ambiguous display of marriage.

Another idea voiced by the character Mary is that when you are married to someone and you meet someone else who you connect with on every level, are you supposed to just let that person go by? Ben is the embodiment of this predicament. Even though they were not having sex he believed, because he enjoyed the rut they were in, that things were working out. However, he meets Anna and suddenly the game changes for him and he realizes he has stumbled precisely into the same situation described by Mary. There is intense chemistry between these two characters and the obvious can not be effectively denied. He wants her but hesitates because he honestly believes he cannot betray his wife. Still, he gives in to his temptation and effectively destroys his marriage even though Janine puts on a brave face once he reveals the truth to her. She is impossibly strong after his announcement and states evenly and cooly that it’s something they can work through and doesn’t necessarily have to lead to a separation. Ben is perfectly willing to break it off perhaps because he has already in his mind decided to leave Janine and will latch on any excuse to do so.

There isn’t a whole lot of sexual chemistry in this film between any of the characters and little magic. There is only the satisfaction that these characters one has spent over two hours with have found someone who reflects themselves back to them with clarity and honesty. The film makes out this process to be trying and difficult and capable of convincing a person that the quest is not worth it and the only recourse is to get out of the game entirely. This is not an option in this film because each character is driven by the desire to justify themselves in the eyes of another person who redeems them to a certain degree. These characters all seek such redemption and seem unable to find it by any other source. There is tremendous anxiety throughout this film and significant insecurity. The characters seem unable to tackle life without the crutch of another person to lean on. There is ambition here and an effort to foster change in the lives of some of the characters. There is drive and at least a level of understanding.

The performances in this film are all infectious. Bradley Cooper is dynamic and impossibly charming throughout. He exudes an air of confidence that most likely comes from a lifetime of play. Ginnifer Goodwin is captivating in her character’s neurosis. She naturally conveys Gigi’s startling need for reassurance that she is worthy of a man’s attention and affection. Jennifer Aniston routinely presents her character’s empathic nature and comes off as entirely sympathetic. There is an earnestness about Beth that Aniston genuinely affects throughout. Scarlett Johannson is slinky and well-grounded in her sexuality. She presents a character who is tingling with a robust, expressive erotic appeal. She’s the one character who truly seems comfortable in her immaculate skin. Justin Long captures Alex’s understanding nature as well as his role as a harbinger of cold, hard truth. Jennifer Connelly is iconic and devastatingly present throughout this film. She’s got a iciness and a fortitude about her that comes across periodically. Ben Affleck is typically solid in this role. Neil is initially impenetrable and Affleck demonstrates his gradual softening and openness. Kevin Connolly is quite good at demonstrating Conor’s neediness and his cool discharge of emotions. Drew Barrymore is earthy and perpetually calm yet decisive throughout the film. Mary is not particularly neurotic and seems to know what she wants unlike most of the other characters.

Overall, this film offers an appetizing dish of anxiety and fear throughout. It’s fairly even handed between the males and females and seems relatively honest about the motivations that drive people to crash into each other all in the name of commitment and sexual satiation. These characters are all driven by aspects of their relationships with members of the opposite sex. There’s not much room in this film for personal growth save the occasional realization that one is behaving like a coward or a jerk and needs more than they are willing to admit to themselves. The performances are natural and all convey the myriad complexities that go into anyone who has difficulty nailing down what they actually want.

Film Review--Confessions of a Shopaholic

2009-03-17T10:58:00.000-07:00

Confessions of a Shopaholic
directed by P. J. Hogan
written by Tracey Jackson, Tim Firth, Kayla Alpert
starring Isla Fisher, Hugh Dancy, Krysten Ritter, Joan Cusack, John Goodman, John Lithgow, Kristen Scott Thomas, Leslie Bibb, Robert Stanton

Rebecca Bloomwood (Fisher) loves the smell of Bloomingdale’s in the morning. She loves the carpets, drapes and especially the elegance of the mannequins and the methodology inherent in the displays of shoes, scarves and perfume. To her shopping is the closest she is ever going to get to a religious experience. Unfortunately she has spent way past her limits and is facing debt collectors, particularly a very insistent one named Derek Smeath (Stanton) whose ubiquitous presence in this film is a clear warning to all of those who find themselves purchasing things they don’t need at over 18 3/4 percent.

The film does a fine job setting up Rebecca as a little girl who refuses to grow up. She’s hysterical for much of the film because the big bad wolf is threatening her at every turn and she’s desperate to escape his clutches. But there is no way one can avoid the wolf forever; eventually he will pounce and devour his tender prey. Derek Smeath is of course that wolf and he is as persistent as a would-be suitor.

There is one purchase Rebecca makes which proves to be valuable and fortuitous. She finds a green scarf that she buys after a tremendous ordeal. She wears the scarf to an interview with Successful Saving magazine where she apprehends the man named Luke Brandon (Dancy) who gave her $20 in the street so she could buy a scarf for her sick Aunt. She stashes the scarf only to have it returned to her by a secretary. Later she writes a scathing letter to Brandon, the editor of the magazine, and submits an article to Alette magazine but manages to slip each letter into the wrong envelope. Brandon reads her article breaking down the ways in which women purchase shoes and is exceedingly impressed. She signs the article with the name, “The Girl in the Green Scarf” and it becomes an international media sensation that gives the little shoppers rag a high profile.

Rebecca lives with the terrible secret about her debt situation because she is promoting herself as a paragon of frugality. She begins to attend “Shopaholics anonymous” meetings but her first visit she spends her introductory time luxuriating over the ecstasy of finding something new to buy. Rebecca struggles with her addiction and keeps backsliding although for the most part she keeps it in check. It slowly cedes in its significance in her life leaving a massive gap that needs to be filled. Previously the shopping filled up the part of her that for most people is filled with love. As she has no room to love anything that isn’t shiny, glittery and/or expensive, everything else remains outside of her. It isn’t until she completely gets to the root of the problem that she is allowed to love.

The addiction side of this story is fascinating. Rebecca creates her own set of steps to achieving her goal of becoming debt free. She recognizes her problem, she takes steps to ensure that she doesn’t lose herself again (destroying most of her credit cards), she experiences tremendous fear over the implications of what she has done, she sabotages her relationships with everyone she cares about, she takes a drastic and painful measure in order to solve her immediate problem, she ostensibly learns from her experience and doesn’t return to her wholly reckless past.

Being a rom-com, the purpose of this film is to bring the male and female leads together for one great, scintillating kiss or embrace. It’s the main reasons these films exist for their mostly female audiences; women seem to be drawn to happily-ever-afters perhaps because they provide such an intoxicating jolt of hope and possibility. They are shiny, comforting, and warm; they are drenched with longing, achievement and tense emotional connections that resonate with women. Men are for the most part hoping to laugh but otherwise checking their watch routinely and planning their escape route.

The perils of unheeded consumption play out effectively in this film. There seems to be a message here regarding the compunction toward purchasing material goods just for the sake of it and not because any of the items are actually necessary. Rebecca spends roughly a thousand dollars per month on shoes, scarves, handbags and clothes not because she needs them but because the act of shopping fulfills a need that is otherwise not met. She is addicted to the feeling that overwhelms her when she hands over her credit card and realizes that what she has purchased belongs emphatically to her and to noone else. Yet, she knows the transaction is superfluous and this realization hits her soon after she exits the store. She fills her apartment with hope for something more than the meager existence she has eked out for herself in her new life.

Rebecca’s parents, Jane (Cusack) and Graham (Goodman) have always been frugal and responsible with their money. As a little girl Rebecca dreamed of fancy clothes, accessories, and essentially anything that spoke of glamour to her. However, her parents preached practicality above all else and she was unable to fulfill her fairy land fantasies and was routinely disappointed. There is a sense that she rebelled entirely against her parent’s position by going in the extreme opposite direction. As she sits before them anticipating that they are about to announce that they are leaving her their nest egg, which they have accumulated by a lifetime of saving, she is again disappointed when the tell her they have purchased a large RV which they have dreamed about for many years. It’s a crushing blow but not one that utterly deflates Rebecca’s sense of Self. She rebounds from the shock gallantly and ultimately lands on her feet for perhaps the first time in her entire life.

When Rebecca’s friend Suze (Ritter) announces she is getting married, she provides Rebecca with a colorful, playful bridesmaid dress. At the same time the editor of Alette magazine, Alette Naylor, convinces Rebecca to purchase a dress that costs her more than a month’s salary and which she is supposed to wear on television. At the “Shopaholics Anonymous” meeting she is forced to make a choice between the two dresses. This marks the beginning of Rebecca’s true recovery from her addiction. It also puts her firmly and squarely at rock bottom where she must gather up her resources in order to violently extract herself from her overbearing and stifling situation. She makes one final decision that alters the course of her life permanently. In dramatic fashion she unburdens herself and at least temporarily sets her self free.

The performances in this film are all impressive. Isla Fisher exudes an easy charm which makes her character infinitely likable. It’s a joy to watch Rebecca stumble about, literally tripping over her own feet and causing considerable chaos on several occasions. She starts the film as a fledgling that has fallen out of the nest. She is unable to right herself and uses shopping as a survival mechanism. Fisher captures both the sincerity of the character as well as her impetuous nature. Hugh Dancy is very charming and exceedingly grounded in this film. He exudes an easy charisma that allows his character to be a touch stone for Rebecca’s manic flights of fancy. John Goodman is rock solid and Joan Cusack is effective as a woman who has denied herself for so many years. It’s enjoyable to watch as she finally reaches a place where she can finally treat herself. Krysten Ritter is dynamic as the best friend whose role is to remind Rebecca of her excesses and casually instruct her as to the nature of her ills. Kristin Scott Thomas is the embodiment of glamor and carries herself with tremendous confidence throughout the film. John Lithgow effortlessly plays the man who pulls the strings.

Overall, this film ably comments on America’s shopping addiction through the eyes of a young girl who cannot resist the feel of a new cashmere sweater simply because it exists and she doesn’t own it. There are many such stories and they are nearly all driven by the same desire. Rebecca finds herself swamped in debt and as the film opens unable to dig herself out. She doesn’t recognize the signs of sickness until she faces the truly evil debt collectors who insidiously and incessantly stalk their victims using every form of psychological torture at their disposal. It’s telling that Derek Smeath (a brilliantly slimy name) is such a nefarious presence in this film. Perhaps it’s a comment on the tactics that credit card companies use to lure the unsuspecting into a trap of debt which is exacerbated by interest and a maddening array of charges for late payments and other minor infractions. Rebecca is simply caught up in the frantic pace of modern life and she doesn’t want to be left out. She wants only to be afforded the opportunity to at least appear that she’s up to date.

Film Review--Andy Warhol's Heat

2009-03-17T09:10:00.001-07:00

Andy Warhol’s Heat
written and directed by Paul Morrissey
starring Joe Dallesandro, Andrea Feldman, Sylvia Miles, Pat Ast, Lester Persky, Harold Childe, Bonnie Walder, Ray Vestal, Eric Emerson, John Hallowell, Gary Koznocha

A young hustler ingratiates his way into the sodden life of a washed up TV actress while trying to fend off the manic attentions of her possibly psychotic daughter.

Joey Davis (Dallesandro) was once a famed child actor who starred on a long running TV Western show. He’s slumming it momentarily at a dingy motel waiting for his agent to give him some papers to sign regarding a record deal. The motel is populated with the typical Hollywood weirdos including a two brother nightclub act who engage is sexual activities to climax their show. One of these brothers walks around in a daze and really enjoys masturbating by the pool. Apparently he’s mute and he spends most of the film in a long white cotton dress.

Joey finds his time by the pool rather enjoyable. His star power radiates throughout the motel and many of its denizens hold him in some kind of sick awe. Basically, he seems disinterested in most of anything but takes advantage of situations as they arise. One of these involves the manager of the hotel, a woman named Lydia. She convinces him to let her give him a massage and things quickly turn randy as he massages her breasts while she coos. She promises him reduced rent which she tells him he is going to have to pay every night. Again, he’s casual about the arrangement and doesn’t get too caught up in its inherent drama.

Jessica Todd (Feldman) is a high strung girl who is living at the motel with her girlfriend Bonnie (Walder) and her infant son. There’s a long gag about whether or not Jessica is truly a lesbian or not. She seems unable to convince her mother Sally (Miles) of this fact and later decides she’s not a lesbian after all upon discovering her deep seated lust for Joey.

The film is mostly dialog and it all comes across organically and indeed some of it is improvised by the actors. The set design is simple and straightforward. There are several scenes in an old rustic mansion that lend a grandiosity to the film and the actors in their roles.

The camera simply adores Joe Dallesandro who again proves himself to be an exceedingly natural performer and he eases into every scene. There are many close-ups of Joe’s face and it’s not terribly difficult to read his thoughts or intentions. Still, he’s consumed with charm that can only come from an actor who is very glad to be in his skin.

Sally comes about to give Jessica money and meets Joey with whom she starred in that TV show a few years back. Immediately its obvious that something’s going down between these two and their attraction quickly turns to sex. Sally is desperate about her looks and still maintains she’s a big star even though all she’s done is game shows for the past several years. Basically nobody remembers her and she’s clinging to this belief that she still matters in Hollywood. Unfortunately she’s dead weight and her lust after the much younger Joey comes off as rather pathetic.

Joey moves into the mansion and quickly becomes tired of Sally and bored out of his mind. He’s got things to do and all Sally does is hold him back because she’s too lonely or she can’t bear to lose him to another woman. Whatever the reason, he manages to get out but not before having to deal with Jessica’s advances. Jessica is truly unhinged which is evidenced by one scene when she bursts in on Lydia and Joey’s foreplay complaining that the cigarette burns that Bonnie has administered to her are stinging. She cries for a bit and suddenly bursts out laughing before returning to her crying jag. She’s the kind of girl who seemingly either hasn’t got enough attention in her life or too much. She doesn’t know who the father of her son is and she seems not to have had a very close relationship with either her father or step father. She’s broke, without means to support herself, and in an abusive relationship with a bull dyke who enjoys slapping her around and burning her with the aforementioned cigarettes.

Essentially, this is a tale about terribly messed up family dynamics in situations where there is a whole lot of talking but little listening. Jessica is seventeen years old and honestly shouldn’t have to slum it at a cheap motel with her son. There is absolutely no reason for this but her mother thinks she’s too crazy and clearly wants to keep her at arms length. At one point she tells Jessica that she’ll take care of the baby but that Jessica cannot come live with her. She claims she means that Jessica cannot bring Bonnie with her but her actual meaning seems clear enough. She also says that she wishes she was a lesbian because she wouldn’t have had Jessica and subsequently wouldn’t have to deal with “this mess”. Jessica for her part claims to hate her mother although this doesn’t stop her from begging for money at every turn. Joey stumbles unwittingly into the fracas and all he has to do is lay back and be magnetic.

This film is highly sexualized from start to finish and it all centers around Joey Davis. All the women in the film want to get into his shorts and none of them are at all subtle about it. He takes advantage of all comers including receiving a blow job from a dandy named Harold (Childe). His life is made easy by his physique and his low key, casual attitude. He sleeps with these women because he can but mostly because it hopes it can bring him benefits such as furthering his career. He gets clothes out of Sally but little else. She simply doesn’t have any pull anymore and all her attempts to drum up some interest in Joey fall terribly flat.

The performances in this film are uniformly excellent. Sylvia Miles commands the screen throughout the film yet she allows her fellow actors to break through and shine as appropriate. Her character is dynamic, like a whirlwind that has the capacity to destroy a whole city block. Andrea Feldman is a torch lighting an darkened abattoir. Her perormance resonates with a truthfulness that is rare in cinema. One gets the impression that her character is a real person with the ability to cause real emotional reactions to her words and deeds. Her postures, mannerisms and affectations stay with the viewer long after the film has ended. Hers is one of those characters who truly put their fangs into one’s brain and will not let go. Joe Dallesandro is, again, wholly natural and clean in this role. He’s all grown up in this role in comparison to the naif he played in 1970's “Trash”, also directed by Paul Morrissey. Pat Ast is very impressive here as Lydia the motel’s manager. She delivers all her lines with a tremendous confidence and conviction which gives them an emphatic sense of truth no matter how outrageous they might seem at the outset.

Overall, this film is a oft-brilliant depiction of the ugly side of the glamourous life. These are characters who end up living a particularly empty life at their own hand. Joey Davis is able to get what he wants at every turn because of his body and his past but he just throws it away when he gets it because he’s terminally bored with everything and can commit to nothing. Jessica is little girl gone wrong because emotionally she may have been deprived for long stretches of her life when her mother was away working for TV. Regardless, her violent mood swings and general flightiness are not characteristics one generally wants to see in a new mother. She shows no lasting indication that she even wants the baby, referring to him as “it”. There’s a very real sense that everyone in this film is in a state of arrested development. None of them act as mature persons act and they all throw fits when they don’t get what they want. Joey’s fits are subtler but he acts up when things don’t seem to be going his way. Jessica positively shakes and almost froths at the mouth when she’s agitated. Even Lydia seems unable to fully face herself and make up her mind. She’s locked in on this job managing the motel but its clear she’s just biding time until something better comes along. None of these people know much about the direction they are headed in. They just do things for immediate satisfaction and pay no mind to the consequences of their actions.

Film Review--Taken

2009-03-16T13:33:00.000-07:00

Taken (2008)
directed by Pierre Morel
written by Luc Besson, Robert Mark Kamen
starring Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Famke Janssen, Arben Bajraktaraj, Holly Valance, Nicolas Giraud, Xander Berkeley, Katie Cassidy

Despite a number of rather improbable coincidences this film proves to be an exceedingly elegant story of the intensity of a father’s love for his daughter.

Brian Mills (Neeson) is an ex-CIA operative who has recently retired to spend more time with his daughter Kim (Grace). He is somewhat estranged from Kim because he hasn’t always been around due to his career and she has found parental guidance in her step-father Brian (Berkeley) who she lives with along with her mother Lanore (Janssen.

One of the central moments in this film involves Kim’s abduction at the hands of Albanians who ultimately plan on selling her to a Sheik. The camera and music create a tense situation that is fraught with danger. It is held together by Neeson’s steady, calm response to the terror that is afflicting his character’s daughter on the other end of the phone. She is in Paris with her friend Amanda (Cassidy) and the pair plan on following U2 across Europe. They meet a young man named Peter (Giraud) who shares a cab with them to Amanda’s cousin’s residence where they are to stay for the duration of their visit. Peter calls someone and quickly thereafter the girls are dragged away.

This is a story in which it is absurdly easy to get behind the central character. Neeson never lets us to forget the severity of his mission as he summons up his immense skills to track down the men responsible for capturing his daughter. Mills is relentless in his pursuit and of the mind set that it’s much better to shoot first than to wait around and see who’s holding. He is the ultimate action hero because he is fighting for something that is so personally precious to him and he is not about to suffer the guilt that would inevitably collapse his world should he fail. Indeed, failure is not an option here and so he goes about working his way up the ladder until he inevitably reaches the final pillar and must face to face with the devil himself or at least one of his representatives.

The film’s look is intoxicating throughout. The cinematography by Michel Abramowicz is clean, crisp and economical. It is tinged with an impossible sheen that is remarkably restrained. It creates a sense of glamour but nevertheless does not effectively glamorize the killings be committed at every turn.

Much of the power in this film originates through Mills’s grim, incessant determination to save his daughter from a life of sure ruin. It’s vigilante justice taken to a menacing, purposeful extreme. One is constantly reminded of the nefarious nature of the world that Mills is entering and his almost puritanical zeal for the safe return of his loved one. His tremendous capabilities for torture and combat plus his fearless mien are routinely demonstrated in swift, controlled movements that provide him with the proper inroads into solving the pressing dilemma before him.

This film introduces its central characters with a decisive lack of urgency. We meet them and immediately identify with whatever course of action they are to take. It’s a very simple approach that so many films fail to undertake. In this film it matters because the interpersonal relationships here are vital to understanding Mills’s motivation and his sense of futility in his relationship with Kim. In a few short minutes we know the dynamics and we know what is at stake for Mills. He is presented as a loving father who is trying to make up for lost time yet faces the reality of another man, a rich and genuine man, in his daughter’s life. It is clear that he has failed Kim in some sense and that this fact upsets him intensely.

There are moments in this film that seem to be improbable in their execution. Mills goes to the apartment Kim and Amanda were to stay in and removes a photo card from her camera. He investigates the images and finds one of a man he immediately suspects as being the spotter who set up the initial transaction. From that single photo he is able to track the man down and interrogate him only to lose him in the end. It is difficult to believe that he was able to accomplish all of this with nothing but a blurred photo to go on. One wonders how he knew where to go in such a massive city to find the man responsible for setting the chain in motion that inevitably leads to the Sheik.

The use in this film of the international selling of Western girls to Albanians most likely has ramifications in Albanian communities world wide. It’s an utterly corrupt depiction that presents the Albanians as wholly devious and monstrous. There is nothing whatsoever about them that is remotely likable; they come off as cruel and menacing businessmen who capitalize on the existence of a steady flow of easy prey into the cities. This is a film that expresses a very real and terrible fear that such events may occur at any given time. It presents naive and industrious girls who unwittingly stumble into traps that are set under the most innocent pretexts. They fall for the charm of a spotter who quietly ingratiates himself into their lives by playing on their trust. This film focuses on the simplicity of such an arrangement and demonstrates just how easy it is to mark certain females and wrestle them into a life devoid of hope, where they are made perpetually high, and forced to engage in activities with much older men who treat them like chattle.

The performances in this film are all dynamic and natural. Liam Neeson captivates from start to finish with a character who is fraught with complications but who is able to act in a decisive manner when the situation calls for it. He’s confident in his abilities but not so confident when it comes to the relationship he has with his daughter. It is here that Neeson demonstrates a tremendous range of emotion. During his mission he is driven and focused and tends to show little emotion. With Kim, his disposition is entirely different. He’s open, expressive, and clearly driven by a great love he knows he has almost let slip away. Maggie Grace is extraordinary in this film. She captures her character’s desire to expand and connect with a world much larger than what she has thus far experienced. One gets an immediate sense of her excitement as she makes her plans for heading to Paris. Also, she demonstrates on at least two occasions the fact that she really is barely seventeen and in many ways still a little girl who runs in to her father’s arms and clings madly to him. Famke Janssen’s character is captivating and aggressively disdainful of her ex-husband throughout much of the film. Lenore doesn’t give Mills any space in this film and holds him responsible for his lack of involvement in Kim’s life.

Overall, this is a scintillating film that creates a world of despair and destruction that its central character must fight, using his arsenal of skills, to combat. It’s the classic story of one man fighting for a just cause who must use any means necessary to achieve his aim. There is a sense of freshness in how this film approaches its subject and it never feels strained or superficial. The tension is on from the moment Kim and Amanda are abducted and it never abates straight through to the end. These ultimately are characters worth caring about and this has everything to do with the performances. They are astute at conveying the myriad complexities that haunt each of their lives and the end result is a film that is an exploration of a blistering reality that effects many young women worldwide every year.

Film Review--The Pink Panther (2006)

2009-03-14T20:08:00.001-07:00

The Pink Panther (2006)
directed by Shawn Levy
written by Len Blum and Steve Martin
starring Steve Martin, Emily Mortimer, Jean Reno, Kevin Kline, Jason Statham, Henry Czerny, Kristin Chenoweth, Roger Rees, Beyoncé Knowles

This reboot of the famous franchise maintains much of the celebrated fervor of the original films. It is a harder, meaner extrapolation of the Edwards-Sellers-Mancini years and often feels like a tribute to those films while maintaining its own vision.

It’s impossible to compare Peter Sellers and Steve Martin with any clarity. Each brings his own take on the character of Inspector Jacques Clouseau and their styles are distinct enough to warrant an appreciation for their approaches. In this film, Clouseau is even more tiresome than Seller’s version. He’s irritating in a way that is relentless as his ego is so profoundly out of touch with his sleuthing methods. Still, there is a raving intelligence to Martin’s Clouseau that is played out in a variety of scenes. He sees things but his interpretations are always incredibly off base.

The film is fairly sexy with the glamourous addition of Beyoncé Knowles who most certainly knows how to make an entrance and fill out a shimmery dress. Still, her sexiness is matched by the more understated appeal of Emily Mortimer. She’s less glam and more buttoned up but there’s a tigress within her that one wants desperately to burst from her bosom. There are hints of her desire for Clouseau which is one of the great unfinished aspects of the film. The hunger in her eyes when they almost kiss is delectable.

Jason Statham plays soccer coach Yves Gluant who is murdered by a poisoned dart while the Pink Panther diamond ring he is wearing is stolen. This kicks off the action proper as Chief Inspector Dreyfus (Kline) decides to bring in the most inept police officer so he can swoop in and take all the glory for solving the crime. Despite himself Clouseau is perpetually putting himself in the right place at the right time. Specifically, he goes to a casino owned by Gluant’s business partner Raymond Larocque (Rees) to question the entrepreneur regarding Gluant’s death. He meets a highly secretive British Secret Service agent named Nigel Boswell (Clive Owen) who heroically slides down a rope ala James Bond and defeats the Gas Mask bandits who are staging a robbery while wearing Clouseau’s coat. Clouseau is credited with the takedown and is nominated for the Medal of Honor which Dreyfus is desperately seeking having lost six times previously.

In the usual fashion Clouseau botches every attempt to get closer to the killer while somehow remaining subconsciously aware of the correct path to take. Martin is more aggressively annoying that the other Clouseaus. His confidence rivals anything else in Paris as he steadfastly refuses to accept that he’s anything short of a master detective. Of course events play out that support this assessment of his abilities and it’s actually an exceedingly deft piece of investigation that leads him to the killer. Again, Clouseau spends the entire film utterly clueless but just when the odds are the most against him he comes through to save the day.

Jean Reno has the difficult task of keeping tabs on the maniacal Clouseau. He’s very funny in this as mostly a straight man who plays off of Clouseau’s absurdist antics. He manages to dull the terribly sharp edges that define Martin’s Clouseau and often garners bigger laughs.

There are elements in this film that update it to the modern age. There are cell phones, personal computers and a slick, modern feel to the scenes in New York and Paris. There is actually quite a bit of glamour on display in this film that almost feels decadent at times. There is more frank brutality specifically in the scene where suspect Bizu (William Abadie) is murdered by the same person who killed Gluant. He’s shot in the head and its filmed in such a way that it comes off as a shock.

Steve Martin is more physically aggressive in his stunts than Sellers. He possesses a reposit of energy that Sellers never accessed it. It can be argued that he didn’t need to because his ease of movement was more pronounced. He was clumsy but in an exceedingly deft way. Sellers was doing a bit more than falling down. He was dancing a particularly perverse dance with no partners. Martine’s accidents and disruptions seem a bit more forced and less graceful than the best Sellers gags. He also comes across as more immediately threatening. This is a Clouseau who could actually kill a great number of people and it’s a testament to the film’s effectiveness that they are able to walk the fine line between lunacy and outright disaster.

Kevin Kline fills the shoes of the great Herbert Lom with dexterity and tremendous charm. Kline’s Dreyfus is a bit more fastidious than Lom’s and more anal. He takes umbrage with Clouseau mainly because he is threatened by the distinct possibility that he has gravely underestimated the man. He lives in constant fear that Clouseau will actually be able to crack the case before he gets a chance to push him aside and take all the glory for himself. It’s the driving force that propels him forward and his obsession with Clouseau doesn’t move beyond this aspect. It’s not a full-on colossal loathing that Lom’s Dreyfus felt for Clouseau. It’s personal but it’s far more practical. One doesn’t suspect that this version of Dreyfus could ever be driven absolutely mad by a man such as Clouseau.

The performances in this film are uniformly excellent. Emily Mortimer has a swanlike manner that is also very much like Audrey Hepburn in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”. She’s got the same neck and her mannerisms are similar. She’s a bit more prudish than Ms. Hepburn, though, which nevertheless is part of her appeal. Steve Martin does everything one could ask in his performance. He’s clearly a capable physical comedian and his work here is entirely his own. He wisely sees fit not to attempt to borrow too much from his famed predecessor. Kevin Kline is remarkably grounded in this film. He plays Dreyfus with a singular sense of calm. Dreyfus in this film is not a man you would expect to see make any sudden movements unless he is attacked or otherwise compromised which he is routinely in this film.

Overall, this film satisfies the yen for another Panther film even if it doesn’t quite live up to the best of the earlier films. Still, the gags are routinely amusing and the performances are all top notch. It’s clearly created with the previous films in mind but doesn’t try to make a direct copy of anything that has come before. It is its own animal from start to finish and this is most pronounced by Steve Martin’s take on the classic character of Inspector Jacques Clouseau. He makes the character work within a more modern milieu which is the only way he could have possibly taken it.

Film Review--Curse of the Pink Panther

2009-03-14T11:06:00.001-07:00

Curse of the Pink Panther
directed by Blake Edwards
written by Blake Edwards, Geoffrey Edwards
starring David Niven, Capucine, Robert Wagner, Herbert Lom, Joanna Lumley, Robert Loggia, Harvey Korman, Burt Kwouk, Ted Wass

As the film opens, the theft of the diamond from the previous film is repeated. A mysterious man tries to sell it to Countess Chandra (Lumley) but she shoots him dead just after Clouseau appears as if he is about to foil the transaction. Chandra points the gun at Clouseau and the opening credits begin.

Clouseau is still missing and the Sûreté are looking for the world’s greatest detective to track him down. Chief Inspector Dreyfus (Lom) is less than enthusiastic over the search and devises a plan to ensure that the exact opposite of what is programmed into the computer is tabulated in locating the best man (or woman) for the job. Subsequently, another bumbling, clumsy idiot in the guise of Sergeant Clifton Sleigh (Wass) is found and put on the case.

Sergeant Sleigh in this film is entirely ineffectual as a physical presence in this film. The character, an obvious pacifier for those who deeply lament the loss of Peter Sellers and who nevertheless will settle for a substitute, lacks Sellers’s solidity and strong sense of place. Despite his buffoonish behavior Seller’s Clouseau was grounded albeit it directionless at times and anathema to any objects put in his path. Sleigh is as much of a stumblebum as the man he is attempting to find. Clearly, the film wants us to satisfy ourselves with Nutrasweet while the real stuff is tragically out of reach. Wass’s dialog is often wooden and combined with his presentation the result is a character who isn’t particularly easy to like or root for.

The mob, led by the affable and utterly winning Bruno Langois (Loggia) naturally do not want Clouseau found so they put out a number of hits on Sleigh which manage to fail in the same manner they did with Clouseau.

Sleigh meets with the luxuriating Sir Charles Lytton (Niven) and his gallant wife Lady Simone (Capucine) who remain surprised that Clouseau hasn’t turned up yet. They discuss the diamond and the disappearance of Clouseau. This scene features one of several blatant sexual references in the film. Somehow Sleigh manages to get a rubber raft in the shape of a duck attached to his bottom so that when he sits down the ducks head peaks out between his legs so it looks like wood. They play with this gag for quite a long time as every time he moves or falls down the same head keeps bobbing away.

Also, there is a scene where Sleigh has just left Professor Auguste Balls’s disguise shop with an inflatable companion that Balls has sold him for a diversion. The scene changes and Sleigh sits outside a French café with his new toy. He lights her a cigarette and the ashes burn a hole in the doll. So, Sleigh puts his head very suggestively between the doll’s legs in order to attempt to blow her up or whatever you want to call it.

Sleigh is certainly a bumbling, stumbling mess but he moves and speaks like a character from “The Forbidden Zone”. It’s amazing if you compare the film and this cop. It’s as if he stepped straight off of that set onto this one and remained the same character for both films. After a while it becomes easier to like Sleigh because one begins to feel horribly for him; one develops a feeling of pity for him. He is lowly and unfortunate throughout although he does manage to get a girl interested in him. She is named Juleta Shane as well as Julie Morgan (Leslie Ash) and she meets Sleigh at a club where she is clearly interested. They had actually seen each other at the hotel they are staying at and later when she appears in his room she is ready to go. She’s one of the more ribald and blatantly sexual female characters in this series and she is basically grinding for it.

There is a tremendous openness at Countess Chandra (Lumley)’s health spa which includes hot mud baths and other various extravagances. It’s an exceedingly clean and vital place and every time the film goes back to it, it is infused with an intense energy that comes directly from the various stations at the spa.

The clumsy antics of Sleigh are over the top to put it mildly. It’s possible that he’s even more vertically challenged than Clouseau is in the first several films. Regardless, he’s a serious wreck and cannot step two feet without stumbling over himself and putting others at serious risk. There are really none of his falls that are particularly amusing. They have the physical characteristics of Sellers’s work but none of the style or grace. They are ugly and perhaps less choreographed but in the end they come across as second rate when compared to the master. But, one can hardly blame young Wass for this. He does what he can in his role which is an attempt to capture the essence of Sellers in the body of another character. It certainly is a smarter move than taking another stab at a Clouseau replacement which lowered the impact of “Inspector Clouseau” with Alan Arkin.

The end of the film is certainly curious and it involves Roger Moore tripping over everything in sight, speaking in an exaggerated French accent, and spending most of his scenes with an ice bucket on his head. It’s clear from the beginning who this really is and it’s a whole lot of fun because Moore isn’t exactly known for slapstick and this display shows him in fine form. These scenes tie the film together and make sense of it. In a way it’s too much, too soon as prior to that the film seems to meander a ways before finally getting to the point. Still, the ending is very appealing in its way and ultimately satisfactory. Indeed, it’s the perfect ending for this part of the series. It would be ten years before another one, “Son of the Pink Panther”, was attempted and that film really has little to do with the tremendous 20 year ride between the original Panther and “Curse”.

This film combines extended gags with short riffs where Sleigh trips over his feet and destroys a piece of furniture or a display. In its way it is successful at what it is attempting to do. It creates a character who is similar enough to Clouseau to not be a shock to long term fans of the series while molding a passably entertaining story around it. It works quite well and the film maintains its directive throughout without succumbing to self-parody.

The performances in this film are all impressive. I’ve decided that Ted Wass is brilliantly playing a wooden character with no rhythm and that he is supposed to be that way. Wass has a certain affability that he exploits routinely. He’s got natural comic timing which comes in to play throughout the film. Joanna Lumley also possess a fantastic comedic touch. She and Roger Moore have excellent chemistry here and it works to the film’s advantage. Herbert Lom is, as usual, very discomforted as Dreyfus and phenomenally agitated at the prospect of Clouseau being alive. It’s a testament to the series that it manages to make Dreyfus’s neuroses regarding Clouseau fresh and novel every time they attack it. Dreyfus is really the central character in these films and Clouseau is merely the comic relief.

Overall, this film captures the spirit of the earlier films without quite managing to create their elegance or style. Tedd Wass of course isn’t as dynamic and thrilling as Sellers but that isn’t what the film is going for here. Wass is an entirely different animal even though he shares the same afflictions as Sellers in terms of his lack of balance and inability to avoid falling down. He is a repressed, buttoned-up nerd with no clue about the world, and especially women. Next to him Clouseau is Casanova. Seller’s Clouseau, despite his tendency to destroy inanimate objects, is a man of the world. He’s sophisticated in a way that Wass’s is not. The film wonderfully gives us a character who doesn’t try to be a mock-up of Clouseau and instead carries on with his own personality quirks that come in the end to define the character.

Film Review--Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li

2009-03-13T20:53:00.001-07:00

Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li
directed by Andrzej Bartkowiak
written by Justin Marks
starring Kristen Kreuk, Chris Klein, Neal McDonough, Robin Shou, Moon Bloodgood, Michael Clarke Duncan, Taboo, Josie Ho, Edmund Chen

This is the story of a little girl who longed to be nothing short of a renowned classical pianist. We learn of her ambition through voice over narration by her adult Self. She is Chun-Li (Kreuk) and along with her piano studies she also undertakes extensive martial arts training with her father Xiang (Chen) who teaches her a wide variety of useful techniques that she proves to be exceedingly adept with. Unfortunately their idyll is shattered by Bison’s (McDonough) henchmen who kidnap her father and leave her mother in a crumpled heap. Chun-Li grows up to indeed by a pianist who plays extravagant concert halls and is well received. She receives a scroll written in ancient Chinese and this ultimately leads her to Bangkok where she has been instructed to meet a man named Gen (Shou). Eventually she does meet him and he instructs her while helping her get more control over her anger.

This film, adapted from the successful video game franchise, suffers as most adaptations of this sort do. It quite often feels like a video game with little character development, ludicrous dialog, and absurd fight sequences. Still, it does have its charms which mostly come through in the performances which are mostly excellent.

Kristen Kreuk has an unassuming personality as Chun-Li in this film and her tiny frame contains a fireball of martial arts skills that seem to erupt as if out of nowhere. It’s delightful to watch her launch herself into full on fighting mode and her particular fighting scenes have a ballet quality to them as well as seeming to be incredibly athletic. She manages to infuse the scenes with an erotic quality that is conspicuously missing from other such scenes in the film. She expresses a tremendous energy and possesses a strong presence throughout the course of the film.

The character of Bison is presented to be one who has basically sold his soul to the devil. Literally, in one of the more preposterous scenes which is never properly explained, he removes his unborn daughter from his wife’s stomach and transplants his conscience in her so he can be rid of it once and for all. Ostensibly this is so he can continue to fleece people without ever having to suffer the damned pangs of guilt that generally accompany such nefarious transactions. He grew up a thief and continues his activities by managing to buy out all of the waterfront slums in Bangkok and forcing all of the residents out of their homes so he can build expensive, exclusive hi-rises for the affluent. Neal McDonough plays him with fiendish glee yet he never makes the mistake of turning his character into a cartoon. In this film Bison is all too human and representative of the corrupting influence that greed and power can hold over certain individuals who do not know how to reign in their appetites.

Bison’s sinister machinations are not fully explored in this film. I wanted more evidence as to why he’s such a dangerous person and I only got a hint of what he is up to. I learn that he’s prone to extreme violence, commands an army of sycophants, kidnaps well-connected businessmen to do his bidding, and makes plans for obliterating the lifestyles of scores of people for his own profit and amusement. But, there is clearly so much more sinister goodness inside this man. His reign of terror is just too local to have much street value. I assume he is more ambitious than what he appears but perhaps he’s satisfied with his corruptive schemata.

As Chun-Li makes her way to Bison, whom she has learned is holding her father, a cop named Maya Sunee (Bloodgood) and an operative named Charlie Nash (Klein) are following a series of decapitated heads to Bison. Eventually they both intersect setting up the final showdown between the police and Bison’s military squad. It’s a typical battle sequence and nothing particularly dramatic stands out although again Chun-Li possesses a legitimate sense of grace and elegance as she administers her various assaults on her enemies.

Overall, this film manages to be fairly entertaining despite its myriad flaws regarding pacing, style, and dialog. It has the requisite amount of energy for an action film and the performances are mentioned are uniformly good. Robin Shou quietly commands the screen in every scene he’s in. His character is spiritually wise and it’s consistently enlightening to listen to him wax philosophically about various aspects of martial arts and yoga. Ultimately, it’s a film that probably should have gone straight to video as it doesn’t exactly feel very cinematic most of the time. It feels restrained, as if it were trapped in a tiny box not very unlike a gaming system or television set.

Film Review--Friday the 13th (2009)

2009-03-13T15:33:00.000-07:00

Friday the 13th (2009)
directed by Marcus Nispel
written by Damian Shannon, Mark Swift, Mark Wheaton
based on characters created by Victor Miller
starring Jared Padalecki, Danielle Panabaker, Amanda Righetti, Travis Van Winkle, Aaron Yoo, Derek Mears, Julianna Guill, Ben Feldman

In this stellar, atmospheric reimagining of the Friday the 13th film series, the various aspects that made the earlier films in the franchise so effective are maintained and occasionally enhanced. The result is a menacing, deeply haunting telling of the mythos that surrounds the character of Jason Voorhees (Mears).

Jason is hard in this film. His movements, demeanor and cold calculations render him one of the more salient mass murderers in recent horror history. This film reworks elements from the first four films to tell the familiar story of a disgruntled homicidal manic who preys on those who stumble into his terrain. Jason is territorial here and the locals know enough not to enter into his domain. There is a quiet complicity amongst the locals who seem to accept the fact that a crazed killer routinely stalks and butchers his prey in their midst. They just want to be left alone and are not prone to asking any questions. Also, it is perhaps likely that they too view the incursions of the outsiders as troublesome and that those who suffer at Jason’s hands somehow deserve their fate for their dissolute lifestyles.

The film features two sets of killing sprees six weeks apart. In each a group of young people are out for a good time of sex, booze, and whatever other substances they can find and ingest. The first group are seeking out weed that they have learnt grows around Crystal Lake and they want to procure it in order to sell it at a huge profit. The first kill who is obsessed with GPS tracking systems but is clearly not one that the ladies favor finds the marijuana just before he is slaughtered by Jason. These kids fall relatively quickly except one girl named Whitney (Righetti) who resembles Jason’s mother when she was younger. Jason keeps her chained in his basement although there is no clear indication that he attempts to torture or sexually assault her.

Six weeks later a man named Clay (Padalecki) is looking for his sister, Whitney, who disappeared and he is traveling around knocking on doors asking if anyone has seen her. One woman says “She ain’t missin’. She’s dead” before slamming the door in his face. He gravitates to the beach house of Trent (Van Winkle) who is hosting a wild weekend for his friends. Trent and Clay do not hit it off and a clear rivalry is set up between them. The kids booze it up and some of them have sex which it has been proven is never a good idea in these films. Gradually, Jason makes his way through the group until all but Clay and Jenna (Panabaker) are left. The film focuses mainly on Clay’s continuing search for Whitney as Jason bores down on satisfying the edicts of his killing plan.

There is a definite mood set up in this film through editing and music. The killings seem brutal and more intense than the majority of recent remakes and most contemporary horror films in general. Jason is depicted as not so much a raging force out of control but as a calculating killer who has a set agenda that involves careful planning and deliberate action. Jason has evolved into more of a modern day serial killer who knows precisely what he wants to accomplish and has the tools to reach his aims. He is also a mass murderer who kills a great number of people all at once. For the first time he captures and detains a victim and also tortures a girl named Amanda (America Olivo) by stringing her up in a sleeping bag over a camp fire.

The film starts with the beheading of Jason’s mother (Nana Visitor) which took place at the end of the original film. Jason observes this act and it is this moment that is assumed to have triggered his violent course of revenge. Thirty years later the kids show up and Jason takes his pleasure at their unwitting expense. Clay is similar to a character in one of the early films in that he is also looking for his disappeared sister. The use of a sleeping bag as a death chamber is similar to a girl who was slammed against a tree in a previous film.

There is some comedic relief in the form of Chewie (Yoo) who offers up the occasionally witty remark before getting his in the shed. We actually spend quite a bit of time with Chewie which is almost unheard of in the series. We get to know his quirks as well as the contents of his one-track mind. He’s one of the only characters worth knowing in this film and his demise comes as something of a shock although we know from the outset that it’s inevitable. There are others who are more developed than is typical including Clay and Jenna who necessarily become the two who are thrust into the role of key survivors who face Jason and make concerted efforts to eliminate him.

It is possible that Jason is just defending his weed from the greedy mitts of intruders. Perhaps he’s been cultivating it all along and becomes exceedingly angry when it is disturbed. He wants it to be left alone and is bent on ensuring that it remains protected by those who would ravish it for mere profit.

The killings have a visceral quality that renders them immediate and vital. The use of sound enhances the deaths and accentuates their brutal natures.

The performances in this film are all relatively impressive for the genre. Jared Padalecki has a particularly strong presence and carries his part of the film effectively. Amanda Righetti is at ease looking terrified and her character possesses a genuine spark that is actualized near the end of the film

Overall, this is one of the most satisfying remakes of recent memory. In fact, it’s one of the most invigorating horror films of recent vintage and does everything right to jack up the series and return it back to its roots. It provides the viewer with an opportunity to revisit the elements that have made this one of the most popular franchise series in cinematic history. There are moments of legitimate terror which is brought to bear by the score and set design. Each of the main characters are well thought out and seem necessary to the story being told. Still, the majority of the characters are just fodder for Jason’s peculiar tastes and he dispatches them without fanfare. Jason himself is exceedingly swift and energetic in this film. He seems more human and therefore more terrifying than in many of the more recent additions to the film’s canon. In every way this is a successful take on these films and it seems as if they have set it up so that there will likely be a sequel.

Film Review--Freddy vs. Jason

2009-03-13T12:03:00.000-07:00

Freddy vs. Jason
directed by Ronnie Yu
written by Damian Shannon, Mark Swift
based on characters created by Victor Miller and Wes Craven
starring Robert Englund, Ken Kerzinger, Monica Keena, Jason Ritter, Kelly Rowland, Chris Marquette, Brendan Fletcher, Lochlyn Munro

From the bowels of Hell, Freddy Krueger (Englund) fears his ability to terrorize the dreams of the unwitting is fading so he turns to Jason Voorhees (Kerzinger) for help. Unfortunately, he fails to acknowledge that Jason’s fundamental purpose, that which gets him out of the bed in the morning, is to kill as many humans as possible before sundown. Jason simply cannot be shut off on a whim and kills just as naturally as another man brushes his dog’s teeth.

From the beginning, it’s not a particularly square arrangement. Freddy simply wants Jason to do all the work so he can take all the credit. He imagines that he can control Jason but this proves to be a most unfortunate miscalculation. So, Jason returns and starts killing as if he never let off. He butchers a couple of kids and a parent leaving Springwood utterly beguiled with fear and anticipation.

One of the most satisfying Jason moments takes place in this film. A group of kids all attend a rave in a cornfield and as they get plastered on whatever’s most readily available, one cannot possibly wait for what happens next. Right on cue, Jason comes a swingin’ his machete and manages to take out nearly a dozen drugged out kids before he’s done. It’s truly as glorious as it sounds and fits nicely into Jason’s fundamental moral outrage toward those damn kids and their rampant sexuality and drug taking.

But, Freddy is not pleased. His charge is threatening to usurp all his glory and this troubles him immensely. His sole purpose for tricking Jason into working for him is becoming unraveled at the seams.

The kids, led by Lori Campbell (Keena) and Will Rollins (Ritter) soon become aware of what is happening and take measures to protect themselves from Freddy’s dream land. They try to get their hands on an experimental dream-suppressant drug called Hypnocil and are attacked by Jason but not before one of them injects him with two massive syringes that temporarily knock him out. They cart him back to Crystal Lake to “send him” home but he escapes. Meanwhile Lori also in injected with the tranquilizer in order to pull Freddy out so that Jason can deal with him.

We learn through Jason’s dreams that he is indeed mortally afeared of water. He and Freddy battle to a standstill before Jason wakes up setting the stage for the final, epic battle.

Freddy has an ability to “possess” certain individuals and convince them to do his bidding. This is most readily apparent at Westin Hills Asylum where the kids travel to procure their medication. A stoner named Freeburg (Kyle Labine) finds the medication but is forced to dump it all out when taken over by Freddy. By this stage Freddy is enraged that he is losing so many kills to the unstoppable Jason. He wants nothing more than to ensure that fear will reign in the community so he can once again wreak utter havoc and satisfy his insatiable lust for blood.

There is a ward of patients in the asylum who appear to be sleeping but they are actually comatose from taking too much Hypnocil. Apparently, there is a citywide structure in place to reduce fear so Freddy doesn’t return to torment anyone else’s dreams. It’s not precisely clear why so many healthy, seemingly normal kids are being locked up at Westin Hills. It has something to do with Freddy’s appearance four years back when he went on his most recent killing spree.

The battle sequences between Freddy and Jason are all handled relatively well. They go at each other as one would expect and the tenacity of their fight is readily apparent throughout. It’s a lot of quick editing, and great lighting that changes from red (fire) to blue (water) once Jason becomes faced with his gravest fear. It feels like clash of the titans in hell which is precisely what the film makers are going for.

Lori and Will are two star crossed would-be lovers who dated when they were fourteen. When her mother was killed, he disappeared and spent the next four years at Westin Hills. He claims he was locked up because he saw Lori’s father (Butler) kill her mother. Apparently, Dr. Campbell is the man responsible for keeping all of the kids doped up on the dream suppressing drug. Again, we only get a hint about what happened four years ago. We know that Freddy was active and that the town reacted very strongly in order to eliminate the threat of his returning again. This has something to do with suppressing fear amongst the population which explains why Freddy Krueger had felt compelled to summon help in making the townsfolk terrified again.

One of the most fascinating sequences occurs when Jason and Lori are both dreaming at once. Lori is at camp Crystal Lake the day Jason drowned. She sees a group of kids taunting Jason, driving him onto the dock. Lori runs up to two counselors who are fornicating to draw their attention to what is happening at the dock. One of them morphs into Freddy and Jason is thrown into the water. Lori runs to save him but he is pushed down by Freddy who holds him underwater until Jason awakens and boy Jason disappears. It’s some well-needed back story that helps explain some of the mystery that has always existed in the series regarding Jason’s death. It creates a portrait of a child with a misshapen head who is cruelly teased without as much as an attempt at intervention. It explains his mother’s rage and much of his subsequent behavior.

Overall, this film is a consistently entertaining cross fertilization of the two franchises. It provides the best of both characters and brings to light significant aspects of both narratives. The performances are all effective for the genre and the story has a logical thrust that it maintains over its duration.

Film Review--A Nightmare on Elm Street

2009-03-12T16:13:00.000-07:00

A Nightmare on Elm Street
written and directed by Wes Craven
starring John Saxon, Robert Englund, Ronee Blakley, Heather Langenkamp, Amanda Wyss, Jsu Garcia, Johnny Depp, Charles Fleischer.

We still do not know much if anything about our dreams, suggests a doctor doing research into dreams in this film. In this film, the dream scape is unleashed upon cold, waking reality and possesses the ability to kill the unwitting while they sleep.

A decade after an angry mob of parents burnt alive famed serial child murderer Fred Krueger (Englund) he has returned to haunt the dreams of their children.

Fred Krueger seems to have had a special relationship with the local children. We don’t learn specifics only that he lured and butchered a great number of them before finally being caught. Due to a technicality he was set free but was unable to enjoy his solitude for very long because the raging fury of the parents of the dead children swarmed upon him and took their anger and frustration out on him. Like all great cinematic spooks Krueger could not be put down so readily and he made it his mission to make them pay for their mistake.

The film deftly explores the relationship between the dream state and reality through several characters who encounter Krueger in their dreams and return to waking life with physical evidence of what occurred. The prospect is immensely attractive and cinema and fiction writers have been trying for centuries to fully express the implications that such possibilities inherently suggest. This film is an inspired rebuff to our hopes regarding this potentiality because with great bounty comes great sorrow. This is just one manifestation of the idea but naturally there are many more.

Fred Krueger reached a level of infamy in death that very few achieve in life. He became a fiend of such depraved magnitude that the very mention of his name was enough to chill the bones of those left to remember.

Tina Gray (Wyss) has a terrible nightmare where she is being threatened by a horrifically burnt man wearing a tattered green and red striped sweater and with razor-sharped knives extending from the fingers on his right hand. She wakes up with slash marks on her dress as proof of her experience in the dream. She learns that her friend Nancy Thompson (Langenkamp) has been dreaming of the same figure.

Fred Krueger once terrorized the entire community when he stalked, captured, and murdered over twenty children. Yet he has managed to make a deal with his custodians in Hell and been allowed to enter into the dreams of anyone he chooses. It’s not so clear just where the ability to transfer dream characters and objects into real life comes from. It’s not all Krueger’s doing because Nancy is able to drag his hat back with her when she snatches it off of his head just before waking up.

Tina and her boyfried Rod Lane (Garcia) have intense sex and fall asleep. Freddy comes back for her and this time he gets her and brutally murders her while Rod watches in amazement. It’s a fairly thrilling death sequence as she is dragged up a wall and across the ceiling with blood splattered everywhere. Rod is arrested and Freddy hangs him in his cell. Nancy and her boyfriend Glen Lantz (Depp) devise a plan to defeat Freddy but Glen falls asleep and is obliterated in his bed with an impressive spew of flesh and bone spewing toward and coating the entire ceiling. This leaves Nancy alone to deal with the beast so tenaciously assaulting her in her dreams.

So, much of the film deals with Nancy’s continuous torments at the hands of Fred Krueger. In one key scene she is in the tub and the camera is placed at the end so we see her with her legs spread open as the knife-hand emerges from the water. It’s a strangely telling scene that illustrates the sexual nature of Krueger’s intent toward Nancy. It suggests that he is interested in mutilating her sexually or at least violating her in some way. Krueger tends to lay on his victims on occasion simulating a rape. He is more driven by sex than, say, Jason Voorhees, or even Michael Myers. Krueger is not repelled by sex and seems to rather enjoy it whenever he’s afforded an opportunity to get near it.

Nancy is really still a girl trying to make sense of the changes that are occurring in her body. She is not they typical oversexed female teen who has populated so many modern day horror films. She’s much more modest and self-effacing. She doesn’t use her sexuality to manipulate others mostly because she hasn’t been trained, however, subliminally, in the art of seduction. Perhaps it is this girlish quality that attracts Krueger to her. She reminds him perhaps of one of the little girls he raped and slaughtered and he’s eager to relive that experience through her.

Lucid dreaming is explored subtly in this film as Nancy on several occasions attempts to remind her dream Self that what she is experiencing is only a dream. However, awareness is not enough to combat the sinister machinations of Fred Krueger. Eventually, Nancy learns a trick and uses it to (albeit temporarily) defeat Krueger which is something she learned earlier in the film from Glen.
The film employs expert lighting techniques and sound cues to create a legitimately frightening landscape that it maintains throughout. The opening sequence sets up the tone effectively and generates a considerable amount of chills in the audience. Tina is in a boiler room where she is being taunted by Krueger. She’s wearing a sheer nightgown, taunting him with her form readily apparent beneath the fabric. She is alluring and he is terribly excited. He wants her but is most likely impotent. Did he not sexualize his child victims or was it just a matter of predator catches prey with no overt sexual content attached to the killings? These new victims are supposed to be fifteen and yet Krueger murdered children much younger than that. So, why did he wait so long for these kids to become teen-agers? If the thrill was strictly with one age group, then one would expect it to remain so through the special avenue of dreams.

Fred Kreuger possesses all of the frenetic posturings of the oversexed killer. His problems most likely stem from sexual inadequacies which explains why he would target children as they are not likely to point out and subsequently laugh about any shortcomings.

With her friends dead Nancy takes it upon herself to bring Krueger out of her dreams in order to defeat him. In a rather imaginative final battle sequence she uses her ingenuity to assist in her capture of the demonic child killer. The ending is wonderfully ambiguous as it always must be in top notch horror films. Here, it appears as if the dream state cannot be properly absolved of its complicity in creating horror for the victims on Elm Street.

The performances in this film are all effective for this genre. Heather Langenkamp captures her character’s essential naivety and stresses Nancy’s lack of full maturity into womanhood. Langenkamp allows us to follow her character through her dreams and out into waking reality. Johnny Depp, in his first feature role, is believable in a quiet role. His character’s most dramatic moment comes with his death; otherwise, he’s secondary to the true thrust of the narrative. John Saxon is quite impressive as a character that represents law and order or the perfectly rational against all of the chthonic and measureless forms that populate dreams. Robert Englund is magnetic and infinitely creepy as the butcher of children who has found himself a most eventful and delightful new hobby in Hell. Englund provides audiences with a character who is, to the minds of most folks, utterly evil, and manages to make him likable throughout.

Overall, this film does everything it needs to do in order to create a world of legitimate horror. Fred Krueger is an audacious character who nevertheless is easy to get behind. Certainly, he’s a notorious killer who has taken the lives of many children but he’s also something of a dark romantic hero. He’s a villain with a terrific bloodlust who is necessarily fascinating to observe. He goes about his business with maniacal efficiency and one can’t help but admire his fortitude and his perseverance. The characters are all well written and their stories come off as believable.
Ultimately, this film stands as one of most consistently entertaining horror films in the genre. It gets under the skin and most certainly disrupts the dreams of those who encounter it.

Film Review--Jason X

2009-03-11T15:12:00.000-07:00

Film Review--Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday

2009-03-11T10:28:00.001-07:00

Jason Goes to Hell
directed by Adam Marcus
written by Adam Marcus and Jay Huguely
starring Kane Hodder, John D. LeMay, Keri Keegan, Steven Williams, Steven Culp, Erin Gray, Rusty Schwimmer, Richard Gant, Andrew Bloch

In the ninth installment of the popular gore fest, Jason goes airborne and is suddenly capable of infecting others with a mangy virus and taking over their bodies in order to kill.

The film opens with a dodgy FBI operation where Jason (Hodder) is pulled into a trap with a slinky undercover agent who lures him into showing up at the cabin with her slick, sexy shower tricks. Jason is essentially obliterated and his body parts are gathered up and taken to the morgue where his crusty beating heart is eaten by the coroner (Gant). Jason enters the coroner’s body and the mayhem begins.

There is much carnage including a trio of randy kids out for some kicks at Camp Crystal Lake. Jason returns and quickly eliminates them before we hardly get their names. Still, as is always the case, it’s never a good idea to have sex anywhere near Crystal Lake because Jason abhors intimacy and must annihilate it at every turn.

The film explores new lunacy in the Jason mythos. We discover that he has a half-sister named Diane Kimble (Gray) and that he can only be killed with a magic dagger by one of his female kin. That leaves Diane, her daughter Jessica (Keegan) and Jessica’s daughter Stephanie. The film gets really wacky in the end as the great climax comes to a close. There are elements of Aliens that just don’t seem to work here. It’s comical rather than being dramatically effective.

Jason infects his targets by transferring a thick black ooze into their throats. Apparently this act replaces their hearts and he takes over operations from there. In one scene Jason actually kidnaps a policeman named Josh (Bloch) and straps him to a table before replacing his heart. From here there are many more deaths including that of Diane which is blamed on Steven (LeMay), Jessica’s former boyfriend and father of her child.

The story is fairly convoluted and includes a Crime show host named Robert (Culp) who decides to jazz his line up a bit by stealing Diane’s corpse and filming a show at the old Voorhees place. Of course he becomes the next empty shell killer when Josh does the whole ooze transfer on him. He too murders many people and naturally there are complications with Jessica.

So, this story has some interesting, if not wholly original ideas to play around with. Having Jason possess the ability to take up a new body when the old one is a bit creaky is fairly well-heeled territory. The film doesn’t do anything novel with the premise and we are actually left with a slimy black creature that comes out of Jason’s mouth looking for a way to be born. He finds a way and it’s the most interesting aspect of the film. The visual repercussions of the scene resonate long after the film is over.

Steven is the main mail protagonist in this film as he gets himself caught square up in the middle of the killing spree by merely being in he wrong place at the wrong time. He’s somewhat ineffectual but he can take and throw a punch. Still, he’s lacking in a discernible personality which drags the film down considerably whenever he’s on screen. He’s paired up with yet another charisma-lite female character who is supposed to force audiences into caring but we don’t care for her and we certainly could care less about her damn baby. I think it would have been a find idea to have Jason possess the baby and make her into a killer of other babies in playpens and such. It would be cool to have her smothering all the fat little babies in the neighborhood when their mothers come over to knit.

Jason Voorhees hardly makes an appearance here as himself. He fills the bodies of at least four men and we are given the succinct privilege of watching them hack their way to orgasmic oblivion. Admittedly, it’s just not the same as when Jason does it in his own flesh. His body, gnarled and rotten, adds a certain grittiness to his killing sprees which is completely lost in the new versions. It seems like a decent idea but the application is all wrong and the end result is essentially disappointment that this could have been something potentially more unnerving and toxic. Instead, it’s just silliness from beginning to end; once the final scenes commence you know you are in the place where interesting scenarios go to die. These ideas were not properly thought out and leave the viewer in a state of acute perplexity.

The film features a bounty hunter named Creighton Duke (Williams) who apparently is the only one who knows how to stop Jason. At the beginning of the film he offers his services to a TV station for $500,000 and they accept. All he has at his disposal is one tiny bit of information that he has culled from some source or another. That’s all he has although it does turn out to be a very valuable piece of info. It’s just not worth the money he demands from his potential client. So, he stands on the sidelines as Jessica goes about doing her business with the magic dagger. We know its magic because green light surrounds it when she picks it up. This also occurs whenever Jason transplants his heart into another body. It’s corny and turns the film into something completely outside the realm populated by the earlier films in the series.

Overall, the film isn’t as scary as it ought to be. The premise is fairly sound and there are plenty of opportunities to create a brutal, uncompromising film experience but it just never quite turns out that way. It’s comical in a way that the film makers most likely never intended although the men who are the recipients of Jason’s heart look like proper zombies with their mouths caked in blood and their frenetic killing styles. Ultimately, there is nothing in this film that requires Jason’s presence whatsoever. It could have been made with an entirely different character. It’s a Friday the 13th film without its star player and the result is entirely underwhelming.

Film Review--Andy Warhol's Trash

2009-03-10T19:46:00.001-07:00

Trash
written and directed by Paul Morrissey
starring Joe Dallesandro, Andrea Feldman, Holly Woodlawn, Geri Miller, John Putnam, Jane Forth, Bruce Pecheur, Diane Podel

Andy Warhol presents a sleazy underground tour through decadence and rampant drug abuse featuring Paul Morrissey’s leading hunk Joe Dallesandro.

The film opens with a woman named Geri (Miller) trying to give head to burnt out lover, Joe (Dallesandro). He’s been on the junk too long and can no longer get it up. No problem, Geri decided to shake her ass a bit and jumps up on stage to do a little strip number for Joe. Still, there’s nothing happening and all poor Joe can do is complain that he hasn’t got another fix.

Joe and Holly (Woodlawn) are living together and she also complains that Joe cannot achieve an erection. They are ghastily poor and she collects garbage and brings it back to furnish her apartment. He spends much of his time whining about scoring and when he does finally get loaded he passes out and it seems as if he might actually be dead. He goes to visit a rich girl (Feldman) who chatters on for days before he finally shuts her up by nearly raping her. He finally ends up trying to break into the house owned by Bruce (Pecheur) and Jane (Forth). Jane is a buttoned-up ice queen who nevertheless tries to convince Joe to sleep with her and Bruce. Joe agrees and then they let him shoot up while ogling his gear. Naturally, Joe nods off and Bruce kicks him naked out of the house.

There is ample sex and nudity including some bits that have a kinkiness aspect to them. Holly uses a beer bottle in an exceedingly exaggerated pantomime to get off. Joe nearly has sex with Holly’s sister (Podel) who is pregnant.

This feels like a deliberate push for smut without fully exploring hard core sex. It’s fairly light fare although the sex does have a gritty, raw quality that is a step up from most sexploitation cinema. The characters seem to be begging for release; they writhe and they nearly all appear to be famished for something be it sex, drugs, fame, power.

This is a well acted film although I’m not sure how much of the dialog is improvised. Regardless, the scenes all seem natural and the characters are entirely believable. These are the sort of people one wishes they could meet and get really high with. Their trashy like the best of all the Warhol superstars were in real life. It’s not a stretch to believe that these folks are really just playing themselves although I highly doubt that Dallesandro has ever had the same problem as his character in this film.

It’s true that it’s impossible to take your eyes off of Mr. Dallesandro. He’s got a remarkable presence throughout the film and he’s a born leading man. His charisma is really subdued in this film considering how often he passes out but it works entirely too well. He’s at ease in front of the camera and possesses fine attributes that serve him well in the film.

Andrea Feldman has a voice that is absolutely original and impossible to forget once it crawls into one’s skull. It’s got a sing song quality that is truly hypnotic and its genuinely thrilling to hear her rattle on about her $800 fur coat or how much she just has to take LSD. She’s loaded and living rather low which mimics personas like Edie Sedgewick who also spent a considerable amount of time slumming. Another interesting twist is that both Edie and Andrea Feldman died rather young. Edie died at 28 of an accidental barbiturate overdose and Andrea jumped out of 14th floor apartment in New York when she was 24.

There is a vibrancy to this film that is generated practically from the first frame. Dallesandro’s dead wood quickly morphs into a tantalizing erotic dance and this carries over to the rest of the film. There isn’t a tremendous amount of action in this film and indeed most of it consists of characters sitting around talking about or doing drugs. For Joe, his entire life consists of scoring or shooting up. He doesn’t seem to have any other ambitions besides getting high and getting laid although he can’t even successfully do that any more. By the end of the film he is even more tired than usual and he and Holly create a plan for straightening out their lives and becoming more respectable. Apparently they are so low that they don’t even qualify for welfare so they concoct a scheme to procure it. It’s strange that Holly considers Welfare to be a ticket to respectability but she most definitely believes it.

Much of the film has a very open quality to it and the camera work is quite loose as quite a bit of it is done with a hand held. The camera moves about–sometimes its shaky or blurry–and the film occasionally has a documentary feel to it. Certainly the actors and the subject matter are not exactly divorced from one another and their interaction with the material has a solid ring of truth behind it.

The performances in this film are as mentioned entirely natural. There isn’t very much actual acting in this film and it works considerably well. Holly Woodlawn is simply brilliant at playing a quasi-hysterical mad woman who is absolutely afflicted with glamor that she owns completely. Joe Dallesandro doesn’t really have to say anything whatsoever in this film and he comes across like a million bucks. He’s one of the few actors that can literally melt celluloid with a look. Andrea Feldman does a dance through a field of skulls in this film and her voice is positively sublime. Jane Forth plays a plastic princess with a terribly wicked heart. Her character comes across as a bored housewife type who wants nothing more than to crawl about in the filth for a while looking for an experience that will completely ravish and terrify her.

Overall, this is a smart collision of robust sexuality and degradation stolen from the anus of fear. It’s gloriously filmed, the actors are all a smashing good time, and it actually manages to feel like not being able to procure one’s medicine and being broke. It’s got an oozing stickiness to it that is seemingly too difficult for other similarly themed films to pull off. It’s a success in that it creates an actual physical reaction to the film that is unsettling and discomforting. One wants to immediately eat a salad, run fifteen miles, and plant a tree. Ultimately, this film expresses a certain life that is both exciting and nauseating. It gives us characters who are slightly deranged and perfectly loveable for it. The story can be read as being about bored kids with nothing much to do finding their entertainment in whatever avenue is most convenient. The kids are alright in the end.

Film Reviews--L'Humanite

2009-03-10T10:33:00.001-07:00

L’Humanité
written and directed by Bruno Dumont
starring Emmanuel Schotté, Séverine Caneele, Philippe Tullier, Ghislain Ghesquère, Ginette Allegre

Employing extended takes, a static camera, and deliberate pacing this film explores the language of horror and acute grief.

A young girl has been found dead in a field; she has been raped and bitten on the throat. Police Superintendent Pharaon De Winter (Schotté) is beginning the arduous task of gathering clues to determine who is responsible for the crime. His investigation leads him to the school bus the girl, named Nadege, rode for the last time as well as a mental hospital.

The pacing of the film is exceedingly deliberate as it allows the audience to pause and look at things for a great length of time. It focuses its attention on the faces of the characters and stays on them to allow the viewer to examine their micro-emotions to help determine their real feelings regarding whatever is troubling.

De Winter is beset with grief for pretty much the entire film. He looks worn, tired, and anguished over what he has seen. Indeed, he cannot let go of it; it haunts him wherever he turns. He seems particularly disturbed whenever he sees girls the same age as Nadege out on the street. He routinely pauses to stare at them for what amounts to an uncomfortable amount of time. Of course one cannot get inside his head but there are many possibilities as to why he lingers on the children and not all of them are decent. Still, one should not expect the worst in this case because there is no other evidence in the film to corroborate it. De Winter also has a habit of rubbing his face against the faces of other men. He does it with a man being interrogated, a doctor at the mental institution, and with the man who committed the deed. For the last one he goes further and kisses him strangely on the mouth. It doesn’t make any sense in the context of the film other than to display the pent up emotions that are welling up inside him. At one point in the film De Winter screams repeatedly after walking past the place where it happened.

Domino (Caneele) is a neighbor of De Winter’s and they are close friends. De Winter is gravely attracted to Domino and there is much tension between them from the beginning of the film although Domino shows no obvious signs of interest. Domino is dating Joseph (Tullier), a sour school bus driver with a foul mouth and surly disposition. .

Each scene features extended takes that explore the limitations of cinema with a rather documentary style. The camera is stationary for much of the film as all action is reduced to taking place within the frame. There are scenes where characters are moving from one place to another and the camera will show the entire journey from a few different angles. The film becomes a contemplation during these scenes as the viewer is allowed the opportunity to think about the nature of the film and existential queries that have developed. There are many such questions. What is the anatomy of sorrow? Is grief a sickness and is there an immediate cure? Is it possible to not sexualize the rape and murder of an eleven year old girl?

De Winter is fraught with anxiety for the entire duration of the film. He finds it difficult, if not impossible, to work through his feelings regarding the girl’s murder. Indeed, his breathing is often heavy and shallow, he is testy with his mother, and he is taunted by the relationship between Domino and Joseph. He doesn’t let it show very often but he is exceedingly attracted to Domino and this upsets him deeply. During one scene Domino decides to initiate some physical contact with De Winter. She tells him that he can touch her wherever he wants and proceeds to digitally penetrate herself. De Winter appears disgusted and promptly walks out leaving Domino to contemplate the cruelty of her act.

There are several sex scenes between Domino and Joseph that seem entirely out of place in this film; they are fairly graphic and animalistic. They don’t do anything to further the narrative and seem altogether gratuitous. There are many scenes that feature female genitals. There is the close up of the young girl’s sexual organs, the three sex scenes, a close up of Domino on her back with her legs spread and finally, the insertion of the finger into the vagina. One cannot help but wonder after the motivation for such scenes. It’s impossible to come up with a justification for such moments because there isn’t one. Naughty bits in cinema only work when the are directly related to the story being told. Here they just are, by themselves, apparently shown to demonstrate that Joseph has a healthy sexual appetite. Otherwise they serve no purpose.

There are moments of sheer, unadulterated beauty throughout this film. It’s filmed in relatively flat terrain and it allows the viewer to take in the boundless, seemingly infinite horizons that seem to go on forever. This openness works very well throughout the film to articulate the impossibility to contain the death of the girl and to make much sense of it. It is scattered across the sky and one cannot fully grasp it because it defies explanation. How does one explain the horrible, brutal death of an eleven year old girl? There are no words that allow most of us to comprehend the severity of the act. Of course when one thinks about the needs and desires of the one who committed the crime, then it becomes easier to understand. One can gain insight when one can see the deed itself through his eyes and work through his mind to process it as it occurs without any moral hand wringing. As this has proven to be impossible for most persons it remains thoroughly experimental at this stage.

The film plays like a tone poem to the many facets of despair. The camera hovers agonizingly over the faces of the characters articulating a deeply felt and overbearing torment that informs the girl’s horrific death with tremendous sadness. Specifically, there are numerous shots of De Winter’s face that clearly show his fragile emotional state as he attempts to come to terms with the crime. He occasionally hides his face in his hands as if he cannot bear the burden of knowing that such a thing is possible and that it could happen to such a bubbly, lovely creature who has given no cause to be treated so barbarically.

The performances in this film are natural and believable. Emmanuel Schotté captures his character’s overarching loneliness and grief with an admirable clarity. De Winter is a wholly sympathetic character who Schotté deftly conveys with warmth and tremendous calm. Séverine Caneele possesses a quiet dignity throughout the film. Her character comes off as knowing and terribly understanding. Philippe Tullier gives us a terminally crass character who is often shown to be uncouth and slightly unhinged.

Overall, this is a devastatingly mournful film that seeps into the skin and remains there long after the film has concluded. There is a coldness about it, almost clinical, that is rooted in the sense of loss that is readily felt from the beginning. It shows how terrible things can leave a lasting impression on those whose job it is to deal with the aftermath while struggling to maintain their sense of personal order. De Winter is simply a man whose nature is such that crimes of this sort do not simply wash over him. He is the type that is haunted by such cruelties and therefore susceptible to emotional strain that plays on him routinely and keeps him menacingly by the throat.

Play Review--Why Did I Get Married?

2009-03-08T16:31:00.001-07:00

Why Did I Get Married?
Written and directed by Tyler Perry
starring Cheryl Pepsii Riley, LaVan Davis, Donna Stewart, Cordell Moore, Greg Stewart, Tony Grant, Demetria McKinney, Beverly Faulks

A couple’s retreat at a lakeside cabin reveals pains, struggles, and the essence of keeping a marriage working despite travails and sorrows.

Every year folks gather at Poppy’s (Davis) cabin for a couples retreat. This year a wildcard has been introduced in the form of Trina (McKinney) who is single and incorrigible. Sheila (Riley) has dragged her husband Mike (Moore) along in order to try and save their marriage. Due to stress she has put on over eighty pounds and Mike is sickened by the sight of her. Diana (Donna Stewart) and Terry (Greg Stewart) are a happily married couple of ten years who have suffered a a few glitches along the way but who stay committed to one another. Troy, who has a history of dating women he forgets almost as soon as he meets them, also comes along.

The play is set up like all of Tyler Perry’s productions. There is plenty of deep soul searching, terrific gospel-tinged music, and an indestructible focus on the power of God to change people’s lives. As per usual there are several transformations as key individuals face things about themselves that they find somewhat reprehensible and in dire need for a change.

Diana loathes Trina on sight and their banter together is frothy and occasionally mean spirited. Diana thinks she is a whore and makes her feelings felt from the outset. For her part Trina is not so much a whore as a gold digger whose sole ambition as far as relationships are concerned is to marry a rich man.

Everyone in this film is successful in their own way. Terry owns a restaurant and Diana is a lawyer. After suffering tremendous verbal abuse at the hands of her husband, Sheila sinks into a depression which only worsens when she finds out that Mike has been sleeping with Trina behind her back.

The play fast forwards a year and the group has returned for yet another retreat. Diana and Terry are still happily married and Mike begins to reminisce about his time with Sheila. Yet, he is married to Trina and is deeply chagrined by her spending habits. He is especially upset when he sees who Troy has brought to the gathering. It’s predictable as all hell and not particularly gratifying when Sheila walks through the door looking mighty fine and dressed to thrill. Naturally, this fuels Mike’s jealous which triggers another argument with his newly minted wife.

The play is low key with a few laughs scratched out now and then. Mostly, it feels like a series of sermons about the necessity of keeping God first and foremost in one’s life. Most of the songs bring God to the fore as exceedingly vital and necessary for anyone attempting to make their way in the world. There is quite a bit of advice on how to keep a marriage working and of the values that are worth pursuing when one is either thinking about or in the process of getting married. In many ways this can be read as a primer for prospective brides and grooms, shilling out wisdom about what and what not to do during the difficult, strenuous parts of marriage. It’s clear watching this play that marriages are often quite tumultuous and filled with strain. The key, according to this play, is communication tempered by a strong belief in God. The happy couple in this play are both God-fearing and their counterparts mostly are not.

LaVan Davis as Poppy is the glue that keeps the whole experience together. He’s good for the only sustainable laughs in the play and most of them come from a single line seemingly tossed away. Poppy fits in nicely in the mode of Perry creations who are slightly crazy but infinitely lovable at the same time.

This play speaks clearly to anyone who has ever considered themselves to be in love. It’s a challenge to individuals to examine the bedrock of their relationship in order to determine if the love is legit or not. True love, according to Mr. Perry, must first be ordained by God. Ultimately, the play argues, it’s his purpose which should take precedence in any relationship if it is going to work most effectively. It’s the same way with every one of Perry’s productions although not so much in some of his films. Here we have a character who is subject to a continuous litany of abuse. She takes it because she feels she has no place to run to. There is a very strong sense of just desserts here as Mike strays to chase tail that proves to be much more trouble than she is worth. Again, the focus is on maintaining strong relationships that are built on God as well as mutual trust and understanding. Mike cannot see past Sheila’s weight and realizes he missed the train when he sees her thinner self returning to taunt him.

Some of the messages here do have a ring of truth to them but they also sound like they were scribbled in the margins of one of Dr. Phil’s books. Of course basic, fundamental tools are implemented in an exceedingly direct and obvious way. There are no real surprises here as is the case with all of Perry’s works. It’s just a simple, easily digestible melodrama that espouses a dramatic, unabashedly Christian ethos that plays mainly to the choir. The songs are all quite impressive in their histrionics and intensity. They all cement key points home and serve the purpose of scaffolding to hold the entire production aloft. The play needs the songs to elevate the written material to the level of sanctity that Perry clearly intends the production to reach. The results are intermittently successful but it is not for want of trying.

The performances in this film all serve the play effectively. Donna Stewart plays one the more solid, emotionally salient characters in all of Perry’s canon. There’s a warmth to her that is apparent in every scene she is in. Diana is a model of religious conviction and her virtues as a successful woman are clearly present and vital to the core message of the story. LaVan Davis does a fine job playing most of his scenes for laughs. His bluesy prayer during suppertime is memorable for its rich textures and obvious sincerity. Demetria McKinney deliciously plays a hostile character obsessed more with the symbol of money than maintaining a healthy relationship. Trina is very much the anti-Diana and subsequently adversarial to the basic meaning of the play. Yet she represents a great number of women who believe in the power of the bling above all other concerns and who think they can find true happiness by maxing out an American Express card at the mall. Cheryl Pepsii Riley plays well with or without a fat suit. She’s good at emotional turmoil or in sassy confident mode.

Overall, this play ranks in the middle of the pack for Tyler Perry productions. It’s message is crystal and the songs are uplifting to those willing and able to believe. Much of it is melodrama but it gets the point across which is precisely what it needs to do. It takes its viewers on a very specific journey and clearly intends the audience to feel enlightened at the final curtain. For the most part it succeeds although it does feel at times as if it tries a little too hard to soften the hearts of those who do not share the same core beliefs the play is attempting to convey. Ultimately, the play will reach the flocks of those who follow Tyler Perry and who take his every word as gospel. For the rest of us, it’s just a nice, solid play with moments of legitimate clarity that ring out with something approaching truth.

Film Review--Inspector Clouseau

2009-03-07T15:52:00.000-08:00

Inspector Clouseau
directed by Bud Yorkin
written by Tom Waldman, Frank Waldman
starring Alan Arkin, Frank Finlay, Delia Boccardo, Barry Foster, Patrick Cargill, Beryl Reid, Clive Francis

Inspector Jacques Clouseau (Arkin) is an iconic character who is wholly predictable in his inanity. He falls, trips, stumbles about and we respond when the pratfalls have a certain logic about them and when they are organic. In this film Arkin knows how to portray Clouseau as a hapless fool and he performs the requisite amount of lunatic posturing throughout. It’s impossible to compare him to Peter Sellers because he only had one stab at the character to which Sellers will forever be linked. Arkin manages to sell the brave yet hapless maneuverings of Clouseau with just a tad less self-awareness than Sellers which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

The story as it goes involves a crime syndicate who have planned a series of major bank heists in and around London. They are mostly a faceless group of thugs but they do feature the dashing Johnny Rainbow (Francis) who definitely has the whole swingin’ London vibe down. He’s the cool face of youth deranged by the prospect of a massive cash influx that can buy a whole lot of Beatle boots. The gangsters are mostly a fiercely ugly bunch of cons but they do possess an ingenious plan that is part Bond and part Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Their operation is the most thrilling thing in the film and a proper use of technology for the sake of ill-gotten gains.

Clouseau finds himself suffocating under the heaving breasts of Mrs. Weaver (Reid). She’s a randy old coot and makes it plain she wants Clouseau to mount her and sing “Flower of Scotland” in a nasally twang. She forces him to go to a Scottish festival and practically wears him out. Then she coquettishly tries to seduce him while sitting in his lap. It’s a decidedly discomforting scene and one is relieved when he rolls her onto the floor and makes his escape. There is another scenes that work fairly well where Clouseau attempts to ease drop on the robbers. Instead he hears an old TV western where the characters are planning a major score. These two scenes generate a few laughs and are about as sophisticated as the film gets.

The film hinges on a scary thought, indeed. The crime syndicate has managed to make a copy of Clouseau’s face and have created thirteen masks out of the mold. In turn they rob banks city wide using the masks and of course Clouseau is implicated in all of them. But, Clouseau, despite himself, has tricks and knows without knowing what he knows. As always he manages to put the puzzle together without ever knowing there is a puzzle in front of him to be put together.

Arkin’s Clouseau is a non-stop atrocity arcade throughout this film. He manages to fall over just about everything in front of him and the results are always exceedingly dramatic and filled with great pablum. Essentially, it lacks the grace and elegance of the earlier work with Sellers but for what it is, it does possess its own unique brand of charm and it would be interesting to see Arkin with the opportunity to work with the character a few more times.

Alan Arkin is a bit ill-fitted but funny enough as Clouseau. He possesses the correct amount of energy and his body maneuvers and postures are spot on. He calls attention to himself more than Sellers through gestures, etc. but for the most part this is a fairly apt portrayal of Inspector Clouseau. Arkin possesses a button-up regularity which finds him more pent up than Sellers. He’s not as casual in his miscalculations and the result is a character who seems not to have the freedom of movement that defines the earlier versions.

Overall, this film lacks the choreography of the first two films and isn’t as immediately lunatic although Arkin does manage to upset the common order enough with his idiotic posturings. Arkin has a rought time of it stepping into the shoes of a comedic genius but he’s still impressive enough to at least ease the pressure of those tired old comparisons if but for a short while. The film offers up some nice, moderately amusing gags and Delia Boccardo is certainly easy on the eyes which is a necessity in these films. Ultimately, it isn’t quite up to par with the previous films but it’s a notch above some of the later work. It’s charming after a fashion and the characters are all sound and believable. There is less grace and style but Arkin keeps the momentum going throughout.

Film Review--The 400 Blows

2009-03-07T15:35:00.000-08:00

400 Blows
directed by François Truffaut
written by Marcel Moussy and François Truffaut
starring Jean-Pierre Léaud, Claire Maurier, Albert Rémy, Guy Decomble, Patrick Auffay, Georges Flamant

It’s one of the most famous images in film. A young boy named Antoine Doinel (Léaud) has escaped detention and finally, for the first time in his life, reaches the sea. A close-up of his face is followed by a freeze frame. We don’t know where he is going from here only that for one brief instance he is free. In this intoxicating French film about the gnarled vagaries of youth, Antoine struggles to find himself amidst tremendous criticism that comes at him from every conceivable angle.

Antoine is not keen on school. He acts out, cuts class, and behaves essentially as if he considers it burdensome and not worth his time. His home life is fraught with tensions as his financially-strapped parents seem more adept at arguing than creating a loving home for him. His mother Gilberte (Maurier) is particularly cold while his stepfather Julien (Rémy) looks on helplessly. With his friend René (Auffay) Antoine makes the best of his life on the run from all the forces that would strangle him in his sleep.

The film explores issues of oppression, freedom, as well as the treatment of juvenile prisoners in France at the time the film was made. There is a monotonous quality to the prisoner’s care that mimics that at the hands of the school administrators. There’s quite a bit of marching in line involved which must grate particularly on Antoine’s nerves as he attempts to establish his individuality in a world that only seems capable of creating copies of copies. Antoine senses this and rebuffs it as often as he can.

The sensuality of youth is expertly exploited in this film. There is a legitimate feeling of adventure as we follow Antoine through the travails and incongruities of a properly misspent adolescence. He faces a singular presence that want nothing more than to restrain him, to make him into a good little citizen who fits in, plays nice, and doesn’t do anything to upset the perfect order to which he must succumb. He is threatened with ostracism and feels it so strongly that after being caught in a lie where he told his teacher he missed class because his mother died, rather than face the forthcoming wrath he spends the night away from home. It isn’t clear whether or not Antoine knows instinctively that he is behaving in a rebellious manner. It’s more likely that his instincts are guiding him away from the trap that life sets out for the unwitting and easily led.

Antoine is a spirited lad with a tremendous zest for life. There’s a scene at an amusement park of sorts where Antoine is spinning on a low-gravity ride and gleefully maneuvers his body well off of the floor where most of the others have their feet firmly planted. There’s a look of tremendous joy on his face as he works the ride. It’s such a simple thing but it shows a kid who simply by nature is more adventurous than most. He’s always looking for a strange new angle and cannot be satisfied with what is typical or expected. Subsequently he is singled out for punishment not because he’s particularly guilty of anything but more because he’s so unabashedly different.

There just isn’t anything in the codified world that is being shoved down his throat that inspires Antoine in any way whatsoever. He clearly longs for a way out and proceeds to run away on several occasions because the air at home is too stifling. Indeed, his parents want him to behave in a specific manner and he refuses on principle.

Antoine is a bright kid who knows enough to recognize the methods his administrators and parents have devised to keep him in check. He would rather wander the streets and beg for his supper than to be subjected to their tyranny one minute longer. Yet, he isn’t as tough as he imagines himself to be and there are many scenes throughout the film when he displays an acute vulnerability that resonates strongly. He isn’t quite prepared for a life on the road but he knows it beats being trapped in a life he despises.

There is one scene that stands out for its incongruity. Gilberte Doinel is a keenly sexual woman who is exceedingly cold to Antoine at every turn. She sits down and proceeds to take off her hose as a flash of thigh is displayed. She’s just about the only female in this film as everything revolves around male activities. Suddenly, there is a peek into flesh that is usually carefully concealed. It’s a sign that female sexuality remains a potent force in this film no matter how hard boys and men attempt to get away from it in their games and activities. Or perhaps it’s just flesh with no significance attached. Either way, it’s an exquisitely crafted scene that is worth worrying over strictly based on its aesthetics.

There are peeks into Antoine’s secret world such as when he places a candle and a picture of Balzac in a shrine. Unfortunately the curtains drawn in front of the flame catch fire and Antoine is blamed for trying to set the house on fire. Yes, he has criminal inclinations and very well may end up out in the world terrorizing others for fun and profit. But, one senses he is basically a good kid who needs something more profoundly illuminating in his life than what he feels and sees about him. Crime is an intoxication and more thrilling than the rudimentary fallacies that make up the typical life. He demands something to explode in the sky, forever enticing and robust. Yet, the authorities and his parents demand he sit still and be agreeable to their genteel sensibilities. But he cannot do it. He must explore this thing within him that is forever at odds with the social order. He demands to know more about it and how he can best exploit it.

Antoine is simply every mischievous boy who gets a taste of the illicit at an impressionable age.
He is shown another path toward instant gratification through the theft of a typewriter he and René plan to sell. Unfortunately he is caught when he tries to put it back and this is where his true troubles begin. He is thrust into a wire cage with another boy and it’s agonizing to watch him sit there rotting for his crime. He is eventually cast into a home for juvenile delinquents and is forced into the same repetitive inanity that he attempts to escape when he is on the outside. Still, no jail can hold the truly adventurous spirit and he manages to escape during a game of soccer. He runs and runs until he finally reaches the sea.

Will Antoine run into a brick wall and find himself accosted with the brutal reality of the genuine jail experience? He’s escaped for now but it’s most likely inevitable that he will be hunted down and dragged back to the home and forced to endure the agony of incarceration. Or will this sense of possibilities remain entrenched in his psychic makeup affording him an opportunity to retain his rebellious spirit within the framework of conventional society? Either way he is going to have to adjust to a type of order.

The performances in this film are all exceptionally adept at capturing the essence of the narrative. Jean-Pierre Léaud, is dynamic from start to finish. He makes us believe in his character’s audacity and his yearning for something extraordinary. He also establishes Antoine’s vulnerability as well as his naivete. There is such an openness on his face at all times that he reflects back at us all of those moments where we shared the same lack of comprehension about the legitimacy of authority both parental and external. Claire Maurier is impressive as the cool, ravishing beauty who is not quite willing or able to bond with Antoine in the manner which he deserves. She’s cold, primal, and wholly impatient with her son. She wants results and is perfectly unaware of her role in helping achieve them.

Overall, this film explores the nature of youthful rebellion with an exacting, realistic urgency. The cinematography by Henri Decaë brings a clarity to Antoine’s plight and resonates with a stark beauty that routinely fuels the imagination and arrests the senses. There is a tremendous amount of hope in this film as cemented in its final image. There is freedom, delight, and longing for something that exists beyond the horizon. Antoine is a cataclysm. He’s vibrant, seeking, and altogether poised and willing to face whatever comes. Still, he’s a difficult child and his parents seek only to reign him in so that he can get a proper education and take his place in society. It’s a common plea and not unreasonable. Still, Antoine must make a decision and the genius of this film is that we are left awaiting such a decision and have no idea how his life is going to pan out. At least until the later series of films where Truffault continues with his character showing his development at later stages in his life.

Film Review--Revenge of the Pink Panther

2009-03-07T13:06:00.001-08:00

Revenge of the Pink Panther
directed by Blake Edwards
written by Blake Edwards and Frank Waldman
starring Peter Sellers, Herbert Lom, Burt Kwouk, Dyan Cannon, Robert Webber, Robert Loggia, Paul Stewart, Andre Maranne, Graham Stark, Sue Lloyd

A gangster and businessman named Phillipe Douvier (Webber) wants to make a deal with the New York Mafia for a whole mess of heroin but they think he’s too weak to close the deal. To prove his tough guy credentials he decides to take out the irrepressible oaf, Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau (Sellers). Soon, Clouseau is the target for a maddening array of hits that all magically miss their mark. On one such occasion Douvier lures Clouseau with the promise of valuable information but his plan is thwarted when a transvestite named Claude Rousseau (Lloyd) steals Clouseau’s car and subsequently dies in his place. Clouseau is thought dead and his arch enemy Dreyfus is released from a mental hospital to reassume his post as Chief Inspector.

In this film Clouseau seems to have his feet with him and he maintains a certain vertical solvency throughout much of the film. Much of the mayhem in this film is caused either by Clouseau indirectly or by the other characters altogether. Clouseau himself continues to go about his business completely unscathed by all of the missed attempts at taking his life.

Throughout this film there is a running gag where Dreyfus continually sees Clouseau and promptly faints. It’s a continuation of Dreyfus’s deep seated fear and loathing of Clouseau and a sign that his nerves are essentially frazzled which makes for a lousy cop in the end.

Douvier is determined to get rid of Clouseau but manages to turn his rage on his lovely secretary Simone LeGree (Cannon) who is also his mistress. He dumps her and she suggests she might try to do something unsavory to get back at him. Subsequently he determines that she too must die but his henchmen are no match for the ingenious Clouseau who manages to unwittingly save her life. This begins a casual romance that is sustained through the rest of the film.

Clouseau is still a sex magnet despite himself and he somehow manages to exude charisma which the ladies seem unable to resist. I suppose there is some women out there who feel sympathetic to the colossal boob and are drawn into the chaos that inevitably surrounds them. Simone is perhaps rebounding from her five year relationship with Douvier so she’s most likely looking for a dramatic change. Still, Clouseau remains a man of mystery with great powers of influence over all the women he meets. He’s like Bond in that way although he doesn’t necessarily always end up with the girl.

The film lacks the energy of previous installments in the series. Despite this, it still manages to remain necessary throughout and there is a spark of vitality that is retained over the course of the film. It’s always a pleasure to watch Clouseau because one knows that something very wrong is about to occur and that he most likely will have a hand in it.

The look of the film is somewhat south of “Return” and the first film in the franchise. It’s ugly at times and there is a dark hue to many scenes that reflect the machinations of the mob and how they operate in the seedier regions of any community in which they take up shop. Clouseau himself seems to be being dragged through the film as if he’s not particularly sure what to do next and if he should do anything at all.

Sue Lloyd has the distinction of playing a man pretending to be a woman which Blake Edwards later exploited in his film “Victor/Victoria” with Julie Andrews as the quasi transvestite. Lloyd manages to pull this stunt off quite effectively although her male persona in the film does have amazingly high cheekbones for a man and is exceedingly “pretty”. Still, it’s a fine turn in a film that seems to require such quirky moments to keep it afloat.

The performances in this film are all intriguing. Peter Sellers doesn’t possess the same grace that made his first two attempts at the character so rewarding. Clouseau doesn’t come across as challenged either vertically or horizontally in this film. He’s simply not as clumsy although he does manage to get into several scrapes due to positional malfunctions. Also, his performance isn’t nearly as fluid although additional viewings might be required in order to fully appreciate what he does in this film. Robert Webber has a strong performance as Douvier, the man who would be king of the underworld. Webber plays Douvier as deadly serious throughout the film. His character is a man without mystery and decidedly nefarious in his dealings with creeps and lowlifes. Herbert Lom is a bit more subdued in this film as his wild-eyed lunacy takes a back seat to the officious nature of his job. Burt Kwouk is particularly enjoyable in this film as his Cato is more prominently featured in this film. He does more than merely attack Clouseau to keep him sharp; he is present in the final confrontation and plays a sizable role in the satisfaction of the conclusion.

Overall, this film has its charms but it doesn’t quite rise to the level of the classics in this series. Still, it swaggers at times and there is a decided muscle to the threats and shady dealings that populate the film. Clouseau remains a walking disaster but his actions seem to bring less damage upon himself that others. But, he’s still infinitely dangerous to everyone he comes in contact with and this film manages to exploit this fact fairly well.

Film Review--Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan

2009-03-06T20:34:00.001-08:00

Friday the 13th Part 8: Jason Takes Manhattan
written and directed by Rob Hedden
based on characters created by Victor Miller
starring Kane Hodder, Jensen Daggett, Barbara Bingham, Peter Mark Richman, Saffron Henderson, Martin Cummins, Vincent Craig Dupree, Sharlene Martin

First of all, Jason doesn’t exactly “take” Manhattan. Two thirds of the way through the picture he does manage to visit there and continue in his delightful occupation, but it hardly constitutes full-blown mayhem which the title certainly promises. What we have is a boatload of highschool seniors who are heading off to New York for their graduation. As the film opens, a naughty couple are having sex aboard a boat. They drop anchor and it inadvertently hits a powerline which awakens Jason yet again. He manages to get on the pleasure cruise ship and subsequently fulfils his tender oath and begins slaughtering the unsuspecting ciphers one at a time.

This film adds an element that hasn’t been as pronounced in earlier installments in the series. Jason’s victims bleat and plea for their lives more in this one and it adds a scintillating element to the story. Best of all is a scene with the prissy and demonstrably conniving Tamara Mason is taking a shower and Jason comes in to seduce her. While romance is thwarted and he ends up stabbing her with a shard from a broken mirror. She cowers, whines, and otherwise puts on a pretty decent show before her unceremonious demise at the hands of her would be suitor.

Jason’s kills are not very imaginative here and the film definitely lacks style points as the dull, burdensome killings continue unabated. If only there was a single character worth getting thrilled over than these films would be more vital than they are. Instead, we are left with characters who, as has almost always been the case, lack a discernible personality that elevates them above the typical kill victim. Actually, there was a promising character early in the film but Jason spears him within the first ten minutes. His performance suggests something more than what is generally to be expected in these films.

In this film a girl named Rennie Wickham (Daggett) is taking the cruise against the wishes of her Uncle Charles McCulloch (Richman), the group’s chaperone. She is haunted throughout the entire film by images of a young Jason who we learn apparently tried to pull her down after Uncle Charles pushed he off the dock intending to teach her how to swim. She sees him everywhere and it truly twists her melon to the point that she can hardly tell what is real and what is imaginary at some point. Rennie is a meek girl who is shy and the complete opposite of girls like Tamara, the prom queen who also enjoys a bit of nose candy now and again. Rennie is protected somewhat by Miss Colleen Van Deusen (Bingham), another chaperone who is constantly at odds with Uncle Charles.

One imagines terrific excitement once Jason finally lands in Manhattan but the result is pretty much a downer. Yes, he takes care of a couple of junkie thugs, a cop, a bouncer at a bar, and several members of our merry crew who escaped when the ship caught on fire. But he has so much opportunity to run wild in the streets cleaning up the sewage at every opportunity. Instead, his focus remains strictly on the last two survivors and he chases them on a subway, through Times Square, and into the sewers. Again, so many chances are not taken and the end is not particularly satisfying.

There is something rather odd about watching Jason perform basic human tasks such as shutting a storage hatch. Somehow the action is more pronounced, more deliberate, and not without its grace. It shows an elegance about Jason which he mostly attempts to hide when he’s off enjoying the sights and hacking up his chosen ones. This film shows that Jason has a very focused mind and is not distracted easily by what is taking place around him. He chases his victims with a strong sense of purpose and never gives up on them. He knows what he wants and how to get it. So very few nowadays can say the same thing which makes Jason into a character worth admiring on a certain level. He’s very good at what he does although he does seem to run into some trouble now and again. No matter, there’s always lightning or power surges or a girl’s telekinesis to help him out of a tight scrape.

Overall, this film does nothing particularly novel and lacks some of the urgency that has made earlier films in the series more dynamic. The deaths are rudimentary and the film simply does not live up to its title. Ultimately, there is little character development which is nothing particularly new for the franchise. Jason’s killing spree seems truncated and could have enveloped so much more if that plot line were pursued.

Film Review--Echelon Conspiracy

2009-03-06T15:33:00.000-08:00

Echelon Conspiracy
directed by Greg Marcks
written by Kevin Elders, Michael Nitsberg
starring Shane West, Edward Burns, Ving Rhames, Sergey Gubanov, Martin Sheen, Tamara Feldman, Jonathan Pryce

An American computer tech expert named Max Peterson (West) working in Thailand receives a GPS cell phone and is provided with instructions regarding gambling possibilities. He follows the advice at a Casino in Prague and quickly garners the attention of security captain John Reed (Burns) who has him trailed. FBI agent Dave Grant (Rhames) becomes involved and it becomes quickly apparent that something mightily untoward is going on.

The film has many plot holes that would take hours of deep hemorrhaging to fill; certain aspects of the film simply do not add up and by the end the story is so convoluted and confusing that one wonders if it is on purpose just to piss off audiences who might think they can actually solve the thing.

When the film opens Peterson receives the package and it begins to give him specific instructions about which table to play, where to sit, and which slots to hit. It’s a thrilling aspect of the film and it causes the viewer to wonder how far they are going to take it. Unfortunately, it becomes more of a chase film where the object is to track down whomever or whatever is behind the messages.

The sinister machinations of the NSA are prevalently displayed in this film. Boss Raymund Burke (Sheen) desperately wants an upgrade for the Echelon program–the grand surveillance software that in the new form will have access to every bit of electronic data ever transferred through computers, cell phones, and the like. It sounds much as the NSA actually is so it’s difficult to ascertain just why this poses a particularly new and dangerous threat to the safety and freedoms of world citizens.

It becomes clear that the source of the messages has also targeted others who have mysteriously been murdered upon their reception. Indeed, once Peterson begins to work with the FBI he is sent a message telling him he will be killed if he shuts the phone off.

The film follows a generic, predictable pattern that offers no particularly intriguing dynamics. There are the cursory fight sequences, car chases, and love scenes which have all been treated with more elegance and style in superior films dealing with similar subject matter. Still, there is a charge to the main idea of the film however banal it proves itself to be in the end. The film resorts to being a Big Brother type thriller without the thrills or the real, intense threat that is supposed to be behind the messages and the fundamental thrust of the film.

It’s the sheer lack of originality that drags this film down in the end. Yet, the plot does resonate and remains interesting enough for all of those who sense a frightening agenda on the part of those who claim to have our best interest at heart. But it’s just not quite enough to supercede the methods employed in telling this story. Ultimately there is nothing worth getting particularly excited over here despite the hysteria on display.

The necessary love interest comes in the form of Kamila (Feldman), an agent who predictably falls in love with Peterson, in an attempt to crank up the heat. Unfortunately, there is zero chemistry between these two and it’s difficult to imagine them together. Again, it’s obligatory in these films to inject a love sequence however much it manages to stall the momentum that has precariously been built up.

Shane West has a definite Jim Carrey quality working for him and one expects him to break out in some rubber faced nuttiness at every turn. Subsequently, it’s impossible to take him seriously in this film. Jim Carrey knows how to leave the gimmicks behind when he tackles a “serious” role. West is merely playing the straight moments in Carrey comedies before his lauded transformations into peculiar nit-wits.

Overall, this film should be more terrifying in the end. It possesses all of the elements that go into making a quality conspiracy thriller but it does nothing novel with them. It’s just a rote, cookie cutter film with a decent premise that is never properly explored. Nevertheless, there are moments where it livens up a bit and the film almost seems worth paying attention to. The message here is well known and subsequently there is no seriously discomforting reveal in this film. It’s common knowledge to anyone who is paying attention that this type of situation is certainly in the minds of certain types who would create just such a scenario if the technology could be developed that would allow for it.

Film Review--Milk

2009-03-06T12:10:00.001-08:00

Milk
directed by Gus Van Sant
written by Dustin Lance Black
starring Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, Emile Hirsch, Diego Luna, James Franco, Alison Pill, Victor Garber, Denis O’Hare, Joseph Cross, Stephen Spinella, Lucas Grabeel,

Amidst a backdrop of persecutions, arrests, harassments, and other attempts to stymie and reduce the visibility of gays, this film tells the story of one man’s peculiar path to local political power.

Harvey Milk (Penn) is first introduced to us while picking up the much younger Scott Smith (Franco) in New York. Together they realize the limitations for opportunities and decided to head West. Into the explosion of color and STD’s flooding into San Francisco they emerge and quickly set up Castro Camera which becomes a hotbed of political inquiry. From this touchstone an army of supporters and volunteers is established and these individuals prove to be valuable assets as Milk begins to direct his attentions toward political office.

The film can be viewed as a primer for the gay rights movement as it sashayed its honey ass throughout America, but most particularly in San Francisco. The film was made almost entirely in Milk’s Castro, a neighborhood mostly of gays who had swarmed upon San Francisco escaping whatever dull and oppressive life they had previously been forced to endure. There is a genuine sense of openness throughout this film despite very public attempts to deliberately quash the civil rights of homosexuals.

The arch enemies of this film are held up with the appropriate amount of contempt. Orange County comedian John Briggs (O’Hare) and singer Anita Bryant both undertake campaigns to reduce gay rights. Specifically, in Dade County, Florida, Bryant spearheads her mission to rescind a gay rights ordinance and is successful. Briggs creates Proposition 6 to allow schools to fire any gay teachers or those who are sympathetic to them. The film spends a considerable amount of time on these issues, showing the intensity surrounding the legislation with clarity and resolve. The film was released a few weeks before Proposition 8 went before the public in California. It seems clear that Black had it in mind when he wrote the script because the film focuses so much time on Proposition 6 and its potential implications for gay people not only throughout California but most likely the entire United States. Both Bryant and Briggs are shown to be bogeymen who stand for everything the film is against. Their implied bigotry reverberates throughout the film.

The film possesses an insider’s feel into an intricate world of self-determination and fierce political savvy. Milk is portrayed as a firebrand speaker with a true gift for getting to the heart of whatever matter he is attempting to convey to his constituents. It is clear throughout the film that Milk is to be seen as a heroic figure speaking up for the rights of those who have been traditionally rejected by normative society. He is shown as not only a voice for the gay community but all minorities who have lacked proper representation on the government level. Much of the genius of this film comes from the breadth of Milk’s essential message of hope which he maintained throughout his brief but eventful political career.

Sean Penn so readily takes on Milk’s skin that his accomplishment with the role can hardly be seen as simply acting. From the moment we are introduced through the duration of the film, Sean Penn disappears leaving us with an earnest, fearless, naked performance that deservingly won him the Academy Award. There is just something about the way Penn smiles that convinces one that his portrayal is genuine and touchingly heartfelt. After Proposition 6 was defeated, there is a scene where Milk and his associates are celebrating. Milk’s face is a testament of awe, surprise, exultation, and the pure poetry of unadulterated joy. It’s about as intoxicating a display of release and relief that has ever been displayed on film. It says everything about what this film is attempting to convey through its ritualized portrayal of a man who meant so much to so many people. The film, and especially Penn, establishes the significance of Milk as a viable human being whose worth is not merely limited to the political arena. There is tremendous warmth and desire emanating from the character, a freedom that the film clearly wants to impart to all those youths in small towns who find themselves no longer able to put up with unsympathetic conditions. If anything this film is made for those kids and screen writer Dustin Lance Black made this apparent during his acceptance speech at this year’s Oscars.

The relationship between Milk and Dan White (Brolin) is complicated throughout the film. White is a conservative Christian who is publically appalled by the homosexual lifestyle. His actual views are a little less clear, however. The film refuses to paint White as a mere bigot who shoots Milk out of hatred for gays and their encroachment on family values as defined by fundamentalist Christianity. There is something much subtler at play here and Brolin does a magnificent job with his character’s slow-burning rage at circumstances he feels are gradually conspiring against him. One gets the impression through Brolin’s performance that Dan White is at odds with himself and his public persona in politics. Brolin allows us to see a complicated man consumed with pride and unable to lose. The film would have us believe that White’s murder of Milk was directly related to Mayor Muscone’s decision not to reinstate White as Supervisor after he had resigned his post.
The actual Dan White claimed that he wasn’t going to shoot Milk until he smirked at him, causing an instinctual reaction that cost Milk his life.

The film explores the personal life of Milk, specifically his relationships with Scott Smith and Jack Lira (Luna). They are both fraught with complications that slowly disintegrate and eventually collapse in on themselves. Smith couldn’t stand the political life and simply walked away. Lira also had difficulties with the politics and sought a different way out of his predicament. They are both young men to whom Milk is fiendishly attracted and the film shows how they slowly become disinterested in Milk’s new focus and his intent on winning political office. Although they are main characters in this film, neither Lira nor Smith seem particularly present for much of this film. It is clear that this is a direct decision by the actors and not something akin to a fault on their part. They simply drift through the film not connecting with anything Milk is attempting to do. They are apolitical and disinterested with the hoopla that is a necessary component to any political campaign. Smith does return near the end as a stronger presence yet he remains elusive and impossible to pin down.

The performances in this film are all spot on and exceedingly subtle. Sean Penn delivers a nuanced, daring turn as the titular character whose strivings are made readily apparent throughout the film. He captures the longing, the infinite desire for change that fuels Milk’s entry into the political ring. One gets a real sense of the man’s convictions and his glad taking of the role as spokesman for the gay community. In this film, there is a sense that Milk fully understands his place in history and is willing to take the mantle and do whatever is necessary to ensure that he represents his constituents in the most effective manner possible. Josh Brolin creates a character who is also fully engaged in his work but who finds himself up against a wall at every turn. Brolin understands the depths of his character’s despair and demonstrates this through gestures and posture. This is not a case of a man driven by rage against the gay population. It’s far more complex than that and one comes away with a clear impression that Dan White feels trapped in his circumstances and upset that he may lose his way of life and holds Muscone and Milk responsible.
James Franco captures his character’s sensuality and it’s easy through his performance to understand Milk’s attraction to him. Franco casts his shadow over Milk and the film in a delicate fashion that is mercurial and consumed with tenderness. He portrays Smith as a clear force of good in Milk’s life who understands the necessity of creating a grounding for Milk that can be used to propel him into political office. Diego Luna is wonderfully irritating as a troubled, difficult man who is ill-prepared to handle the rise of Milk’s star. Lira is wholly disagreeable throughout the film and this is a testament to Luna’s indirect approach to his character and his ability to articulate Lira’s vulnerability and his lack of a demonstrable acumen.

Overall, this film offers us a direct link to a time that was fraught with complications that brought forth truths and embattlements that have resonated ever sense. This is a portrait of a man who found his voice in the tumultuous climes of public office which enabled him to pursue rights issues that deeply affected his constituents and forced issues onto the table that challenged the proscribed mores of the established order. Harvey Milk comes off as a visionary and a poet of the streets. His core message of hope comes through clearly and openly and one is left with a feeling that his death is a lasting and enduring tragedy that is made hard by Sean Penn’s fearless performance. Yet, there is also a sense that he accomplished more with his death than he ever did in life. His legacy is something that the film projects as something that galvanized people and made activists out of those who before had merely stood on the sidelines. Milk reached many more people through his death than the citizens of Castro. He remains a symbol that resonates in the hearts of everyone who has ever had the courage to come out to their friends, parents, employers, and co-workers. The film makes it readily apparent that this is what Harvey Milk stood for in the end. Total freedom and a release from socially-sanction bindings designed to keep gays from actualizing their potential.

Film Review--Waltz with Bashir

2009-03-02T20:03:00.001-08:00

Waltz With Bashir
written and directed by Ari Folman

How could this happen? It’s a simple enough question but one that most likely elicits no satisfactory answer. In the Israeli-Lebanon war of 1982 hundreds of Palestinians and Lebanese in the Sabra and Shatila villages were rounded up and slaughtered by Christian Phalangists. This animated documentary film explores the Israeli forces’ involvement in the massacre. Director Ari Folman was a soldier during the period and this documentary is an attempt to uncover just how much the Israelis knew and if they knew about the severity of the operation why they did nothing to stop it. Specifically Folman wants to remember his role in the atrocities as he has never been able to remember anything regarding the incident.

This is the first Israeli animated feature ever released to theaters. The look of the film is startling and unique and it has a haunting quality that does not easily wash off. It starts off with a sequence in a bar where a friend of Folman is telling him of a dream that perpetually plagues him. We see a pack of wild dogs running through the streets. Their yellow eyes match the terrible yellow of the skies. The dogs are fierce and angry and one is greatly impacted by the terror they represent. There is a very real threat that the dogs will savagely attack anything that impedes their course. The dream stems from an incident in Folman’s past that took place during the war.

Of course there are no answers that can possible bring solace and clarity to Folman or anyone involved either directly or indirectly. In this film there is only a series of questions that bring Folman no closer in his quest for understanding. Through a series of interviews with various individuals with direct knowledge of the political climate that fostered the massacre, Folman begins to put the pieces together.

Many of the soldiers in this film are young guys like Folman, who at 19 joined the Israeli military forces. They don’t understand the intricacies of what they are being instructed to carry out. They simply do what they are told to do because it’s protocol and they are commanded. The massacre plays out like a particularly perverse and surreal drama that effects them only tangentially.

The film is heartbreaking in its immediacy. This is most readily demonstrated at the very end where we see live action documentation of a group of women who have reentered their village after the slaughter. They scream and wail and their pain is devastatingly apparent. Bodies are stacked up and we are left with a clear cut, positive actualization of the impact of the event. The film does not let its audience off the hook and reminds us of just what can happen if certain military and political forces make terrible designs on the lives of the innocent.

This film creates a climate where many questions relating to the miseries inflicted upon the heads of civilian populations can be effectively conveyed. The questions are openly displayed but of course the answers are not so readily apparent. They remain elusive so many years after the massacre and will most likely never be fully realized. Many of the facts are obscured by time and political contrivances and uncovering truth in this matter is a Herculean task. In the film there is not a pressing need to remember. There is simply a psychic recoiling at vague phantasies that plague the mind now and again when its resistance is at its weakest. Ari Folman is in just such a state as the film opens. After twenty years he is haunted by fragments, particularly one scene where he and two other soldiers are submerged in water. They rise and walk naked toward a series of buildings as flares explode across the sky. It’s all he has to go by and it becomes a launching point toward other memories that he recovers upon interviewing various individuals he relies upon to help him connect with his dubious past.

Perhaps the quest for these memories stem from a feeling of guilt that will not wash off. Folman may imagine himself to be responsible somewhat for the massacre and wants to reassure himself that there was nothing he could have done to stop it. By extension he suspects that perhaps the entire Israeli political machinery is complicit in the killings and this thought disrupts his sense of civic pride. However he examines the event, he returns to the same ugly guilt which is what he ventures forth to understand.

One wonders what can be done so many years after the fact to salve the wounds that have been created by such a callous, cowardly act. The Israeli military has been exonerated of all charges and the Phalangists have never been called out for their involvement. It is perceived as something that just happened and perhaps Folman is attempting to bring it into focus so that this younger generation will never be able to forget. The sheer making of this film in Israel is a testament to a sort of collective guilt that must be purged by any means necessary. With the events in Gaza, Israeli military prowess is being examined closely across the globe. It’s a timely subject and one that this film will shed some light upon. If nothing else, it should remind us that even the best intentions can lead to calamitous results if people fail to pay attention.

This film doesn’t indict the Israeli military and leaves the question of their involvement up to those whose business it is to posit such queries. It does however suggest that the officials in charge of managing the Phalangists may have looked the other way when the atrocities were committed. Again, this does not mean that there was a conspiracy to commit murder on the part of the Israeli military. It’s understandable why certain Israeli politicians and pundits have questioned the veracity of this film for the way it portrays the Israeli military and for the very suggestion that they may have been involved in the attack. At this sensitive time when worldwide opinion of the Israeli military is very much at an ebb, it makes sense that this film is being examined in certain quarters quite critically.

Memory is existence. Without memory no society can function, let alone flourish. Folman has brought forth an effort to create a foundation out of memory that can be used to create something beautiful and lasting that will honor these memories and keep them forever in currency. He is not trying to raise the massacre to the level of the Holocaust. He is not in all honesty trying to compare the orchestrators of this tragedy with the Nazis. I wouldn’t even say that he suggests it although it is mentioned in the film. Still, one prays that memory serves as a warning but it never does. Atrocities are committed every day and for the most part the world turns its back and says or does nothing. Humans cannot learn to quell their aggressive drives and the thirst for blood is never ending. It’s the one legacy that endures. This film merely wants to showcase a specific event that caused the deaths of hundreds of people during a heated war with a great enemy. History has not proved the adage that unless we remember the past we are destined to repeat it. Remembering solves nothing by itself. It merely helps assuage the living whose consciences begin to torment them.

Overall, this film is a gorgeously rendered tone-poem to the nature of human brutality and the machinations of war. It provides its audience with insight into its own tendency toward horror and states emphatically that peoples cannot turn their head and pretend that abuses aren’t happening. This film is a tool to help us remember the simple fact that we cannot altogether distance ourselves from those who would take it upon themselves to commit various acts of terror toward civilian populations. We all possess the same drives that lead to atrocities and the film suggests we would best be served never to forget this fact.

Play Review--Madea's Class Reunion by Tyler Perry

2009-03-02T14:03:00.000-08:00

Madea’s Class Reunion
written and directed by Tyler Perry
starring Tyler Perry, Terrell Carter, Chantell D. Christopher, Chandra Currelley-Young, D’Wayne Gardner, Anselmo Gordon, David Mann, Tamela J. Mann, Judy Peterson, Cheryl Pepsii Riley, Pamela Taylor

In this 2003 stage play Tyler Perry employs a hotel setting to tell a story about deceit, trauma, and the first agonizing steps toward overcoming personal adversity. Through it all lies the power to forgiveness, to say to one’s enemies that they no longer have you by the throat.

The titular reunion really amounts to very little as half of the class is dead and two are in nursing homes. It takes up very little of the film and comes across as an afterthought without any lasting significance.

Again, this is a deeply spiritual work that explores the nature of human weakness through several characters who have fallen into a chasm of their own devising. These are broken folks who have fallen very far from God and the play makes it clear that they need to reconnect with the Lord if they are ever to be free of the agonies that have beset them. Chief amongst these characters is Stephanie (Riley) who is being brutalized by the father of her child, a pimp named Horace (Gardner) who prostitutes her leaving her terrified and wavering. This is typical of the kind of relationship Perry likes to dissect. It constitutes an essentially heroic feminine figure who has been led into darkness by an unruly man who simply wants to exploit her for his own ends. Throughout the play Stephanie struggles mightily within herself to gain the courage to extricate herself from this man who has treated her so callously for so long.

This play features a new character played by Tyler Perry. Dr. Willy Leroy Jones is a pure troublemaker who begins to work for the hotel as a bellboy and bartender. He’s much better suited to running his mouth which he proceeds to do for the duration of his appearance. He’s like a male, younger, thinner version of Madea and prone to the same wistful flights of fancy that in this play conjure up the ghosts of “The Color Purple” and “Good Times” among others.

Madea is really big on Whitney Houston in this play as she warbles through several of the singer’s songs throughout. She’s also big on laying out the law regarding domestic violence and the measures women ought to take should they find themselves beaten by a man. These are moments of clarity that allow Perry to effectively preach to his audience about a number of life’s ills that befall the unwitting and the ill prepared. They are moments where the pulpit is most visible and Perry takes the opportunity to stick in social commentary which is always a latent aspect of his plays and only occasionally overtly expressed so openly.

In this play marriage is again tested through the characters of Cory (Carter) and Trina (Taylor) Jeffery. She cheated on him and cannot understand why he cannot forgive her. The play focuses much of it’s effort on promoting the idea that forgiveness is the most essential ingredient to any life. It suggests that without it there is no causes for living. Trina and Cory represent the terrible aspect of forgiveness as it is actually lived by people who are forced to deal with it in a very real sense.

There is a tremendous amount of heavy negativity threatening to corrupt this farce that features Mr. Leroy Brown (David Mann) at his lunatic best. Mann is an exceptional performer who despite his corpulent state can do the splits and contort his body with the best of them. This is one of his most memorable performances and it livens up every scene because Brown is just so absolutely off his nut. He’s a buffoon who is infinitely likable which is a testament to Mann’s ability to fully engage the audience and to bring them into his realm of crazed antics. The play needs Brown to show up in his ill-fitting, glaringly menacing outfits to add a dose of easy comedy to the proceedings. Without Brown Madea loses a bit of her immediacy because so much of what she says is at Brown’s expense. They play so perfectly off one another in the classic sense of great comedic teams who take insult into the heady realm of the sublime.

The play features some of the best songs to be found in any Tyler Perry production. There is a ferocity to these performances that cause them to stand out for me. There is anger here that some of the earlier numbers have lacked and each song is very much a dagger straight into the heart. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to be emotionally impacted by the power of these songs. They hit very hard and it takes a while to recover from their intensity. In this play Perry perfectly melds song and acting together in a cohesive whole that is breathtaking to witness. Sometimes in other works the music only proves to be an annoyance, a momentary respite between Madea’s hysterical yammerings. But here they seem vital and necessary. There is a kick to them, a driving insistence that carries them across to the audience.

Tyler Perry has devised a system that allows him to produce works that are both emotionally edifying, spiritually uplifting, and devastatingly funny. He’s pretty much cornered the market on theatrical experiences that combine all of these aspects. He has created a character with so much blistering charisma and acute naughtiness that she has become an internationally renowned symbol of coarse, brutal truth and fearlessness. Madea releases pent up frustrations and angers through aptly timed insults that are tempered with great parochial wisdom that always seems to get to the heart of the matter.

Here we have interwoven scenarios which play for high melodrama and intense emotional outbursts that often take the form of song. There is a lot of pleading to God in this film that delves deeply into the core of what this play is attempting to convey to its audience. God is paramount to every note, every utterance, and Perry ensures that the audience will go home with a clear cut message about the importance of maintaining a healthy relationship to Christ above all things. Certainly, the message in this play feels heavy handed at times to non-believers but to those who truly engage with Christianity it is profound in both its simplicity and its application.

Overall, this play captures all of the elements that go into creating an effective Tyler Perry production. It features top notch songs, a strong narrative that is occasionally nuanced in its presentation, and terrific performances that resonate throughout. It combines big laughs with a serious story involving terrible emotional aspects that ring true. The characters mostly come off as real people attempting to work through various agonies that insistently torment their lives, working to cast the sufferer head long into a ditch. It’s one of Perry’s more satisfying productions and he manages to work in themes that audiences everywhere will have no hard time identifying with.

Tyler Perry's Madea's Family Reunion

2009-02-28T11:31:00.001-08:00

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

2009-02-27T12:32:00.000-08:00

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)

2009-02-27T08:49:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-26T10:41:00.001-08:00

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

2009-02-25T13:31:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-25T10:49:00.001-08:00

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

2009-02-23T13:48:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-23T11:58:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-22T16:09:00.001-08:00

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

2009-02-22T15:27:00.001-08:00

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

2009-02-22T13:51:00.001-08:00

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

2009-02-22T11:41:00.001-08:00

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

2009-02-18T19:48:00.001-08:00

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

2009-02-17T16:38:00.001-08:00

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)

2009-02-17T11:59:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-16T14:16:00.001-08:00

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.

Film Review--Defiance

2009-02-14T13:08:00.000-08:00

Defiance
directed by Edward Zwick
written by Clayton Frohman, Edward Zwick
based on the book, “Defiance: the Bielski Partisans” by Nechama Tec
starring Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber, Jamie Bell, Alexa Davalos, George MacKay, Allan Corduner, Mark Feuerstein, Tomas Arana, Mia Wasikowska

Four brothers escape the perils of Nazi-occupied Germany and take to the forest. They quickly realize there are others and quickly dangerous rescue missions are undertaken to rescue as many Jews as possible.

The Bielski brothers consist of Tuvia (Craig), Zus (Schreiber), Asael (Bell) and Aron (MacKay). Their parents have been murdered by the police. Tuvia takes a gun with four bullets to the Chief’s house and comes back with three. He spared the grieving widow and denied her of her wish to be shot dead as well. There is a rivalry between Tuvia and Zus and there is always the threat that they will resort to violence. When this finally happens it explodes in a full-on brawl that shocks those who look on.

The story focuses on the accumulation of Jews, some of them who are ill-prepared to hole up in the forest. At first women are not allowed to handle weapons but this idea is quashed when it becomes apparent that it is necessary to include them in the fighting. Slowly but surely the Jews shuffle into the forest, sick, confused, bewildered by their circumstances, tired, and very hungry. It is intense to see all of these Jews appear as if out of thin air. One is supposed to imagine the nightmarish existence that has proceeded the arrival in the forest and this realization helps inform the duration of the film. These people, the film consistently reminds us, have almost been broken but not quite. They have finally come to a place where life can begin a new without daily persecution. Yet they are reminded that they may very well die if fight and this real potentiality does not deter them.

Granted, the enemy in this film doesn’t get an opportunity to express an opinion on any topic whatsoever. Perhaps this is necessary to the overall tone of the film. An articulate Nazi clearly stating his position, dressed in his finest, might throw the entire film out of balance. One can’t allow arguments against the central core belief being presented by the film to be validated. Well, one could if the intent of the film was to be parity and not strict demonization.

The forest scenes are gorgeously shot as the small Jewish community begins to form. There is a real sense of home created in the wilderness as all those healthy enough to participate are put to work to do whatever is necessary to maintain the integrity of the operation. There is of course romance which one can’t help but expect under these conditions. Tuvia and Lilka Ticktin (Davalos) strike up a sexual relationship and Asael marries a girl named Chaya Dziencielsky (Wasikowska). These scenes between the couples are treated with soft light that is supposed to remind viewers that life does not end because one is trapped in an undesirable situation.

There are many images of exhausted, ill-kempt and miserable looking Jews which I suppose enforces the lowly state that many of them were reduced to during this trying time. There isn’t a terribly significant presentation of a great number of vital personages who are fully capable of saving themselves would it ever come to that. Instead they require Tuvia to be their leader and instruct them on the proper course to ensure their survival. Left alone they would never be able to survive their ordeal. At least this is how the film depicts them. Many of them stand on the sideline shivering and hoping desperately that there will be enough food to feed them for another day at least. In this world the only thing save survival that matters is making sure you have enough bullets to protect yourself and those others who have come into your care.

Zus is presented as a born fighter who has something of the mercenary to his personality. There is one sequence of fighting that is rather laughably like the most stereotypical action film replete with slow motion and many dead bodies. It’s questionable if the partisans entertained the Germans in this type of combat; some have said that it never take place. Regardless, it’s exceedingly energetic at times and the action sequences provide the film with a necessary intensity that it maintains nearly throughout.

The insurgents encounter a regiment of Russian partisans; Zus and some of the others agree to fight along side them in exchange for supplies. The Russians prove to be capable warriors but ultimately upset Zus due to their rampant antisemitism. Zus returns to the camp just in time to make himself very useful in another battle with the Germans. There really isn’t anyplace for this rag-tag band of Jewish survivors to turn to other than themselves. Yet as mentioned most of appear to helplessly go along with whatever is being administrated to them.

This film does speak to countless possibilities regarding our own survival capacities. How many of us possess the proper skills to survive out in conditions such as those that are laid out in this film? The film seems to suggest that provided with the correct type of leadership then even the lowliest amongst us might have a fighting chance to pull through such difficult times. The idea of being thrust into a whole new existence is a titillating one. To be forced to make your own way free of bank accounts, grocery stores, gas stations, libraries, etc. is not something that most civilized folks are even able to contemplate. These Jews survived two more years beyond the end of the film and they built hospitals and schools. It’s a remarkable achievement that is necessitated by absolute fear and the resultant posture of fearlessness.

The performances in this film all work well with the material. Liev Schreiber is a force of nature for the duration of this film. His physicality is immense but he also brings a solidity to the role and it is clear that he is in a position of respect in the community. Schreiber demonstrates a sort of fearlessness in his performance that is both riveting and a bit terrifying. Daniel Craig as Tuvia takes care of the administration in this film. He’s essentially a bureaucrat who structures and organizes the daily routine. As such his role is to remain calm and as objective as possible. Craig exudes a quiet and intense calm in his eyes which he uses time and again when the camera reminds the audience what he is looking at.

Overall, this film is a decent piece of melodramatic cinema that promotes a specific truth about this particular series of events that led to the survival of scores of Jews in a time when most of them may not have survived. I suppose the intent of the film is to sell the idea that these particular Jews grew stronger as their stay in the forest lengthened. They learned how to make the most out of a trying and exceedingly strange and difficult situation. In the end it’s just another story about the perseverance of the human will to survive at all costs. In that it’s not a remarkable telling and the final imprint of the film is in turn trite and unexceptional. There isn’t really anything here that hasn’t been seen many times before. People are scared, running from the other, and find themselves face-to-face with their own mortality. Ultimately, the film merely states the obvious and it doesn’t do anything much more than that.

Film Review--My Man Godfrey

2009-02-13T14:45:00.000-08:00

My Man Godfrey
directed by Gregory La Cava
written by Morrie Ryskind, Eric Hatch
starring William Powell, Carole Lombard, Alice Brady, Gail Patrick, Eugene Pallette, Jean Dixon, Mischa Auer, Pat Flaherty, Alan Mowbray, Robert Light

A down-on-his-luck man finds him thrust into high society in this ribald, rolicking comedy of errors.

William Powell plays the titular Godfrey, a man who has been successful in life but who stumbled through a rough patch and ended up living at the city dump. Sisters Irene (Lombard) and Cornelia Bullock (Patrick) are involved in a silly little game that reflects on their class’s overarching boredom more than anything else. They are collecting strange objects and racing to a massive hotel with hundreds of others to be recognized for their find. On this particular sojourn the ladies are scouting for a “forgotten man”. Cornelia approaches Godfrey first but can’t convince him to go with her. Irene tries her hand and succeeds. After taking her toy to the hotel she offers him a job as the family’s butler and he accepts.

Godfrey certainly appears to be a fairly decent butler. He catches little snippets of conversation and completes all the deeds a butler is supposed to do. The only problem is that Irene has fallen in love with him and won’t let him alone. She pesters him all the time and nearly drives the poor man out of his mind. Fortunately he’s got the ice cold Cornelia to keep him on his toes and at least take his mind off of Irene and the fact that he’s working for a family of pampered, soft nit-wits. It is true that there is tremendous chemistry between Powell and Patrick but the film doesn’t do a whole lot to exploit it. For her part Cornelia attempts to break Godfrey by planting a string of pearls beneath his bed. He’s one step ahead of her and removes the pearls to a safe location before he can be caught with them.

The family is indeed wholly privileged and exceedingly lazy save the father, a man named Alexander (Pallette), who seems to be working his company into the ground. Still, they all live in a lavish home that is exquisitely filmed; the slight decadence of the Bullocks is brought into clear focus as they lie about all day doing something close to nothing. The film criticizes this lifestyle and in fact might be attempting to hold it in contempt. This kind of luxury is held up as debilitating. There is a character named Carlo (Auer) who seems to do nothing but sit around eating whatever is available and occasionally playing somber Russian music on the piano. The girls do nothing whatsoever, get sent to Europe after Irene’s engagement falls apart, and have plenty of time to waste on this or that triviality. The poor just don’t have the time or the means to waste it on collecting “forgotten men”. The whole concept is absurd to the poor who at least retain their dignity no matter how far they fall. Indeed, it’s the poor who are ultimately celebrated in this film. The affluent are shown to be a bunch of trivial nincompoops whose level of ennui reaches such an epic scale that they must play psychologically torturous games with men who gather and live at the dump.

Irene is a chatty gal who cries at every turn. She’s hysterical most of the time and all of her anguish is due to her love for Godfrey whom she has taken on as something of a protégée and for whom she feels responsible for. But it is much more than that and the wee lass is utterly dumbstruck with affection for Godfrey and she can hardly stand not being near him. He’s cool of course immersed as he is with his job and maintaining the proper order about the house amidst a group of people who are very much like children who need to be cared for at all times. The mother, Angelica (Brady), is a flighty bird who remains ensconced in her perfectly codified little bubble without a clue about how the outside world actually operates. She flits about trying to maintain her youth, her looks, and every other superficial means she employs to attract attention. She does tell Godfrey that he’s the only butler they have ever had who understands women and this certainly appears to be true after a fashion. Nevertheless, he’s a bit stymied by the sheer force of Irene’s attention and does what he can to stave her off.

Cornelia in her frigid way demands that she too be noticed by Godfrey despite her disdainful treatment of him. Her pride is hurt and it stems from the moment upon first apprehending Godfrey when he knocked her back into an ash pile. She harbors resentment just like any trivial thing who can’t bear to be made a fool of in public however odious she considers it to be. She also can’t stand to see her kid sister fawn over a man who is utterly indifferent to her misplaced charms. Godfrey might have had is way with her, strong arming her with a an intense kiss that would have sent her reeling. It’s precisely what she needs and perhaps no other type of man will do. She is a woman who requires of her lovers a certain brutality that melts her icy exterior and makes of her something akin to a sexual slave. She wants to be kept, contained, and broken down by a man as long as he provides her with all of the material comforts she has become accustomed to.

Irene revels in hysterics specifically to be noticed by Godfrey. She whines and caterwauls at every opportunity like a baby positioning itself for a bottle or a rattle. She’s basically a little girl who desperately needs to be spanked on the bottom very hard and for a considerable length of time. It’s the only way she could ever regain her composure and start behaving like a woman who isn’t so needy and definably weak. Unfortunately, Godfrey is not capable of meting out such necessary punishment so she’ll probably go on just like she is pitching fits whenever she can’t get her way.

The performances in this film are uniformly excellent. Carol Lombard captures all of the sniveling and mock-serious bawling of a character who hilariously acts like a spoilt brat for the duration of the film. William Powell exudes class and style in this film. He looks comfortable in both his filthy rags and his sharp tuxedo. Godfrey is a man who knows what he’s about and can be comfortable in any situation. He’s very controlled and wickedly charming as he fills a void while mentally making plans to do something impossibly grand and humanitarian. Gail Patrick as mentioned is deliciously cold as Cornelia. Her character is exquisitely devious in her efforts to defame Godfrey but her sordid efforts go for nought as he’s just a bit smarter than she is. Plus she’s got those smouldering eyes which rachet up her considerable sex appeal to a frightening level. Mischa Auer certainly sombers things up a bit with his maudlin piano tunes. Carlo is the typical freeloader who manages to keep up his position for quite a while. Auer is extremely funny playing a man who epitomizes this lazy, unencumbered lifestyle that corrodes the soul.

Overall, this film captures all of the flaky machinations of the nouveau riche. Godfrey literally climbs out of the city dump to demonstrate a true and visible quality of a man of integrity. He’s the only truly stable person in the Bullock household and provides them with an example of a man who cannot be broken by mere circumstance. It’s a lesson these high society folks desperately need to learn but there is only a slight indication that this has occurred by the end of the film. The two central female characters are indicative of a time when women had very specific places in society and that was mostly to look amazing, spawn, keep their damn mouths shut, and keep the castle glimmering. Of course no man is going to stop Irene from yammering and she certainly isn’t capable of either cooking or cleaning so she’s most certainly going to continue being a big old baby unless she gets smacked around now and again. Not too hard, just enough to remind her where she is and what she’s in for if she continues to use her fits in a manipulative dash for attention.

Film Review--Bride Wars

2009-02-12T20:22:00.000-08:00

Bride Wars
directed by Gary Winick
written by Greg DePaul, Casey Wilson and June Diane Raphael
starring Kate Hudson, Anne Hathaway, Bryan Greenburg, Chris Pratt, Steve Howey, Candice Burgen

Hysterical women and clueless men are on vivid display in this marginally successful comedy of errors.

Liv (Hudson) and Emma (Hathaway) have been obsessed with weddings ever since they witnessed a particularly grand one at the Plaza Hotel in New York City when they were six. Each of them has dreamed of their own June wedding at the Plaza and each of them seem to get their wish when their boyfriends propose. Everything is set in motion, they book their dates with a fierce and frightening wedding planner named Marion St. Claire (Bergen). Unfortunately a snag occurs and each wedding is booked on the same day. Neither woman will budge on the date and the rest of the film features two manic women doing everything in their power to sabotage the other’s wedding.

I have to admit to rather enjoying the bitchy hissy fits that take up the bulk of the film. The sabotage is somewhat ingenious as each pulsating bride-to-be searches for new and exciting ways to torment her friend. These include Emma sending cookies and chocolates to Liv in order to make her too fat to wear her Vera Wang gown. The line goes something to the effect that “you don’t alter a Vera to fit your body. You alter your body to fit Vera.” Also, Emma hires an atrocious dance instructor to put them through the motions and essentially terrify and exhaust them. She also manages to switch the colors at a beauty salon so that Liv’s hair turns blue. Liv for her part changes the toner so that Emma emerges from a tanning salon looking like that woman I used to know who ate carrots non stop. She saves the best one for last which deeply angers Emma and causes a direct physical confrontation which is always welcomed between two fiendishly attractive women. Cat fights have the great advantage of keeping men occupied long enough to forget they have been dragged along to a sub par romantic comedy.

In the film Liv is a successful lawyer who proves her mettle on several cases and seems to have a solid grip on her profession. That is until she shows up for work with her blue hair and suffers a total meltdown in front of a valuable client subsequently getting herself removed from the case. It’s an unfortunate turn of events that does nothing to bolster the overall longing that professional women harbor regarding how they are treated in cinema. In this case, the career-oriented woman in a legitimate position of power is struck down because she cannot leave her sad little personal life at the door when she goes to work. It’s not particularly encouraging and leaves a terribly sour taste in the mouth. It suggests that women are not emotionally solvent enough to handle even a petty crisis and the end result is hideous.

The idea of two shallow women tearing into each other for petty, pathetic reasons is not one that is significantly edifying in any way. They are weak-willed, treacherous, and manipulative to the point of absurdity. Neither of them possess any noble qualities and they just come off as a couple of sniveling nuisances over the course of the film. I can’t imagine anyone truly desiring to marry either of these women no matter how good they are in bed. In fact, even in bed Emma is most likely frigid and Liv exceedingly demanding so that would be no picnic either.

Despite the many things that are wrong with this film the performances by the two leads are always giddily entertaining. It’s such a joy to see Anne Hathaway behaving so cattily and indeed shaking her ass like a very bad girl in need of a spanking. Kate Hudson displays great comedic timing and I do believe she is one of our great screen comediennes. There is just something about her face that is wonderfully plastic that it seems she is very capable of making a great number of silly faces a’ la the classic Lucille Ball.

The men in this film are indistinguishable. I cannot tell you which one proposed to whom only that there is a wildcard in the mix who is Liv’s brother. Throughout the film there are tiny hints that lead one to a particular conclusion that happily resolves itself.

Women are portrayed throughout this film as completely hysterical when the spend any amount of time around each other. This film offers an insight into a strange world from a man’s perspective that is filled with a substantial amount of shrieking and caterwauling. It’s loud, raucous, and incredibly fast-paced. These women talk so fast that I found myself gasping for air. What do they talk about? I haven’t a clue only that I need oxygen after being made privy to it. It’s a bit frightening to be perfectly honest. A man would get cut into pieces in such an environment and he would have no chance of escaping the tyranny of the chatter. This is what women do when they are together. They sharpen their teeth and practice their best debasing gestures. In fact, they talk about men. In this case it’s the men who will rush the brushing brides out into the street into some ornate bedroom somewhere where the sex will not seem particularly memorable for either party.

The free woman with extra cash in this film must spend it all on a wedding because we all know that such an event is everything a real woman should be striving for. Weddings are everything and seem to develop way more importance than the actual marriage itself. Indeed, the marriage is an afterthought that must be endured after the great spectacle has been utterly absorbed. The men in this film simply do not care what ornate and elaborate thing their soon-to-be wives decide to bring into the wedding ceremony. They could care less about all the fancy accouterments and the dazzling displays that are intended in this film strictly for show and to out-do the planning of the other woman. Men are strictly hangers-on in this film and it’s best if they keep themselves silent and decidedly out of the way.

The performances in this film are all relatively effective. Anne Hathaway is very good in a role that she is really better than. She’s a talented serious actress who has the ability to collect any number of roles making films that audiences actually think about afterward. Her performance in “Rachael Getting Married” is a perfect example of the kind of actress she truly is. Granted, she has every right to make mindless fluff but I just don’t imagine that she has to. Kate Hudson seems best suited for screwball comedy and is remarkably good at using her body and gestures for comedic effect. In this film she is best when she’s reacting to something another character has said. She’s marvelously attentive and her timing is exquisite. Candice Bergen plays the queen bitch role with a tremendous amount of gusto. Her character possesses a cold, impenetrable exterior caging a warm, loving heart. In this film, she’s fairly totemic in her characterization and her presence is felt throughout.

Overall, this film isn’t particularly special but it features two of the most intriguing actresses of our era. Both of them are capable of extraordinary work and I suspect that they will find roles that are emotionally and psychologically challenging for both performer and audiences alike. This film doesn’t nothing that is particularly original and when they aren’t fighting it devolves into rightful inanity. The story doesn’t much matter in the end and once they have stopped tearing each other’s hair out the film fizzles to a dead stop.

Film Review--Les Avaleuses (Female Vampire)

2009-02-11T17:11:00.000-08:00

Les Avaleuses (Female Vampire)
directed by Jesus Franco
written by Gérard Brisseau and Jesus Franco
starring Lina Romay, Jack Taylor, Alice Arno, Jesus Franco, Luis Barboo, Jean-Pierre Bouyxou

Female Vampire is nothing more than a rather drab soft core porno with a female character who drains the life out of her victims when she’s performing oral sex on them. The film is essentially wall-to-wall nudity with no plot to speak of. There are many scenes of boring sex that seem to go on for an eternity. Perhaps the only real draw is the voluptuous body of lead actress Lina Romay. It’s the only thing this film has going for it and it’s on display for the duration of the film. Apparently she’s something of a cult icon amongst those who can actually tolerate Jesus Franco as a director. For the rest of us, she’s nothing special and if this film is anything to go by devoid of any operating personality.

The story, or lack of it, involves Countess Irina Karlstein (Romay). The film opens promisingly enough with a bare chested Irina walking ever so slowly toward the camera. She’s wearing merely a cape and thigh high leather boots. The camera fetishizes her eyes, the cape, her breasts, her eyes and her boots in single frame shots that seem to have no discernible purpose beyond titillating those lucky few who find themselves fixated on objects that they in turn sexualize for their own fun and profit. The camera seems particularly drawn to her breasts which are given so much screen time they eventually lose whatever power they once possessed. Next, she approaches a farmer of some sort. She again moves slowly and soon enough she’s giving him head and he’s collapsing in anguish. It’s probably the best blow job he’s ever had in his life and the sheer pleasure of it is enough to vanquish him from the land of the living. Irina kills a few more, including women, and never loses the blank expression plastered on her face. She’s also mute which somehow adds to whatever mystique the film makers are going for.

There is a doctor named Roberts (Franco) who seems to think that a vampire serial killer is taking their prey but nothing much is done to further this story line. It’s hard to tell considering most of the film is consumed with sexual encounters that serve no decisive purpose. Irina is apparently insatiable and she can’t have enough of the fucking and sucking. She even writhes around with a rolled up carpet and tries to hump the bed post. She continues to writhe at every possible moment including while taking a bath. She is supposed to be the Queen of Carnality and represent the chthonian nature of sexuality. She also comes across as a lousy lay although exceedingly confident when she’s using her mouth and her tongue. There are several scenes where she plays with her nipples and licks her lips and its about as much of a turn on as an outbreak of boils on one’s face although there are probably people who get off on that as well.

Just like all porn the sex here becomes redundant after a short while. I understand that some prints include inserts of hardcore sex which would at least have the added value of capture and containment to alleviate the tenacious boredom that afflicts every scene. There is one pointless scene where Irina shows up at some sort of dyke sanctuary and they’ve got a luscious blonde chained up with slash marks all over her body. That introduces a more interesting element into the film although by the time Irina is getting whipped with a birch rod it loses its erotic appeal. It’s utterly pointless and does nothing to edify anyone who finds themselves trapped into viewing this thing. I never thought sadism could come off as so utterly banal but they manage to strip it of its sordid glamour in this film which is certainly the exact opposite of what they are attempting.

The film isn’t bad enough to be good and it takes its ludicrous story way too seriously. Still, it is an interesting idea and does have a fuzzy logic to it. Apparently Irina bites the lucky recipient of her love in the genital region and manages to drain them of all their fluids. It’s impossible to imagine how practical this is because it requires such a violent oral sex technique that manages to literally suck so hard that the person simply perishes from the experience. It is true that every orgasm is a little death and that there are succubi who pretty much do the same thing. So, it’s possible that the Great Harlot could be talented enough to perform the necessary action. Apparently she drains her victims of blood but this isn’t demonstrated either which is a major disappointment.

This much nudity only works if there are real horrors to contend with. If there is carnage afoot with sexy blood splatters on faces and breasts then it is perhaps necessary to maintain a level of eroticism within the context of the film.. But here it is just bad porno with lousy music generating zero heat and it clearly fails to satisfy the edicts of what is intended. Sex grows dull very quickly unless it is part of a viable story that is actually worth the effort. Here it is the entire focus and one might as well discard the entire vampire element because nothing at all is done to exploit it. I can believe that Irina is something of a vampire because she does drain the essence from people and that this is the only way she can continue living. That much is clear. It’s only that the sex scenes are way too long. If they were cut back by 80 percent the story might have had room to develop. Unfortunately that is not the case in this film.

There are actresses one would be delighted seeing run around naked for an entire film. But none of them are the kind that ever take their clothes off period. This in turn only accentuates their desirability. Here we have an actress who is playing a character that is supposed to be the most desirable woman on the planet. She is supposed to represent raw sexual need at its basest form. Yet, there is nothing particularly lust-worthy of her performance. Nudity becomes trite after a while and this film proves it. The only time nudity works in a film is when it is important to the story line. Otherwise its merely gratuitous and pointless. I suppose the film hinges on how bad the members of the audience want to fuck Lina Romay. She is certainly attractive enough to garner considerable attention but she’s only a body in this film and wholly without even a hint of a viable personality. She’s flat and dull and lazy and all she brings to the film is meat. It’s a shame because this subject is endlessly fascinating. It could have been made into a terrifying film that explores all of the psychological aspects of such sadistic behavior. It could have done so with limited sex and nudity and still come off as necessary and true.

Overall, this film is about as lousy a “vampire” film as has ever been made. There is no horror, no desire, and no purpose. The film tends to drain the audience of their desire to see any more as the film is rolling. Indeed, one can only sit through it by fast forwarding through all the sex scenes because there is no reason to sit through porn that does not serve a legitimate purpose. Normally, porn is supposed to elicit lustful thoughts and a deliberate mechanical reaction to the stimulating material being presented. I admit that there was a bit of that in this film which only proves its intent all along. It doesn’t want to tell a story. It simply wants to get its audience hot and bothered which is fine for a porn film but not for something that pretends to be cinema.

Film Review--Coraline

2009-02-11T12:52:00.000-08:00

Coraline
directed by Henry Selick
written by Henry Selick
based on the novella by Neil Gaiman
starring the voices of Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French, Keith David, John Hodgman, Robert Bailey Jr., Ian McShane

Based on the short book of the same name by Neil Gaiman, this stop-action animated fantasy film creates an exquisitely crafted world of immense beauty that is both beguiling and disturbing.

A young girl named Coraline Jones (Fanning) has moved into a new home with her parents and finds herself emotionally abandoned and neglected. She takes to exploring the house and discovers a hidden door that has been wallpapered in. When she opens it she discovers it has been bricked over. That evening she awakens and sees a mouse scurrying out of the room. She follows it to the door and apprehends that it leads through a tunnel to a strange new world that resembles her old house only everything is brighter, more vibrant and alive. She meets a woman who closely resembles her own mother except she’s way more attentive and fun plus she’s got buttons for eyes. This woman claims to be her “Other Mother” (Hatcher) and that she and her husband (Hodgman) have been waiting for her. Coraline soon realizes that she has entered a world of great times and a non-stop barrage of exciting things to do. Her old world is bland and tiresome in comparison and she considers never going back.

The film possesses a tremendous scope. The atmosphere is expansive and there is a genuine sense of openness throughout the film. The “Other” parents exist in a world that epitomizes convenience and infinite creative possibilities. It promises Coraline a life filled with an endless banquet of surprises and everything she could possibly ever desire. It’s alluring in a most relentless sort of way and she slowly realizes that there is much more beneath the surface that might not have her best interests in mind. She meets a stray cat (David) who is just like the cat who stalks her old home only this one can speak. He warns her about her “Other Mother”. Coraline heeds his advice and with the help of a stone with a hole in it she has received from her neighbor Miss Spink (Saunders) she begins to gather up what she needs to escape.

There are so many magical scenes in this film and they are all impossibly bright and colorful. It’s truly an adventure land of tickling, mesmeric sensations that elevate the viewer onto a more profoundly scintillating plane where creativity reigns every aspect of life. Toys are alive, a neighbor named Mr. B. (McShane) conducts a circus featuring mice, and Coraline’s general experience is consumed with frenetic motion and a constant supply of ecstatic moments that are exceedingly seductive. Soon, however, a cold reality settles in and she becomes acutely aware that there is a malefactor afoot. Life in Lorelei isn’t the smorgasbord of delight she originally envisioned it to be.

The idea of a lonely child escaping into a fabulous land populated with every grand and lovely thing they could ever imagine is a terribly charming one. Sure, it’s very common and has been the platform for stories such as “Alice in Wonderland”, “The Wizard of Oz”, and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”. The child must take action or avoid various perils in order to escape on the other side with their wits and abilities intact. Coraline is thrust into a world of magic that proves to be too good to be true.

This is a tale that questions easy rearing where children are provided with everything without having to work for it in any capacity whatsoever. Coraline finds herself in just such a situation with “Other” parents who insist on giving her everything she could ever think of without asking anything of her. It’s not an ideal environment for a child as it teaches them to expect that life will always acquiesce with their wishes and that they will always have Mummy and Daddy to fall back on if times get tough. Coraline is a fiercely independant girl and it is this independence that has strained her relationship with their parents. They most likely assume that she can take care of herself so they err in the other direction and pay her no attention whatsoever.

The most obvious difference between the book and the film is the film’s inclusion of a new character named Wybie Lovat (Bailey Jr.) It sets up an entirely different dynamic from the book because it enjoins teamwork with the fantastic narrative. Coraline didn’t need anyone else in the book and the addition of the new character takes something away from her quest to find her parents. There is a small subplot about Wybie’s grandmother’s missing sister which is solved and adds more severity to a key element of the plot. Mostly, the film follows the book closely and there is nothing major to upset oneself over. The tone is a bit looser, it isn’t as dark, and certain visuals move beyond anything the book could possibly be able to describe. Mainly, Miss Forcible’s enormous breasts. They are really massive and one wonders what’s behind the decision to include them. Certainly, kiddies aren’t that into them and they happen to appear on a wrinkled old bat so it’s not like they are sexy or anything.

There is all the fervor and strangeness of the book and the overall energy is maintained through to the end. The book is more terrifying and more ghastly in its depictions of certain scenes. There’s more of a chthonian feel to the book as it slips nicely into a very dark place where there is very real danger. The danger in the film is a bit more cartoonish like the animated version of the Wicked Stepmother in “Cinderella”. Indeed, the “Other Mother” becomes something of a monster and turns her husband into a pumpkin like creature who can hardly speak.

Coraline proves to be a fine sleuth as the locates the necessary items to save herself as well as others she has met during confinement that prove the “Other Mother’s” divine wickedness for all to see. The film does a good job with the “Other Mother” and she’s deliciously primal when she transforms herself into a monster. She’s scary enough and it does seem that she might be capable of eating Coraline and perhaps the cat. She’s tyrannical and driven by an urgency that knows no barriers until of course she is confronted with one who is more clever than she. She is ill prepared to take on Coraline who is determined in her own right to leave the realm and return her life back to what is was before her discovery.

There is something interesting about the symbolism of the tunnel between the two homes. It is a long womb like apparatus which Coraline must crawl through both to reach the magic kingdom and to return back to her dull, listless life. Each mother possesses a womb that is connected to their opposite’s womb and the “Other Mother’s” womb is attempting to destroy her rival’s by any means necessary. The old and dead womb offers no sustenance and no hope for a viable future. It’s decrepit and Coraline is justified in attempting to escape it. Unfortunately the new womb is devouring and needy and intent on possessing and smothering her with mock affection that hinges on a specific betrayal of Coraline’s autonomy, her Self. At one end the future is bleak because it is built on a past that does not recognize Coraline for who she is. Her neighbors always get her name wrong and nobody provides her with the attention she craves. On the other end she gets all the attention but must destroy part of her true self in order to maintain it. She must in fact sell her very soul for material possessions and entertainments that will also fail to provide the proper nourishment she requires. The old world is relentlessly boring but at least she possesses the opportunity to invent herself according to her own designs. Such an option does not exist within the realm of a woman who insists on creating Caroline according to her own specifications.

In a sense one can view this film as anti-Fascist in the sense that Caroline is forced to confront a ritualized life in a specific order that demands absolute submission and punishes severely those who dare to challenge the state. The new formed state in this case promises safety, continuity, and well being. It is an ideal model for the Self to remain fettered to a codified way of living bereft from derelicts or threats from outside the realm. The only rule is subservience and an admission that the state is supreme in all matters and can never be doubted. The only escape is through sabotage and a wholesale destruction of the state and a return to a freer, less ordered existence that nevertheless encourages a more open and less didactic expression of Self-hood. Yet, the perceived pleasures of the State are but mere entertainments to keep the captives mollified and to prevent them from raising their voices in discontent and anger against the order.

Coraline is truly trapped between two worlds that prove ultimately to deny her the type of environment that will best encourage her to create a viable future for herself. She must in fact create a life out of the remnants of each world in order to get what she needs. She prefers in the end to be back in the dusty, emotionally cold world because she has learned to assemble a life out of the scraps she apprehends in the familiar. Objects become projects with which to determine the order of her existence. She is free to create her own Self without being constantly reminded that she is living in a world that denies her own creativity by forcing her to forever acknowledge the work of another who remains an oppressive force.

The performances in this film manage to effectively bring the book alive. Dakota Fanning conveys all of Coraline’s doubts and fears throughout the course of the film. Teri Hatcher brings the bitch-goddess to life and creates a definite separation between the two mothers. Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders, both “Absolutely Fabulous” alums, capture the lunacy of their characters and their essential pretentious bombast. Keith David plays the Cat as slinky and a bit mischievous. He sounds like a jazz man introducing one of his latest compositions.

Overall, this film is proof of what painstaking dedication, in this case over four years, can accomplish if the intent is pure and the narrative solidly constructed. The film is simply gorgeous to look at from start to finish and each character is genuinely brought to life. Coraline Jones is one of the most fascinating young heroines to ever be showcased in a cinematic production. She’s bold, inventive and wholly ingenious plus she possesses a never-ceasing capacity for wonder which informs her perceptions of the world. She’s also observant and smart enough to accept the advice of others who warn her of imminent danger. The film will remain a work of art worth returning to again and again. As long as there is celluloid this film will be analyzed and put before young children who will respond like all children respond to rollicking entertainment that dazzles and shines.

Film Review--Inkheart

2009-02-10T21:20:00.001-08:00

Inkheart
directed by Iain Softley
written by David Lindsay Abaire
based on the novel by Cornelia Funke
starring Brendan Fraser, Sienna Guillory, Eliza Bennett, Paul Bettany, Helen Mirren, Andy Serkis, Jim Broadbent

Words can be brutal, vicious things once they are properly unleashed. In this film a 12 year old girl discovers she shares her father’s terrible gift of bringing books to life. Along with her father she tries to track down her mother who disappeared when she was three. In this fantasy action film books routinely come alive and their texts are employed for various means both nefarious and honest.

Maggie Folchart (Bennett) is not exactly a typical child. She’s devoted to books and takes great pleasure curling up in a corner absorbed in some fantastic tale or another. She travels with her father Mo (Fraser) on a quest to find a copy of the book, “Inkheart”. Mo goes into the book shop and hears strange voices coming out of a book. He soon realizes that he has finally discovered the book which has been out of print for many years. He opens it and inadvertently summons a man named Dustfinger (Bettany) who claims to have come out of the book many years before when Mo had read to Maggie. They part but soon Mo is surrounded by a horrific party of villains who have also come from the book. Maggie soon realizes that her father has not really been looking for the book but rather for her mother. It is also discovered that the mother Resa (Guillory) has somehow been sucked into the book when three of the villains came out. The film is a rescue mission in which the lovely Resa is firstly chained and then bound up in a hemp net. Her dire circumstances inform the film with a decisive urgency.

The leader of the band of troublemakers is named Capricorn (Serkis) and he has made quite a place for himself outside of the book. He lives in a castle and has control over his minions who really are a ghastly lot. They are truly a uniform block of exceedingly bad men who are without a decent instinct among them. They are good for the kids because there is nothing ambiguous about their behavior. They are simply bad and this makes it all the more easier to root for the traditionally honorable characters who find themselves trapped in a nightmare scenario that they must use their great and terrible powers to escape from.

The author of the book is a man named Fenoglio (Broadbent) and he’s utterly delighted to discover that the characters who have come to life are precisely as he has imagined them. He is employed to use his writing skills to solve the terrible dilemma so that everyone might be set free from Capricorn’s unsavory realm.

This is certainly a film that celebrates the power of the written word and its ability to change landscapes and influence readers to move beyond their limitations. Numerous works including “The Wizard of Oz”, “Arabian Nights” and “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” are brought forth in various guises to provide the film with a firm link to the annals of classic literature. Many familiar staples are explored including the heroic quest, the damsel in distress, and the hero who discovers they have magic powers they must use to extricate themselves out of a dangerous situation. In tried and true form the hero here is but a child who has inherited a great power that is nevertheless exceedingly dangerous if it is used without caution. The possibilities are indeed endless and one imagines the impact on our world that certain infamous texts might enjoy. Books such as the Marquis de Sade’s “120 Days of Sodom”, or George Bataille’s “The Trial of Gilles de Rais” would certainly add a bit of spice to any environment. These are perhaps the kinds of books that should be explored in the sequel.

Sienna Guillory is in this film but she makes a lasting impression with her otherworldly beauty that is luminescent and startling to behold. She makes for a worthy distressed lass and her every movement while constrained is but an exquisite form of torment. She does quite a lot despite being unable to speak and it’s clear why Mo is such an impossibly lucky bastard to have her.

As this is a typical story that doesn’t do anything particularly alarming in its telling, it’s no mystery what will happen when the film reaches it’s conclusion. Yes, the story is predictable in terms of whether or not the right people get out alive and the wrong people perish but there is a consistency that is supremely effective throughout the film.

Helen Mirren is delightfully comical as Elinor Loredan, Mo’s fussy and fastidious Aunt who is something of a chore. She’s tight fisted and very protective of her glorious library. Naturally she is horrified when the band of cretins thoughtlessly destroy many of her books including a rare Persian manuscript that she has on display in a special glass case. It’s an instance that articulates the plight of modern civilization where books are no longer treasured by the masses and often treated with open hostility by the very children who need the continuing nourishment that books provide. The stories presented in this film are timeless and have served numerous cultures from their inception. The film wants its audience to become obsessed with reading and studying the classics or at least modern classics that are legitimately capable of transforming lives.

The special effects in the film are seamless and the alternative worlds they create are wholly believable. This film is magical in that it carries the viewer along into a different world that is nevertheless populated with figures and scenes that ought to be familiar to all. Of course the reality is that we have taken such books for granted and their authority has become diminished in the minds of too many over time. Still, the film insists they are necessary components to any society that pretends to call itself a Culture.

The performances in this film are all viable for the genre. Brendan Fraser has bankrolled his everyman persona in a number of films over the course of his career. In this film, he doesn’t play against type and allows the other actors to play off of him. He’s congenial, inoffensive if not a bit bland. Still he isn’t being asked to carry this film on his good name alone. There are several other performers who do their bit to push the film along to where it needs to go. Eliza Bennett is a real find. Maggie’s got all the cockiness of youth coupled with a genuinely charming disposition which is necessary to sell this type of family movie. Andy Serkis is clearly having a diabolically good time throughout this film. Capricorn’s eyes are consumed with menace as he casts his web of infamy on anyone who dares to get in his way. He possesses a terrible charisma in his own right that is beguiling for much of the film. Sienna Guillory is as mentioned a graceful, elegant and comely creature whose difficulties in the film are made more horrible because she is such a shatteringly delightful presence. It’s always better in a film to rescue a woman who exudes a natural beauty that is disarming and impossible to ignore. At least cinematically it seems to put a higher value on the mission. Helen Mirren is a oddball in this film. Her character is a combination of style and severity. She’s not the kind of woman one would ever want to scorn.

Overall, this film does everything it sets out to do. It’s a barn-raising tale informed by something that is infinitely valuable in a society that pretends to call itself literate. It values both the spoken and written word in a time when these are being obscured by the feeding trough of technology. It’s an interesting dichotomy between an expensive, effects-heavy film that relies on ingenious applications of the latest technology and a decisively low tech form of entertainment and illumination. In the end the word prevails and the final word in this film is that good stories are viable, necessary creations that possess an uncanny power to alter consciousness and transform the reader’s entire approach to life. Also, spoken words should not be employed lightly or taken for granted. They can harm as much as soothe and they can never be taken back once they are uttered.

Film Review--Revolutionary Road

2009-02-10T14:26:00.001-08:00

Revolutionary Road
directed by Sam Mendes
written by Justin Haythe
based on the novel by Richard Yates
starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Michael Shannon, Kathy Bates, Richard Easton, David Harbour, Kathryn Hahn, Zoe Kazan, Dylan Baker, Jay O. Sanders

The human face is a mightily accurate barometer of emotion and intent. In this film director Sam Mendes focuses a considerable amount of attention on the visages of his lead actors leading to a succinct understanding of the characters’s various torments and disappointments. It maps out territory that is at times convoluted and exceedingly strange. Kate Winslet’s face tells many stories throughout this film. Her rage, frustration, fear, and even the occasional fit of what may pass for happiness are clearly written for everyone to see. Winslet is masterful here at conveying a considerable amount of information with a simple look. She does it unflinchingly as her character remains unaware of just how much she is revealing through her facial expressions.

Kate Winslet is April who is dissatisfied with the way things have developed in her life despite having done everything that society promotes as necessary to a vital, contributing life. When we first meet her she is an aspiring actress whose most recent play is universally loathed. She meets Frank Wheeler (DiCaprio) at a party and the pair are married. Frank convinces April that she’s just not that good at acting and she settles down to be a happy little housewife with her perfect kids, lovely and inviting home, and the latest in appliances. None of this helps her solve her quintessential dilemma which is to live a life that is freer, to see a future with more possibilities and less strain. It’s a breathtaking performance that comes together mostly through April’s reactions to events around her. The look of frustration plays like a permanent scowl that she cannot disavow by pretending to be what she is supposed to be.

April and Frank seem to have an ideal life. They’ve moved into a desirable and enviable home, they’ve gained prestige in the community by pushing out a couple of kids, and Frank is a respected employee for a business machine company. However, he’s routinely disappointed and professes on several occasions that he hates his job. April has an epiphany and decides that the family should move to Paris. It’s a wild idea that clearly is not going anywhere but for a brief period the couple seem to have found a bliss that heretofore has eluded them. Their faces no longer bear the strain of a torment; instead they seem to float by without a care in the world. Circumstances intervene though which trip up the dream leaving it gasping for air in the dirt at their feet.

This story plays out in real life all the time all over the world. There is a nagging feeling that things could be so much better if only this or that aspect of the life were altered dramatically. If only we could move into a better house. If only I could get more money or a better job entirely. If only the wife could get pregnant and bring into the world someone to distract us from the tyranny of our lives. This film suggests that none of these options do much to solve the essential dilemma. Acute unhappiness bordering on despair cannot in and of themselves bring about the desired change. They are often a good starting place but an entirely different world view is necessary if they are going to take root. New objects, new directions can bring about a transformation if the individual has prepared the way for a bright, new future that beckons with a tenacity that cannot be ignored. April and Frank have not prepared themselves for this new future. Their past is still sullied with shattered hopes and dismal personal disasters that are entirely internal in their actualization. Actual events, objects, are not oppressive. It’s the point of view that sees them this way and therefore the world is viewed as hopeless and empty.

Michael Shannon plays John, a former mathematician who has found himself incapable of handling the day to day existence taken for granted by most of the population. His scientific knowledge has been eradicated by electric shock therapy and he resides in a mental institution. He is the son of a realtor named Helen Givings (Bates) and her husband Howard (Easton). Helen asks the Wheelers if she can bring John over during one if his furloughs. They agree and John is paraded out and immediately demonstrates his lack of social awareness. Still, he says things that cause Frank to remark that John is the only person who clearly understands them.

Shannon gives one of those rare performances that is always close to being ripped apart by some spastic fit. He plays it with a fragility that is nevertheless controlled. It’s heartbreaking as one is instantly made sympathetic to a man whose livelihood has been cruelly taken away from him by circumstances beyond his control. John says “A lot of people are on to the emptiness but it takes real guts to see the hopelessness”. There is a real sense that despite his social gracelessness that John has acquired devastating insights into all matters of both the heart and the head. He’s like a savant of emotional truths and he manages to get quite a rise out of Frank who explodes in one of his frequent displays of acute frustration and demonstrable anger.

The marriage of April and Frank is as difficult to manage as a marriage can be. Both of them feel unmoored, merely flakes of dust floating in the wind. When Frank gets a job offer that promises him considerably more money, priorities shift as Frank sees an opportunity for a future that is actually desirable. He recognizes that working in computers could very well be something worth investing his time in. It’s the very thing that he requires to ensure that his work life manages to provide the stimulation and excitement that he’s been craving all along. Sure, it’s a desk job putting in even more hours but there’s a promise at the end of it which Frank clearly believes will offer him many more options. April doesn’t at first see it this way and remains disappointed that she can’t live out her dream as she’s determined it to be. Fights continue as their bond loosens and threatens to snap altogether. Still, there is a very real sense that nothing can fully destroy the love these people have for one another. It’s one of those thick and thin scenarios that plays against the backdrop of domestic euphoria.

Within the tidy framework the seeds of dissent are quietly sewn. Frank has an affair with one of his secretaries named Maureen Grube (Kazan). It doesn’t mean anything whatsoever so naturally he goes back for more. Maureen seems to be aware that she is being used but like all women in her position she chooses to ignore it. In one scene after a tryst she is sitting on the end of the bed smoking. There is a look of quiet resignation on her face as she contemplates what the experience means. Perhaps she’s thinking of the emptiness of the act, devoid as it is of any emotional involvement on his part. Perhaps she’s imagining a scenario where he leaves his wife and takes her in his arms back to his retreat for a repeat performance. Regardless, at the core of the experience is indeed her own emotional involvement in the act. Frank is callous and seems unable to face what he has done so he leaves. Later that night he goes home and is surprised by April and the kids as it is his birthday. The look of his face is one of both acute pain and fear. He knows he has done something untoward but he’s forced to remain as if nothing has happened. It’s a trick that he masters quite effectively. It isn’t until later he confesses to April who simply says, “Why did you tell me? Are you trying to make me jealous?”

In a sense this film can be seen as a guide to surviving the myriad ups and downs that afflict every marriage. It demonstrates both extremes and forces the two central characters to handle each of them while maintaining their dignity and sense of autonomy. In one scene Frank runs after April who has darted into the woods. When he reaches her she is incensed because she needs time to think, time to be alone with herself after a particularly cruel fight. The music as she enters the woods is the perfect mixture of evocative and downright creepy.

The performances in this film are all quite brilliant. Michael Shannon as mentioned clearly demonstrates why he is nominated for an Academy Award. There is an intensity here that comes through from the moment Shannon steps into the frame. His character’s maneuvering through strange territories and Shannon is able to convey John’s acute discomfort through body language and gestures. This is a character who is strained by social interaction and one truly feels this via the way Shannon chooses to sit down or walk about the room. It’s extraordinary to see an actor who is able to show such vulnerability just by moving his hands in a certain way. Kate Winslet gives another Oscar worthy performance as a woman who has reached the end of her tether. April wants so much to be truly happy but finds herself grounded as if her feet were nailed to the floor. There’s a sense that she hasn’t always welcomed the additions of the children but certainly seven years on after the first one she no longer feels apprehensive about them. Still, she does sometimes seem to wish she hadn’t burdened herself with them but these moments are fleeting and do not effect her overall state of being. Winslet as mentioned can destroy with a simple glance and the way her eyes work in this film is devastating.

Leonardo DiCaprio gives a powerhouse performance as a man whose filled with considerable rage about his job, his marriage, and his prospects of doing anything great with his life. He turns thirty and he feels as if he has turned into his father which he vowed he’d never do. Frank is a hard worker who legitimately believes that a man must be out there doing something vital in order to support his family. There’s an integrity to Frank that is only slightly damaged by his penchant for sleeping with the secretary. His longings are typical and subsequently torture him when they are not actualized. Kathryn Hahn plays a solid woman who represents one who has eased into the transition of the happy family life. She is someone who recognizes the difficulties but is more apt than April at facing them with a clear mind and an able heart. Hahn captures her character’s strength and ability to see through the storms without getting unduly accosted by their influence.

Overall, this film is an immaculately acted tone poem on the myriad confusions that afflict even the best intended when they are faced with what they perceive to be limited horizons and the often crushing brutality of the daily grind. The Wheelers have made what is considered by many to be an ideal life for themselves. They have a solid income, two gloriously content children, and a place for themselves in a community that takes in those who have accepted their lot in life without posing any uncomfortable queries that tend to disrupt the calm. Yet, as the film so elegantly demonstrates, this particular reality can be uniformly stifling to ambitions that ascend beyond its codified walls. The perfectly determined life, remaining on the surface something of an achievement, is no respite for those who cannot by into the delusion that such lives necessarily entail. The Wheelers find themselves at odds with the illusion because they still have ambitions for something much more vital. Their suffering emerges when they see before them nothing but slight variations on the same tired theme. At the end of the day, the limits of the proscribed life grinds on those who cannot maintain the charade of acceptance.

Film Review--Teeth

2009-02-09T16:58:00.000-08:00

Teeth
written and directed by Mitchell Lichtenstein
starring Jess Weixler, John Hensley, Josh Pais, Hale Appleman, Lenny von Dohlen, Vivienne Benesch, Ashley Springer, Julia Garro

Being those lips there must be teeth. It’s an ancient fear that has afflicted men since the dawn of time. Vagina Dentata. Yes, something horrible and strange capable of maiming and even killing the unwitting. For Dawn O’Keefe (Weixler), this mythical condition has always been with her. The film starts with a startling scene. Dawn is in a kiddie pool with her step-brother Brad (Hensley). He says, “Now, show me yours.” While their parents Bill (von Dohlen) and Kim (Benesch) ignore the kids, Brad suddenly cries out. He reveals a serious wound at the end of his finger while Dawn playfully turns her head away. It’s obvious what has happened and proves to be one of the very few instances in cinema where childhood sexually is blatantly explored. It sets the tone nicely for what is to follow.

Years later Dawn is in highschool. She is a confirmed virgin who speaks at gatherings of other virgins who have taken the Promise pledge. It is something of a cult with the audience blindly offering mantras that have been inculcated into their sex-starved brains. Dawn is perfectly at ease with her celibacy until she meets a new student named Tobey (Appleman). It’s clear from the moment she apprehends him that she wants him deep inside her. Indeed, she fantasies about marrying him and is close to pleasuring herself before she freaks out and condemns herself for nearly succumbing to self-love. It’s clearly forbidden in the cult and her near betrayal of her oath troubles her immensely.

Despite the pledge she calls Toby and they spend an afternoon swimming together. After they climb out of the water the inevitable happens and they begin to make out. Only Tobey takes it much further and ends up sexually assaulting Dawn. Fortunately for her this is when the teeth kick in and bites his man-stick cleanly off. It’s a fine tactic and one that could go a long way to eliminate the rape problem in toto.

So, Dawn discovers her condition and is naturally disturbed by its implications. Her changing body replete with new urges has left her a hideous freak with an immense power which she employs whenever the situation calls for it. At first it is terrifying and unwanted but gradually becomes a weapon that can be used to rid the world of creepy guys who prove to deserve whatever horrible fate her vagina teeth can dish out.

Dawn goes to a gynecologist named Dr. Godfrey (Pais) who attempts to molest her while ostensibly performing a routine examination. The teeth take their revenge by severing four of his fingers. The film is routinely very funny in a strictly dark sense and the image of the sorry bastard slumped in a corner with his bloody digits scattered on the floor is just one of many chillingly hilarious moments in the film. One might find it odd that a scene with a severed penis could be anything but horrific but this film manages to find the humor behind the savage act. Sure, it’s brutal and perhaps the worst fear a man can possibly entertain but as it’s conceived here the end result is extremely funny.

The great revenge fantasy is not entirely played out in this film until the very end. Dawn mainly maims boys she actually wants to have sex with until she finally comes around to accepting the viability of her special skill. Then she deliberately uses it as a weapon that truly serves her well and wreaks a terrible revenge on a very real enemy. It is suggested that she is going to continue to take full advantage of the teeth and become something of a penis-severing serial killer. The only difficulty would be disposing of the bodies but if she could manage to only attempt sex with boys and men in their own bed and could perhaps render them inert through drugs so they don’t attempt to strangle her out of their agony and confusion, she could eliminate a fair amount of leches.

The connection between innocence and savagery proves to be an intriguing one in this film. The fact that Dawn is molested as a very young girl perhaps is linked to her militant anti-sex position. She learns to both vilify and fear her sex organs as she begins to suffer flesh longings that she attempts to suppress by swearing to avoid any sexual activity until her wedding night. She’s a little girl burdened with a fantasy of the first time that will most likely never come true. She is born with the teeth and the wound they inflict on Brad is traumatic to her in a decisive manner. She might have grown to view her sex organs as not simply dirty but lethal although the memory of the instance is not available to her.

Brad is a typical sex-crazed black-metal head who screws girls and smokes weed in his room. He’s supposed to be the antithesis of Dawn as he is mostly a dissolute character who lives something of a hedonist lifestyle that is wholly profligate and venomous to Dawn. He’s also a confirmed misogynist who refers to every woman, including his step-mom as a bitch. He shows his disdain for female genitalia by routinely taking his conquests up the ass. He is presented as a rather shallow menace who is nevertheless living something of an ideal life in the eyes of many men.

It can be argued that this is a pro-abstinence film after all considering the bloody finality of sex that is depicted throughout. Dawn is pure, irritatingly wholesome, yet struggling with yearnings she has managed for her entire life to dispel. In anatomy class the school board has deemed it necessary to place a giant gold circular plate on the page that displays the female genital organs. The terrible mouth, the gateway to all grief, is thereby shown to be so terrifying that it cannot even rightly be shown in school. Again, female sexuality is something so dangerous to young minds that it must be obscured. Yet they have no problem with allowing the penis schematic which the teacher attempts to defend by stating that there is a difference between the two that he is unable to define. He can’t even say the words regarding female sex organs, so deeply ingrained is his fear of being contaminated by them.

The performances in this film all serve the script well. Jess Weixler has a natural quality that befits her character’s earnest attempt to remain sexually pure. Dawn comes off as robust, emotionally strong girl who is brutally assaulted and subsequently considers herself unclean and unworthy of promoting purity to an audience of her fellow highschoolers. Weixler captures her character’s transformation with great skill. John Hensley is a bit off at times but mostly he conveys a highly charged, aggro man-boy who seems to take great pleasure in demeaning women for sport. He’s believable enough as a cauldron of rage that might overflow at any time. Hale Appleman is a bit flat at times but his role isn’t terribly demanding. All he has to do is look horny and scream repeatedly when Dawn’s special little friend brutally takes his manhood and his life.

Overall, this film is thoroughly engaging from the moment we meet Dawn and Brad. It takes a worldwide myth and modernizes it into an occasionally frightening and very funny narrative. It points out the absurdity of chastity as a lifestyle choice for horny teenagers whose hormones demand sexual release. Still, it doesn’t exactly promote healthy sex as all but one attempt end up horrifically for the boys involved. Female sexuality is promoted as dangerous if not deadly and the film never attempts to suggest a differing point of view. What it does do is give its central female character great insight into the nature of her condition. However, she is prohibited against sexual congress until she meets a “hero” who can disarm the dragon and free her. This perhaps means she will remain pure until she meets the man she is to marry and once she is betrothed the curse will be lifted and she can subsequently spend the rest of her days happily screwing her ever-loving brains out.

Film Review--Underworld: Evolution

2009-02-08T13:38:00.000-08:00

Underworld: Evolution
directed by Len Wiseman
written by Danny McBride
story by Len Wiseman, Danny McBride
based on characters by Kevin Grevioux, Len Wiseman and Danny McBride
starring Kate Beckinsale, Bill Nighy, Scott Speedman, Tony Curran, Derek Jacobi, Steven Mackintosh, Shane Brolly, Brian Steele, Zita Görög

This film takes off where the first one ended after a brief back story in the early 13the century that introduces the characters of Markus (Curran) and his brother William (Steele) who were the first vampire and lycan respectively. William is imprisoned for “all time” by Viktor (Nighy) who is revealed to be a powerful leader before Markus turns him and his legions into a willing vampire.

The story moves to the present day and Markus has been awoken after a six century slumber. He quickly eliminates Kraven (Brolly) and numerous associates. He then tracks Selene (Beckingsale) and Michael (Speedman) to a warehouse but they escape.

The film has a decisively moody tone which is a continuation of the first film in the series. It doesn’t necessarily stand out amidst the glut of similarly themed films but the aesthetic does accentuate the decrepit quality the film is attempting to convey. It seems dirty and foul to a degree and this allows the great Lycan-Vampire battles to emanate with coarse vitality as necessary.

The creatures are even more persistently menacing in this chapter. The Lycans seem larger, fiercer and more relentless. There are also more scenes with full on Lycan wolves in attack mode which increases the horror quotient of the film. The Lycans simply look ghastly and very scary when they are fully engaged in their savage pastimes.

The back story introduces the audience to a further exploration of central characters. We learn that Markus and William are the twin sons of Alexander Corvinius; Markus was bitten by a bat and became a Vampire while William was bitten by a wolf and became a Lycan. Lycans were originally terribly vicious and unable to return to human form. William was out of control and Markus convinced Viktor to allow him to turn him and his legions into vampires in exchange for help corralling William. Markus planned of softening William but Viktor betrayed him and locked William up instead. Awakened by the blood of the Lycan scientist Singe in the first film, Markus is determined to unleash William from captivity.

Selene and Michael intensify their sexual bond by engaging in some softcore body action. There is one scene between them that encapsulates much of what the vampire legend is about. Michael is dying and needs to feed. Selene cuts her wrists and as he is sucking the blood a look of sexual bliss comes over Selene’s face. Bloodletting is for her a deeply erotic act and giving her blood to a lover as a type of sacrament is exceedingly sexual and gratifying. There is another feeding where Selene leisurely drinks from the wrist of Alexander Corvinius’s original bloodline, which is the only way she can track and kill Markus.

The decadence of the first film has been replaced with much more action. The vaguely sexy and terminally bored aristocrats have all perished and the coven completely wiped from the face of the earth. Indeed, both covens have been eliminated as well as all three Vampire elders. The chaos is well rendered here leaving no other option but to focus on much shedding of Lycan blood.

Selene maintains her tough, steely exterior but has developed a softer, more vulnerable side which only manages to add to her mystique. She’s a brutal killer and seemingly an amazing lover and one can only wonder what sex is like for a vampire. If all senses are made acute then sex must be an utterly shattering experience. Mere mortals would probably be unable to handle such sensations and would probably be rendered insane if their bodies didn’t explode from the intensity of the experience.

A key element to this story is the existence of hybrids who essentially take the best aspects of each source without having to suffer any of the weaknesses. Michael is the first Lycan-dominant hybrid and his power and strength is even more impressive than the Elders. In many ways the existence of hybrids points to the future and this is what Viktor in the first film is so afraid of. Michael represents something entirely strange and foreign into the world populated by Vampires and Lycans. The same can be said about Marcus who is the first and only Vampire dominant hybrid.

The film has a glossy visual code that is maintained throughout. It simply looks like what one imagines an Underworld to be. It’s all slippery angles and a real sense of despair. There is a hopelessness to the order of things as these two mythological creatures do hard battle in a war that nobody understands any more. There is a very real sense of futility that is a permanent fixture of the film. Nothing comes off that isn’t drenched in blood and each character projects a feverish necessity that provides the film with a permanence that is played out in the battle sequences. This is a war that seems will last for another millennium with no direct end in sight. The hatred rages and all hope seems to be lost until the very end when the atmosphere that is meticulously created becomes still and calm. But at the core of the war is a terrible treachery that can never be undone. A mean trick leaves the Lycans without their progenitor and confusion rightly reigns from that point on.

The Lycans are a heartbroken lot who have emerged after centuries of slavery and find themselves the target of a terrible onslaught directed at the goal of removing every last one of them from corporal existence. Thus their rage is understandable and they prove to be sympathetic creatures who have been brought so low only to show themselves to be a resilient lot of beasts albeit a sorely misguided one. They have no real leadership and have been pinned up against a wall forced into a position that renders them succinctly demoralized in their noble quest for survival. They are on the defensive for most of the film and their lashing out is the product of many years of psychological torment. The Vampires have a squad of Death Dealers who have organized for the sole purpose of obliterating the Lycan race. In this film, one gets a sense that the Lycans are starting to fade out. The hybrid Markus beckons the future, something so vitally terrifying to both Lycans and Vampires for the sole reason that he is something more powerful than either race and can subsequently create more like him.

The performances in this film all play the mythologies for what they are worth. Kate Beckinsale again looks like a grievous angel of death coupled with a sensuous humanity which her character does not demonstrate in the first film. Selene is still icy cold whenever she is blasting away at her adversaries but there is a new found warmth to her that is hungrily welcomed as she becomes more acutely sexualized. She’s more than a mere killing machine although she doesn’t much smile or show any emotion besides sexual gratification when she is fucking Michael. Scott Speedman makes for a fine Hybrid as his character grows into his new form. Michael is as tenacious a creature as one can hope for in a film such as this. He is virtually unstoppable which makes him a heroic figure although it’s not altogether clear that he is fighting on the side of good. He’s a wholly new animal and one wonders if he is torn between allegiances to the two races or if he might eventually rise above the conflict to create a new race of Hybrids who could create a council that would ultimately take full control of both Vampires and Lycans. Derek Jacobi plays Corvinus as a solid, grounded character who possesses a tremendous amount of weight and legitimacy. Jacobi simply looks like the forefather who is the source of all Vampires and all Lycans. It’s an uncanny thing to witness an actor who is so dramatically solvent and permanent and who brings an intensity that is requisite for the character. Tony Curran has a diabolical charm that he maintains for the duration of the film. One never forgets Markus’s mission as he gives everything to free his brother in an effort to solve the war once and for all.

Overall, this film captures a mood that supercedes most films in this genre. Nothing is obvious and the characters all make sense. There is a coldness to much of the film that is eased by the transformation of Selene into a woman with appetites that can only be satisfied through strict carnal necessity. Her sexuality is perhaps going to be a key in the fourth installment because she will have realized a peculiar potency that has gone unexplored in previous installments in the franchise. The back story is introduced with precision and each character’s place in the narrative firmly set. This is a series that is worth tearing into in order to fully understand the myriad relationships and how the various characters play off of one another. These characters live long after the film has come to an end and it’s fascinating to pick them apart. Ultimately this story has a vitality that renders it significant with a lasting purpose.

Film Review--The Haunting (1963)

2009-02-07T13:42:00.000-08:00

The Haunting (1963)
directed by Robert Wise
written by Nelson Gidding
based on the novel by Shirley Jackson
starring Claire Bloom, Julie Harris, Richard Johnson, Russ Tamblyn, Lois Maxwell, Rosalie Crutchley, Valentine Dyall

Based on the novel “Hill House” by Shirley Jackson, this infinitely creepy fright fest combines stellar music, exquisite lighting and shadow effects, and disturbing atmospherics to create a lasting horror film that builds up tension expertly. The film achieves its startling effectiveness by calmly laying out the slow, burning potentiality of a legitimate paranormal experience.

Dr. John Markway (Johnson) is an anthropologist who is keen on discovering proof that the supernatural exists. He rents out a terribly old Gothic mansion dubbed Hill House and invites a trio of experts in the phenomena to join him on his quest. His guests include Eleanor Lance, Theodora, and Luke Sanderson and each of them brings various connections with the paranormal to the investigation. Eleanor, who is known as Nell, is a timid and neurotic woman who has spent the past years caring for her ailing mother. After her mother dies she becomes determined to have some time for herself. When the call comes she fights her sister and brother in law with whom she resides being forced to sleep on the couch. She manages to sneak away with the car and drives herself to Hill House. For much of the film Eleanor’s thoughts explain her various states of mind as she attempts to calm her nerves and survive the terrors of the house. Theodora or Theo as she prefers to be called is more grounded although she too succumbs to various frights. Finally, Luke is really only interested in assessing the house because as the nephew of the woman who owns it he is set to inherit it and wants to make sure everything is in proper order.

Throughout the film the house makes its presence felt. There is loud banging at night, an inexplicable cold spot in one of the halls, and a child in the wall who appears to be being abused. Eleanor clutches an invisible hand and there are presences throughout the house that create a genuine sense of discomfort to the residences. The film uses sound and lighting to establish a definite mood of distress that never abates. The audience feels right along with the characters the horror of the house’s ill intent for those who dare to remain within its walls.

The house itself was built 90 years ago by a man named Hugh Crain. It was made with strange, off putting angles and there is not a square in the entire house. This is interesting because queer designs such as this are known to summon up peculiar forces that lend themself to supernatural possession. On the way to the house Crain’s carriage crashes into a tree killing his wife instantly. He is left with his young daughter Abigail who lives in the same nursery room for the rest of her life. She hires a care giver to take care of her in her later years. One night the care giver chooses not to answer the old woman’s rapping on the wall and Abigail promptly dies. Later the care giver hangs herself from the rafters.

The possibility that there is a force beyond our limited consciousness is ably explored in this film. Spirits are given a fair treatment and the film and there is no judgment as to whether or not they actually exist. Indeed, so many freakish things happen that it’s clear that such things are treated as a very real part of what we consider everyday reality. The film brings a solidity to the problem of spirits and the viewer comes away less skeptical than they went in. It most definitely creates a real sense of terrible unease that lasts long after the film has come to a close. Sleeping is difficult as every sound becomes akin to the shuffling feet of some disengaged soul or other. This is the sign of a high quality film that actually manages a definitive impact on the well being of its audience. It’s something that has been lost in our glossed-over, high tech attempts to create scary stories with a similar impact. Too often we are left with predictable, tiring, rehashed mediocrity that fails on every level to initiate actual terror. This film on the other hand is like an impossibly cold and bony hand tapping its fingers down our spine.

There is one incredibly tense scene near the end that is fraught with danger and has nothing to do with the supernatural. Eleanor has finally succumbed to the house and believes that she is forever a part of it. She wanders out into a courtyard and communicates with the giant statues that seem to depict Crain and various descendants. Then she whirls into the library which she previously refused to enter because the smell reminded her of her mother and also was too terribly pungent for her polite sensibilities. In the library she notices the winding staircase that shook earlier when Luke was attempting to walk up it. Eleanor duly climbs the staircase and nearly gets to the top before Markway calls after her to beckon her down. Undeterred she methodically moves up the stairs and makes it to the top. It’s an exceedingly treacherous mission and it creates a great sense of real danger. Markway finally reaches her and she is relieved. It’s basically Eleanor in a nutshell. She’s seeking danger and feels that she has been waiting for it all her life.

The story is Eleanor’s from the beginning. She feels as if nothing has ever happened to her and jumps at the chance to put herself into a situation predicated on unknown aspects. With voice over narration her thoughts are made manifest as she speaks various thoughts of fear, supplication, and earnestness to be brought under the wheel of the churning and diabolical urgency of the house. Early on there is a message written on one of the tapestries that urges for Eleanor to find help making it back home. Indeed, the house seems to be singling Eleanor out and deliberately attempting to frighten her to death. Early on it seems to be working as she is distinctly terrified at every turn. She seems brutalized by whatever is making the strange noises and causing the child to cry. But she pulls through and eventually accepts whatever is trying to get to her. She succumbs to the house’s will and has a noticeable breakthrough that produces a state of calm. She loses her fear and decides she wants to live in the house forever. It’s a terrific revelation because it proves there is a place beyond fear that can be reached by letting down the protective wall that is erected as a barrier to ensure that the Self is not infringed upon.

Theo is a proper lady who resides in the city and is slightly skeptical about the reality of spooks. Still, she does show signs of abject fear on occasion during the banging sessions where it’s impossible to locate a source for the phenomenon. Still, she’s mostly unflappable although its apparent that she still is fraught with a considerable amount of apprehension that will not effectively come off. Her nerves aren’t as frayed as Eleanor’s but she’s still not quite able to say that she is free of strain. She comforts Eleanor and is clearly the stronger of the two.

The performances in this film are all brilliantly rendered. Julie Harris captures all of her character’s intense personality quirks. Eleanor is a bundle of nerves for much of the film and Harris makes her plight both sympathetic and firmly believable. She is truly lost in a confusing mist and struggles to right herself by the end. Harris also manages to give us a woman of great strength who is unaware she possesses it. Clair Bloom’s gait and posture tell everything about the character including her motivations and something of a regal bearing. There is a vitality to Theo that comes across in every scene. Richard Johnson conveys a character who firmly believes in his attempt to solve the great mystery once and for all. He’s strong and vital throughout and has a commanding presence that never fades. Lois Maxwell has a brief turn but she establishes a firm point of view and a remarkably centered position.

Overall, this film is a bona fide ghost story that relies on simple techniques to instill tension that never abates. The characters are warmly forged and expressive in their various relationships with terror and the unexplained. They move the film along effortlessly and there is not a single lag in the entire production. There are moments of fright that are originated out of a basic approach to lighting and sound that creates terrible shadows and sounds that can not be properly placed. The result is a film that generates a coldness that is the signature of spirits as well as a desire to pull the covers over one’s head and try to ignore the ruckus in the walls.

Film Review--Rest Stop

2009-02-07T13:40:00.000-08:00

Rest Stop
written and directed by John Shiban
starring Jaimie Alexander, Joey Mendicino, Joseph Lawrence, Michael Childers, Diane Salinger, Curtis Taylor

In this rather fascinating piece of pure Terror porn, a poor pathetic girl bawls, whelps, and whines for the duration of the film. It’s as annoying as it seems and it never gives up.

Nicole Carrow (Alexander) has big dreams of making it in Hollywood. She runs away with her boyfriend Jess Hilts (Mendicino) and he drives them to California. Along the way Nicole’s bladder causes Jess to find a rest stop. She runs to use the dilapidated, thoroughly disgusting bathroom and when she emerges Jess and the car are gone. From here on out, she is terrorized by a man in a yellow truck. We never see him and all we know about him is he’s exceedingly effective at his little hobby. He turns her into a blubbering, babbling bundle of nerves and all she does for the rest of the film is cry and scream. That’s really it. He comes back periodically and she screams some more. A cop (Lawrence) shows up and is run over by the man in the truck who promptly runs over his legs again. A great portion of the film is spent with the cop as he lays in agony unable to move. He becomes a real person at this point and his plight is something worth empathizing over.

It’s a strange thing to create a film that focuses almost entirely on a young woman’s terror. The film obsessively focuses on Nicole’s fearful expressions which she displays at every turn. There is no let up in sight and the only thing to focus on is the pain in her eyes. One wonders sometimes what the purpose of these films truly are. Spending just shy of ninety minutes with such a wounded creature cannot be classified as an edifying experience. There is no poetry here, only the nagging insistence of imminent bodily harm at the hands of a sadistic maniac who comes off as a cipher more than anything else. The unpredictability of the threat, the inability to peg down the ultimate intentions of the faceless fiend–lend the film a definite chaotic element.

The film features a family of distorted personality who prove to be no help whatsoever. Lost in her torment Nicole notices that the RV that’s been parked in the rest stop’s lot is leaving. She manages to hitch a ride with them and learns quickly that they are uninterested in her plight. The Mother is not going to listen to her and the family is ostensibly religious. The father, who is driving, chatters on about God’s avenging angels, the seraphim, and how they are going to wreak terrible vengeance upon the earth. The Mother lifts her hands in some sort of cruel trance and the twin boys suck at their straws disinterestedly. Nicole suddenly leaps up and runs to the back of the RV and opens a door revealing a gnarled, misshapen boy snapping instamatic pictures from his wheelchair. This agitates the Father and Mother and she lurches into a mantra screaming “Fucking Whore” over and again. They finally push Nicole out and she finds herself at the same rest stop.

Nicole finds another girl named Tracy trapped in the bathroom stall and we learn from flashbacks that she’s been branded and carved up by the same man who is after Nicole. Also, we learn that there have been dozens of missing persons over the years and that the man’s tormenting past time goes back at least to 1971. All that can be done is to wait for the inevitable and the man in the truck doesn’t disappoint. He’s bold and determined which is what one wants in such a demented force of nature. He’s relentless and each time he comes back he makes his presence firmly felt and Nicole bursts out in a new round of tears and obvious distress. Eventually, her crying jags start to grate on the nerves and one no longer cares what happens to her. She slobbers incessantly and one cannot wait until she gets what is coming for her. It takes a while but eventually we get our wish. It’s fairly grisly but seems appropriate. At least it puts an end to her gibbering.

Non stop exercises in fear cannot sustain themselves because the audience eventually tunes out. Without worthwhile characters to get behind, all the torment loses its luster. This is readily apparent in this film as Nicole proves to be nothing more than a nuisance who does two things throughout the film and neither of them enhance whatever story is being attempted here. She screams and she cries and that is all she has to offer. I suppose we are meant to identify with her in some fashion or another but victims are never worth caring about because all they do is exhibit signs of absolute weakness bordering on hysteria and that’s no fun in the end. Granted, only a real sadist could identify with the man in the truck but at least he has a mission and is driven forward by a conviction. He has a purpose in life even if this purpose is simply to torment and kill as many vulnerable humans as he can get his hands on. Also, if it is true that he has been doing this for thirty five years then he’s obviously competent and somewhat ingenious. In the end he’s much more alluring because we never see him. He’s shrouded in mystery and remains an enigma for the duration of the film.

Terror porn celebrates a deliberate, pressing mayhem upon the flesh of ostensibly innocent victims. The key to it is that the audience be allowed to watch key individuals suffer at the hands of a tormentor. There is good torture porn and bad but I don’t think I can tell the difference. It’s most likely good when there is absolute debasement and will destruction and the person is reduced to a truly pathetic state. It is bad when it doesn’t quite reach this point and the victim is left with some of their dignity intact. Yet there are shades in between and that’s where this film fits in. The girl in this film certainly suffers but she could have suffered a whole lot worse. Indeed, there are so many more things that could have been done to her over the course of the film. Still, it’s the psychological torment that makes this into a rather effective inclusion in this genre. She is brought low and her humanity is reduced to almost nothing. She becomes something of an animal who exists purely on instinct as everything else has been stripped away. Nevertheless, she isn’t broken and very easily could have been. We get but a taste of what the man in the truck is capable of and it is not pretty.

Overall, this film is designed to demonstrate what abject terror can do to a person who is thrust into a mightily dangerous situation when their personal autonomy is threatened and this threat is reinforced over time. The girl is psychologically brutalized to the point that she can hardly act to save herself. She finally manages one last ditched effort which turns out to be spectacular in its composition. Otherwise, she’s utterly helpless and spends most of her time in hysterics. It’s possible that her reaction to her situation is supposed to have a specific impact on the audience. How much of the target audience revels in Nicole’s pain and gnashing of teeth? There has to be a certain percentage who are stimulated by the machinations of her grief. There is always the possibility that this is the driving force that encourages people to watch these films. What is the age/sex demographic? Is the viewing of these films a “healthy” pastime?

Film Review--Underworld (2003)

2009-02-06T08:43:00.000-08:00

Underworld
directed by Len Wiseman
written by Kevin Grevioux, Len Wiseman, Danny McBride,
starring Kate Beckinsale, Scott Speedman, Michael Sheen, Shane Brolly, Bill Nighy, Erwin Leder, Sophia Myles, Robbie Gee, Wentworth Mille, Kevin Grevioux, Zita Görög

It’s war between Vampires and Lycans in this crisp, temperamental and exquisitely crafted horror film that brings both mythologies clearer into focus than just about any film ever has before.

It’s clear the Lycans and the Vampires don’t care for each other and this has been going on for at least fourteen hundred years. There are outbreaks of violence including early on when Lycans open fire on a subway station. Selene (Beckinsale), a death dealer who hunts Lycans, determines that they are tracking a human which is highly uncharacteristic of them. Selene finds the human, a medical intern named Michael Corbin (Speedman), and struggles to protect him. Selene has a special hate in her heart for the Lycans because she firmly believes they slaughtered her entire family when she was small. Her zeal is fiercely made manifest at every opportunity to shed Lycan blood.

The film relates substantial aspects of the Lycan and Vampire histories including the origin of the feud. The mythologies are worked out quite precisely and the subsequent framework is useful for building up workable knowledge of the creatures. The film seems to cast the Lycans as more aggressive in terms of facilitating the war whereas the Vampires are more reactionary. This tends to create in the viewer’s head a sympathy for the Vampires which proves to be problematic as the film progresses. Regardless, the emergence of Lucian (Sheen) is a glorious thing indeed and it’s impossible to take one’s eyes off of him once he appears on screen.

At the core of this film is the methods employed to treat a human whose blood the Lycans desire in order to make something manifest that comes into play later in the film. He is but a plaything batted about by both sides of the divide and finds himself in great peril at every turn. He doesn’t know where to turn or who to trust and his plight is always at jeopardy throughout the film. He’s the key prize in the battle and Kate can’t help but fall hard for the boy. She wants him desperately and one wonders if her pursuance of him is entirely personal or if it really does have to do with the integrity of the coven.

There are two Vampire covens in this film and they are supposed to come together and unite under one banner. Amelia (Görög.) is supposed to wake up Marcos in order to usher in a new age with him as leader. However, a gang of Lycans assassinate Amelia and her entire party on the subway. The death scene is rife with erotic energy as the bodies lie soaked in matter and blood. This is perhaps because of the brief scene with Amelia walking across the frame wearing a magnificent necklace and looking all the world as bored as the rest of her kind.

Indeed, we are introduced to the bulk of the Vampires in a most decadent setting. They are all sitting around on expensive antique furniture consumed with ennui and sighing. They are dressed to kill but there is no legitimate energy in the room. They are all sucking it out with their pouting and insouciance. Still, it’s quite a scene with an entire room of impossibly pale, delicately featured Vampires all dressed up for the great blood letting.

Kraven (Brolly) is the de facto leader of the Vampires and he is harboring a terrible secret that changes everything within the Vampire world. He has made an agreement with Lucian which according to Vampire orthodoxy is perverse and vile. The actual leader of the Vampires is Viktor (Nighy) and he has been on ice for hundreds of years until Selene raises him from the dead because she desperately needs his help to solve the terrible dilemma her kind is facing. Once Viktor is awake, the entire game changes. He proves himself to be utterly exclusionary regarding Lycans and as feverishly oppressive of their kind in every way imaginable. His hatred supercedes that of all others and he has dedicated his life to eliminating as many of them as possible. Late in the film we learn what this truly means and the implications attached to it; we learn the truth about Viktor as well as where and why the war started and it’s a revelation. It puts the earlier parts of the film into an entirely different perspective which adds a genuine layer of necessity to the story as well as a fundamental primacy.

The Lycans are best represented by the incredible bulk of Raze (Grevioux) who seems to be the sort who would rather blast his way through than waste valuable killing time negotiating. He’s a central figure to this drama and a terrible force to be reckoned with at every turn. Whenever there is trouble he is most certainly to be found lurking about. Selene is usually out front of the hit squads and her shooting skills are unassailable.

It’s quite a joy to watch Kate Beckinsale shoot a gun. A sexy woman (perhaps the sexiest to ever handle a weapon on screen) who is able to maintain such control is an aesthetic and erotic pleasure that is exceedingly rare in cinema. It’s the perfect combination of power and ballet and it always elicits a bona fide reaction out of me whenever I am afforded the opportunity to witness it. In this case, the vinyl skin tight outfit (shades again of Pfeiffer) and perfect bone structure lends itself to a series of immaculate shots where Ms. Beckinsale is staving off the enemy with a series of extraordinary firearms. It’s supreme and quite delicious.

The transformations into Lycans are gloriously wrought and effective; they look terrifying and very real in their rendering. They are orchestrated by a true artist who understands subtlety and the importance of serving the form of the creature instead of getting too carried away with an orgy of pointless style. These are streamlined wolves who truly look like they could rip out a person’s throat without even thinking about it. They are in fact some of the most frightening creatures to ever be cast upon a screen. They look menacing, they sound perfectly dreadful and they move with such lightening speed it seems they can never be subdued. One hopes they continue to enjoy their autonomy and that they do not succumb to the Vampire’s bullets.

It’s interesting who the audience roots for. Are Vampire fans necessarily opposed to Lycans?; is this a war that has resonance in the actual world or is it made up strictly for this film? It seems that it would make perfect sense if this were a legitimate antipathy between the two creatures at least it makes the mythologies more relevant and pressing. Still, are Vampire freaks simply long to see the Vampire’s succeed in this war or can they find sympathy with the Lycans and their actual plight over the generations? Can werewolf afficionados see the Vampiric point of view? Of course there are many who remain on the fence unwilling unable to effectively choose between one or the other. They may be more objectively to let the film play out without forcing their judgment onto the material.

The performances in this film are as good as can be expected. Kate Beckinsale gets to show off her fabulous form and shoot guns; she provides a gritty, intense aspect to the film and is highly charismatic throughout. She’s tough and feminine which is always a lethal combination in my book. It’s probably more thrilling because she is a woman who could kick most any man’s ass and being a man I tend to revel in the prospect of being brutalized by such a divine creature. Michael Sheen is simply magnificent as the Lycan leader who knows how to make an entrance and how to put the fear of death into his adversaries. Sheen is completely on top of this character and drives him forward with alacrity and great precision. Scott Speedman holds his own as the sole human in this film. He’s strong and steadfast and despite being bound for much of the film he radiates a tremendous amount of charisma throughout.

Overall, this film captures all the vitality one can hope for from a story mining these two mythologies for material. It’s startling at times, it looks amazing, and the narrative is consistently fascinating. The important thing is it never lags whatsoever. It’s easy to get into and it’s difficult to shake from one’s mind. The characters are all vivid, and realistic as far as such creatures go. They are precisely how one imagines Vampires and Werewolves to be if they lived in the modern world with up-to-date weapons and cell phones. It’s a timeless story that is succinctly updated and it works on just about every level. It’s a very physical film and it’s not difficult to understand the dimensions within which each creature navigates itself. Perhaps the only caveat is that there aren’t enough scenes with sexy Vampires swooping down and draining the necks of their hapless prey. Otherwise it’s a top notch horror film that delivers the goods most effectively.

Film Review--Azure et Asmar

2009-02-05T11:43:00.000-08:00

Azur et Asmar
written and directed by Michel Ocelot

In this French animated fairy tale, a young boy falls prey to fantasy and dreams of rescuing the fabled Djinn fairy from her captivity. When he matures he struggles in his quest and eventually end up employing all the requisite magical elements to save her from bondage.

Azur is a blue-eyed, fair European boy whose mother has died mysteriously. As the film opens he lives with his friend Asmar and Asmar’s mother, Jénane. Asmar and his mother are darker skinned and come from the land on the other side of the raging sea. Azur’s father begins to train him in various skills including Latin and horse riding; ultimately he sends him away for schooling and kicks Asmar and Jénane out into the world. Azur grows into a man with one thing on his mind. He maintains that all he wants to do is rescue the Djinn fairy and subsequently leaves on that quest. He shipwrecks unto the island where Asmar’s people are from and quickly learns they are terrified of his blue eyes because they bring great catastrophe. He pretends to be blind and is accosted by a lumpy, frivolous and exceedingly jumpy man who agrees to guide him on his quest for the silken panties of the Djinn fairy.

The rivalry between Azur and Asmar is pronounced and goes back to their childhood where they would repeatedly get into arguments and fights over some triviality. When Azur is sent away for schooling Asmar and his mother are forced out into the streets by Azur’s father an entirely new dynamic is set into motion. Azur is deemed worthy with his light skin and blue eyes of a further education and the dark skinned, brown eyed Asmar must learn to survive in a wilderness of terror. Fortunately for Asmar fate smiles upon him and his mother becomes a notable and feared merchant with a colossal residence and many clients. He himself becomes a soldier in the Royal Guard and is well respected in his regiment.

Azur is fiercely determined driven by a phantom which strikes him hard as he makes his way through the tumultuous arena that nearly costs him his life on several occasions. He is nearly devoured by a massive lion but he has been provided with lion’s voice by Princess Chamsous Sabah and is subsequently able to communicate with the giant cat. Tamed, the lion takes him further into the mystery and he finds himself on the cusp of discovering his great love at last.

The tale is one of brotherhood and selflessness. Both Azur and Asmar display these characteristics with eagerness and fine temperament and of course both are ultimately rewarded for their virtues. It wouldn’t be a fairy tale (literally) without infinite success at the end of the quest. Still, it’s the journey that is featured here and throughout it’s truly magical in every sense of the word.

The color scheme alone makes the film worthy of great interest. It’s so incredibly vibrant and forcibly alive with a resonance rarely accomplished in animation. The characters are drawn fairly realistically but off just enough to give the film its hypnotic and surreal quality. What stands out is the boldness of the lines and the intensity they are able to effectively convey as the great journey is undertaken by both Asmar and Azur.

Overall, this film is a highly energetic, satisfying film about staying true to one’s peculiar vision even if it means tremendous risk that may not in the end be rewarded. It’s the fight, the film says, that matters and any reward is but a lucky side effect of it. Purity of form and ease of movement are essential ingredients in tackling any problem that might manifest itself throughout life and anything worth doing is potentially very costly to the one undertaking the quest. Azur and Asmar are both strong, vital presences who represent two sides of the psyche as well as two distinct approaches to finality and grace. They come from distinctly different worlds; one world is superstitious and wary of strangers, the other is more accommodating and less harsh in judgement at least in theory. It’s clearly a division between the “enlightened” West and the still backwards East. In many ways the film is a fantasy about the ability of each kind to work together to accomplish great things. Thus far this thinking hasn’t worked out altogether and the struggle for understanding continues.

Film Review--Frost/Nixon

2009-02-05T11:16:00.000-08:00

Frost/Nixon
directed by Ron Howard
written by Peter Morgan
based on the play by Peter Morgan
starring Frank Langella, Michael Sheen, Sam Rockwell, Kevin Bacon, Matthew Macfadyen, Oliver Platt, Rebecca Hall, Toby Jones, Kate Jennings Grant, Andy Milder

As author and reporter James Reston Jr. (Rockwell) says in this film, the entire Frost/Nixon interviews can be reduced to a single image. That image is a closeup of a deeply troubled Nixon (Langella) who has been pinned up against a wall and his face reveals that he has lost access to all the escape mechanisms that served his career so effectively. It’s a moment of pure poetry among many that provide this film with an elegance as it relates what was at the time the most viewed news program in American media history.

Nixon remains one of the most difficult public figures to grasp. Langella plays him with all the complexities that have always been associated with the man and the portrait seems ultimately to be both sympathetic and revealing of numerous personality flaws. What it doesn’t do is demonize Nixon or fully blame him for all the untoward actions he will forever be associated with. It merely sets out to shed light on a singularly famous series of interviews in which each actor plays his part with precision and skill.

The interviews themselves are staged as a battle of wits in which each participant brings their A game to the proceedings as they go toe-to-toe for a massive international audience of 400 million people. Nixon for his part considers the interviews to be something akin to a war between two worthy adversaries out for blood. He prepares himself therefore for such a furious contest and it’s evident in his eyes that he takes the event very seriously indeed. After all, it’s a chance for redemption in the eyes of the general public although one gets a clear impression that Nixon does not believe clarification is necessary.

The entire film is crystalized in the one question that is on everyone’s mind from the beginning. It’s the same question that disturbed anyone who was paying attention once the Watergate story exploded to sear everyone’s consciousness for ever and all time. It overshadows every accomplishment that has been attributed to Nixon and will forever smear his name in the minds of a considerable aspect of the population. Nixon is Watergate to his enemies and this fact is what Nixon attempts to undermine by even agreeing to the interviews. Or he merely wants to opportunity to reflect on his life and isn’t concerned with whatever fastballs David Frost (Sheen) might attempt to get past him. One is left with an impression that Nixon is ready for the onslaught and has prepared himself by nearly three decades of public service for any attempts by a mere talk show host to unnerve him.

The film is most certainly a personality contest between two men from greatly differing aspects of society. Nixon is a career politician who has made his name on enforcing specific delusions. Frost is a tested tv personality who is attempting to jack up his career even further and make his own name even more viable internationally. Both have certain things to lose although Nixon can’t exactly lose much more than he already has. He can only hope to rescue his name from the dregs of history although it seems through Langella’s performance that he’s resigned himself to a much less sanguine reality.

Michael Sheen plays Frost as manically charismatic presenter who always seems to be “on” and ready to face the cameras. Frost is almost a caricature of the slimy performer who lives their entire life as if they were being filmed. Yet it comes across as entirely genuine as if he truly does revel in all the commotion that is a necessary part of the lifestyle he has chosen for himself. He’s the dire opposite of Nixon who professes in this film to abhor social gatherings of any sort. He says he prefers the quietude of study to social interaction. It’s a telling expression of Nixon’s basic point of view. He fell out of favor with an age of youth and frantic physical activity and never quite reorientated himself to the new age.

This is not a sentimental film in any shape or form. It tells a simple story about one of the most scintillating moments in television history from the perspectives of those who were there to witness the carnage. Reston Jr., along with Bob Zelnick (Platt) have been hired to research and study Nixon’s career leading up to his ignoble political end. They are matched by Nixon’s post-presidential Chief-of-Staff Jack Brennan (Bacon) who ably readies Nixon for the interviewing process and scoffs whenever he feels Nixon might be being misrepresented. Specifically after Frost asks the seminal question Brennan bursts into the room and quashes the interview because he rightly senses that Nixon is about to allow his emotions to reveal too much information. Indeed, Nixon looks pained and slightly relieved and during the subsequent consultation with Brennan Nixon admits to being tired of lying.

This film hinges on the performances and they are all pitch perfect. Frank Langella perfects the tired, hunched over physiognomy of Nixon as well the subtle hypnotism of his voice. It’s a clearly defined portrait and it also manages to establish Nixon’s obvious intelligence and his felicity with language. This is an exceedingly complex subject replete with great emotional turmoil and grave uncertainty. Langella creates a character of great depth who cannot be reduced to a single event, no matter how personally damning it turned out to be. Nixon is flesh and bone here and as conflicted as one imagines the real man to be. Michael Sheen captures the essence of pure charisma coupled with occasional moments where his character seems rather lost. His Frost is clearly dedicated to uncovering a truth that no previous interviewer has managed to muster. It’s clear in his eyes as he zealously approaches his subject with full intent on coming out on top upon completion of the exchange. Sheen presents Frost as a solid, monumental talent who is a worthy adversary for his much maligned foe. Kevin Bacon demonstrates a tenacity that his character employs to great advantage throughout the film. Brennan is a bull dog and Bacon ensures that his toughness be prominently articulated at every turn. Sam Rockwell is excellent playing the grand sceptic who just wants to see Nixon fall flat on his ass. Rockwell has a smarmy quality throughout the film yet its relatively easy to take his character’s perspective from start to finish.

Overall, this film does everything it sets out to do. It creates two central characters who have more in common than it would initially appear. They are both exceedingly driven men with an overarching desire to win. Neither one wants to come out on the short end of their interaction nor to lose any ground. The film posits a Nixon who does seem tired of all the subterfuge that has plagued him ever since his involvement with the Watergate break in was questioned. The film makes a point about Nixon’s personal sense of guilt and the heaviness of the weight he carried around with him throughout his political career. Both Michael Sheen and Frank Langella give us portraits of two distinct trajectories. Frost’s star continued to ascend and Nixon dedicated himself to a writing career which saw him publish six books. As mentioned by Nixon it does seem that perhaps they should have switched places although It’s difficult to imagine Richard Nixon exuding the kind of indomitable energy required to successfully sell a tv chat show.

Film Review--Nixon

2009-02-05T10:39:00.000-08:00

Nixon
directed by Oliver Stone
written by Stephen J. Rivele, Christopher Wilkinson, Oliver Stone
starring Anthony Hopkins, Joan Allen, Powers Boothe, Ed Harris, Bob Hoskins, E.G. Marshall, David Paymer, David Hyde Pierce, Paul Sorvino, Mary Steenburgen, J.T. Walsh, James Woods, Kevin Dunn

In this sprawling, open telling of the life of President Richard Nixon (Hopkins) director Oliver Stone creates a surprisingly even-handed account that portrays Nixon as both complicit in the Watergate break-in and deeply sympathetic on a personal level.

Nixon here is a disheveled, gnarled, grumpy and charismatic force of nature who stands his ground however shifty it is beneath him against everything he loathes about contemporary life. In this film Nixon is a startled rabbit caught eternally in the headlights unsure of the proper outcome to strive for. The Vietnam--war which he didn’t start but by which many of the youth blamed him for nonetheless–is the shaky platform upon which is presidency is built. The mocks of the young people screaming and daring the sky to crash at their feet sting Nixon even if he won’t show it. Privately he’s quietly tormented and anguished.

This film digs deeply into the skull of its subject and pulls out a portrait of a man who was forever shaped by events in his early life. The film follows a number of time lines to trace the story from its roots straight through Watergate with a few stops in between including his failed presidential bid in 1960, his failed California governor bid in 1962 and his successful Presidential run in 1968. There are many stories told in this three and half hour talk fest that tries to uncover difficult truths about the President and succeeds supremely.

Stone creates a hypnotic dreamscape that can be felt in every frame of this film. It plays like a surreal, occasionally nightmarish fantasy that is nonetheless grounded in cold, bitter fact. It doesn’t emerge with any solid truths about the man because there are simply too many to consider; instead it whittles away at the persona in an effort to come away with something that is succinctly tangible. It’s a complex subject treated with great skill and care and the final result is a portrait that reveals a man who is wounded, temperamental, fiercely intelligent, comic, and scared.

All of the major players are cinematically rendered here and each one plays a vital role in the drama as it unfolds. Henry Kissinger (Sorvino) is a specter who hovers over the film as something of a sleepily sinister force who may or may not been the source of the leaks of secret, classified documents to the New York times. Kissinger is portrayed as a man as rife with dirty secrets as the primary target of this film. One also gets the impression that he is untouchable in a most frightening manner. His presence is so profoundly felt that every moment he is on screen Nixon comes off as somewhat bullied and shrunken.

Joan Allen gives a deeply moving performance as Pat Nixon, the longsuffering wife gamely puts her best face forward despite a great number of reservations that nag her as the film moves along. Allen captures a vulnerability coupled with a totemic strength that proves the adage that behind every strong man there is an equally strong woman. Only in this film, it’s clear that Pat is much stronger emotionally than her husband and that she dutifully carries much of his burden so he can scurry off and be presidential.

In this film Nixon is akin to a dog perennially chasing his tale. What he wants is eternally out of reach and he is always left disappointed at his inability to achieve his aims. Indeed, the overarching emotional state that best describes this film is disappointment. Taking this film as a cue one sees a tremendous amount of frustrated ambition in Nixon as he struggled emotionally to work his way through the political hoops. It’s literally written on Hopkins’s face–a terribly pained terrain–that Nixon exists in a realm of perpetual futility in the face of so much expectation. The result leaves him with micro-emotions that reveal tremendous discomfort and anguish. Freezing the film on his face tells a most fascinating story about a man who is routinely ill-at-ease (if he’s ever at ease) and who shows momentary flashes of disgust, fear, sorrow, hatred, grief, etc. regularly when communicating with other people.

It isn’t immediately clear in this film what is supposed to represent Nixon’s finer achievements in office. It appears that the negotiations with China and Russia are heralded as important diplomatic steps but the film treats both of them with a decisive distaste. Both play for laughs however unintentional. Actually, it’s most likely deliberate but both Mao and Brezhnev have a decided comic appeal to them that comes through as they meet with Dick Nixon. It’s obvious they don’t trust him and we’re not sure if we do either. He’s rallied against communists his whole life–even imagining that the youth rebellion is funded by the communists–and now here he sits with the two leading world communists chatting about the weather. He looks uncomfortable. His sunken shoulders sink even further and the conversations are rooted in a disconnect between what Nixon knows he must do and his fear of what Communism would mean should it be implemented fully in the United States. Nixon fears Communism, terror, disorder, mayhem, and anything else that threatens to shake up his carefully codified world. His is a staunch conservatism in the true sense. He legitimately wants to retain as much as the early post war sentiment as possible and the war protests, the youth-driven anger all send him into a tizzy because he cannot control them.

According to this film Richard Nixon held President John F. Kennedy is exceedingly high esteem despite his public rallying against the heralded Democrat. Publically he blamed Kennedy for the mess with Cuba but privately he recognized him as a vital president who won the people’s hearts. While looking at a painting of Kennedy, Nixon says “When the people look at you they see what they want to be. When they look at me they see what they are.”

Anthony Hopkins captures every dark angle here in Nixon’s character. This is a rare and serious envelopment of a man’s most taxing and grievous character flaws coupled with his tremendous will for life and power. In the final saying Hopkins gives us a Nixon of enormous import who is deeply wounded from many unsavory experiences that have occasionally waylaid his ambitions or haunted him with a startling sense of loss and betrayal. In the end Hopkins shows us the raw humanity of Nixon and at least his core goodness despite the wicked things that he has done. Joan Allen is discreetly enforcing in this film as Pat Nixon and she captures an intensity that grounds the film in an almost regal sensibility. Allen gives one of the finest stately performances in the history of film and she is much deserving of her Academy Award nomination which she unfortunately did not win. Bob Hoskins is simply diabolical as J. Edgar Hoover. He’s slimy, sexually deviant (for the time, anyway), and utterly creepy in his presentation of Hoover. Sam Waterston is not in the theatrical version but his scene with Nixon is reinserted in the DVD release and his performance as Richard Helms, the CIA head, is disturbing and exquisitely rendered. He quotes Keats’s “The Second Coming” and the links between it and Nixon’s presidency eerily resonate throughout the room. Powers Boothe as Alexander Haig, Ed Harris as the mysterious E. Howard Hunt, David Hyde Pierce as John Dean are among the numerous performances that provide the film with a sharp edge that keeps it honest and necessary.

Overall, this film is as good as one could possibly expect about a slippery subject who simply cannot be effectively nailed down. He’s just too complex both emotionally and intellectually for a simple treatment and this one captures many angles that make up the man as he quests for greatness but falls just short with every striding. He’s a man who cannot quite make the team despite his intense preparation and struggle to learn the play book. No matter what he does he will forever fail to grab the brass ring and will always slip back down into oblivion before rising once again to make the effort anew. That’s what defines Nixon and he says it during one of his later speeches: “I am not a quitter” and he certainly wasn’t. In this film, Hopkins captures this aspect of his character through gestures mostly. His Nixon is a fighter who nevertheless could never quite land the knockout blow. Still he always hung around long enough for the decision which he routinely and quite unfortunately lost.

Film Review--Janghwa, Hongryeon (A Tale of Two Sisters)

2009-02-04T16:09:00.000-08:00

Janghwa, Hongryeon (A Tale of Two Sisters)
written and directed by Ji-woon Kim
starring Kap-su Kim, Jung-ah Yum, Su-jeong Lim, Geun-yeong Mun,

This film poses too many questions that can never be answered. It’s a film that is never what it seems and often feels to convoluted for its own good. It doesn’t make strict sense unless one looks at it through the prism of dreams and fantasies. In the end it’s ultimately confusing which isn’t such a bad thing. It’s very ambiguity is its central strength even if there is nothing particularly solid to grasp hold of. Still, the characters are richly drawn and the acting is impeccable. It’s a gorgeously shot film and every movement is meticulously performed with great precision and care.

The story begins with a girl named Soo-mi (Su-jeong) who is residing in a mental institution. A doctor is interviewing her and attempts to get information out of her about what happened on a specific day. The scene shifts and the girl and her sister Soo-yeon (Geun-yeong) have arrived back home with their father Moo-hyeon (Kap-su) and his new wife Eun-joo (Jung-ah). The film focuses mainly on the relationship between Eun-joo and the girls. There is tremendous attention and soon very strange things begin to occur in the house which Eun-joo attributes to the girls. For starters there is a strange creature, seemingly female, who lives under the sink and haunts Soo-yeon’s dreams. This being is never emphatically explained and the audience is left to wonder about its origins and meaning vis-a-vis the other characters in the film. It is an exceedingly creepy creature who radiates a definite malevolence that the film exploits quite expertly.

The film builds up tension by concentrating on the simple mannerisms and behaviors that make up any particular day. Early on as the girls get settled the film is a reflection of the often too quiet daily routine. This quickly shifts as seeming inexplicable events begin to seep through the immaculately constructed edifice and begin to haunt the central characters. Soo-yeon is troubled in her dreams and is accosted by a form that appears in her room. She is terrified and remains so for much of the film. She is jostled about and cannot quite manage to extricate herself from the tyranny that routinely accosts her.

The animosity between Eun-joo and the girls is readily apparent from the onset. They still cling to memories of their dead mother and refuse to allow her into their lives in any manner whatsoever. This proves to be a harrowing arrangement as Eun-joo begins a course of torment that is directed at Eun-joo including locking her in the wardrobe. We are led to believe that Eun-joo ultimately murders Soo-yeon as she drags a large sack that leaves a slick track of blood in its wake. Soo-mi, becoming progressively more hysterical, believes it is the body of her dead sister and struggles to open the sack with a grim determination.

At one point in the story Moo-hyeon tells Soo-mi that her sister is dead and this revelation utterly dislodges the narrative and forces the audience to question everything that has come before it. It leads to a series of flashbacks that attempt to shed light on events but they only prove to confuse matters further. Nothing is particularly clear by the end as one is unable to fully extract fantasy from reality let alone deduce any meaning from the narrative. Still, there is an elegance that is maintained throughout the film despite the lack of full coherency. It’s a film that does not attempt to solve its core dilemma and the result is a series of agonizing questions that are never answered.

Once the story shifts and fantasies effectively take over the narrative, great confusions abound which only add to the puzzling nature of the story. Are we supposed to take what we are seeing as real or are they delusions harbored by one of the characters? Is anything in the film actually happening? It becomes difficult to fully grasp the import of any of the scenes in the second half of the film because they are quite incredible yet possible in the overall lexicon the film is projecting. The end result is a film that possesses the capacity for a multitude of meanings any of which are plausible but hardly clear.

The film’s great implausibility is central to its effectiveness. Like all horror films there is a basic conceit upon which everything else is built upon. There is a final point of view and it attempts to explain the terror and difficulties that have developed over the course of the film. It’s a strange and almost mystical take on events but comes off as legitimate and vital.

The film completely guts everything we witness with a very sharp blade that leaves us reeling in the end. Essentially the entire film is reconstructed from an entirely different point of view from the one we become familiar with throughout most of the film. Indeed, everything must be figured anew and one must scramble to make any effort to “solve” the great dilemmas the film poses as it pushes on.

Overall, this is complexly constructed story that seems mostly to be about the psychological impact of greatly traumatic events on the minds of the vulnerable and impressionable. It leaves itself open to numerous interpretations which provide it with an urgency that is readily made manifest. The characters are exquisitely drawn and fully believable within a story that is constructed out of dreams and phantoms. It insists on a certain acceptance of at least one reality but even this is undermined by later events that offer no legitimate ground to stand upon.

Film Review--New in Town

2009-02-04T14:51:00.001-08:00

New In Town
directed by Jonas Elmer
written by Ken Rance and C. Jay Cox
starring Renée Zellweger, Harry Connick, Jr., Siobhan Fallon, J. K. Simmons, Frances Conroy, Mike O’Brien, Ferron Guerreiro

This fish out of water tale is charmingly rendered despite being wholly predictable and hackneyed.

Renée Zellweger plays Lucy Hill, a consultant for a major cooperation, who agrees to travel from Miami to Minnesota to streamline a plant so they can start making power bars. Naturally, she does not readily take to the climate and is viewed by a nuisance by most of the employees at the factory. The film tracks her transformation into something more useful to the locals as well as her budding romance with the union representative, Ted Mitchell (Connick, Jr.).

Much of the film deals with Lucy’s discomfort and her adjustment to the earnestness of the community who gradually warm to her after a fashion. Her first meeting with Ted ends with her insulting him and reducing him to a red neck stereotype. She’s forced to eat crow when Ted visits her office the following morning and begins to address the union’s concerns. Hanging over everything is the fact that the cooperation wants to lose half the employees which Lucy finds difficult to implement. So there is tension which explodes when the order comes down that the plant will be closed. Then a set of circumstances that are truly obvious unravel and Lucy magically saves the plant and everyone’s job.

Lucy is a haughty bitch who looks downward from her lofty perch at the simpletons who make up the small community in which she is unceremoniously thrust. Naturally, she learns the error of her ways and comes to appreciate the townsfolk for what they are. There are numerous scenes where Lucy is forced to deal with life as it is lived for these regular people who are all tied to the plant in some fashion or another. Her romance with Ted is predictable and not particularly satisfying. It’s just a plot device that these sort of film always necessitate. Lucy is completed only with a man as her rabid climb to the top of the corporate ladder is deemed to reflect badly on her character. What is important here are the values of small time America against the tyrannical and systematic evil as represented by the corporations who reduce people to statistical data that can easily be shifted around without feeling.

The film is focused on a romance that doesn’t come across as particularly stimulating in the final analysis. It’s generic and unenergetic. The chemistry between the leads just isn’t apparent and their scenes together lack any discernible vitality. Still, they are intensely investigated to appease an audience that requires such relationships when they bother to drag themselves out to see a film of this nature. Regardless, the end result is a film that plays cold despite the attempt to heat things up against the bitter cold landscape.

The citizens of the small town are all an exceedingly eccentric lot which most likely isn’t very close to the truth about how such people actually live. It’s an exaggeration that does manage to provide the film with a certain amount of charm because they are depicted as essentially hard working, goodly folks with big hearts and weird, odd ways. They appear as a counterbalance to the uppity, life-draining mien of Lucy and her smarty-pants attitude regarding her new home. The film deals with her transformation and gradual acceptance of the locals as real people with real feelings. It’s a tired but true approach to such situations and for the most part they fail to elicit a terrible amount of sympathy throughout this film. Lucy remains as skittish and shy as she came only she’s got results to prove she’s important and worthy of the next step up the ladder to oblivion.

The use of absolute cold is a fine metaphor for the deep freeze that originally exists between Lucy and the rest of the town when she makes her unwanted appearance. It doesn’t help that she fires Stu Kopenhafer the foreman (Simmons) and keeps a long list of others who she has deemed worthy to be axed.

Renée Zellweger manages to convey her character’s transformation from blase iciness to blind acceptance rather effortlessly. She’s particularly good at playing confused and down which is necessary for Lucy to survive her essential conundrum. Lucy’s mocking of religion which plays such a vital role in the lives of the community, she cannot relate to the trials that afflict hard working folks every day as they attempt to keep their head above the line. She’s been ensconced in her safe, easy life for so long that she no longer knows what it’s like to stare down the barrel of a gun facing the blistering attack of deprivation and terrible loss. Harry Connick, Jr. plays a scruffy, dirty, yet genuinely true man who rescues Lucy from herself. Ted is a character who is easy to draw because his role in the film is so readily recognizable. He comes in to remind the audience of what is missing from the main character’s life and to strip away all of her conceits toward making it in the man’s world of corporate America. The message is that a woman cannot be complete without a man and that a high paying position is trumped by emotional attachments.

Blanche (Fallon) is a particular piece of work. The character is an extreme example of the small town matron who keeps everyone together. She’s the heart of the town and is consumed with a very real tendency toward maintaining order through her locally famous tapioca pudding. It’s something of an obsession with her as she metes it out on every conceivable occasion. Fallon plays her with an earnestness that is admirable. Blanche is representative of the kind of woman who lives in every small town. She is Jesus-fearing and connected to the town in a manner that is almost terminal. She is not impressed by Lucy’s hifalutin lifestyle and maintains her integrity throughout. Stu is a man who has found something he is clearly able to be master of and his firing seems particularly egregious in the overall context of the film. He’s just the man you want on the job and strikes me as someone who you want on your side when the flames are lapping at your ankles. J. K. Simmons plays him with the quiet authority that comes through years of experience doing something of merit. Trudy Van Uuden is the town busy body and Frances Conroy plays her with a terrific comedic edge. She’s a bit ridiculous but entirely endearing.

Overall, this film presents a mediocre and familiar story that does not dazzle or shine. It’s easily digestible and subsequently forgettable although there are some performances that stick out for their overall weirdness. Siobhan Fallon is particularly fine as a woman with an enormous heart who lives accordance to principles that have seen her through many struggles throughout her life. She’s a character who is worth getting to know and Fallon captures Blanche’s core gentleness and true longing to do right by other people. She’s human and greatly vulnerable and it’s sometimes heartbreaking to look into her eyes as there is a hint of loss that is belied by her effervescent manner. Most of the other characters are not so memorable and are so familiar they are ultimately taken for granted and easily disposed of.