Fugitive Pieces

By Barbara Barnett

As I watched Fugitive Pieces, I could not help but think of my many friends and family members who are the children of Holocaust survivors. When they discuss it at all, these friends often recall how difficult it was to be raised by parents who lived day in and day out with the wrenching guilt of having survived when so many others perished (sometimes being the only family member to have done so). Sometimes shut out of their parent's heart, left inaccessible by immeasurable loss, they often feel unloved, resented for their lives, lived in relative comfort and ease, even as they are overprotected and cherished.

And how can they share something with their children that is nearly impossible to understand; something of which they themselves have yet to fully gain closure? There have been many, many films about the Holocaust, and about survivors, but Fugitive Pieces (currently showing in art house cinemas throughout the country) gives us a detailed character study of one man, haunted and driven by having survived, when his family did not.

Fugitive Pieces tells the story of Jakob Beer (played as a boy by Robbie Kass), who as a young boy in Poland observed from behind a closet door as his parents were murdered in  their home, and his sister was dragged away by Nazi Storm Troopers. A terrified Jakob runs into a nearby forest, hiding in the freezing cold under piles of dead leaves. Seen by Greek archaeologist Athos (Croatian actor Rade Serbedzija), Jakob is rescued and smuggled out of Poland and into Greece, where Athos hides the wary and terrified Jakob for the duration of World War II. In a sense, Jakob has saved Athos, too, as his colleagues, still digging in Poland (for evidence of Nazi atrocities, we learn) are discovered and murdered. Both Jakob and Athos suffer the sort of guilt only possible when one has escaped due to fortune or circumstance, while everyone else has perished.

The war now over, Athos is offered a post at a Canadian university, and, bringing Jakob with him, they make a life for themselves, next door to a family of Jewish refugees. The familiarity of language, custom, and shared experience draws young Jakob into their embrace, providing him with connection and family he has only in his memories. But nothing can heal within Jakob the sense that he should not have fled; should not have allowed himself to be rescued. “What if she had come back for me and I was not there?” he asks years later. “What if I could have done something?” He is haunted, even into adulthood, by the image of his sister at the piano, his mother cooking a Sabbath meal.

Obsessed with memory that will not loose its grip -- will not fade -- the adult Jakob (now played by the fabulous Stephen Dillane), a novelist and professor, pours out his grief into his writing, but is unable to move past it. Marrying the beautiful Alex (Rosamund Pike), Jakob is unable to allow himself to love her, to appreciate her or enjoy her. He journals his anger with her seeming frivolity for having the audacity to enjoy life, wear stylish clothing -- her very happiness is trivial and out of place and out of context within his intractable grief, stuck in a time long past in most people’s memory. She neither understands his obsession with his memories of the Holocaust, nor his inability to move past his pain. Eventually, however, now divorced, Jakob returns to Greece, where he writes his story and meets Michaela — someone who can embrace his pain, and can help him heal by simply being there. At last Jakob can obtain closure and allow the ghosts of his past find their own peace.

Along the way, Jakob also helps Ben, his close friend and neighbor, himself the son of Holocaust survivors, gain an eventual understanding of his father's own behavior -- his distance, even his cruelty.

Stephen Dillane (John Adams, Savage Grace), who seems to be popping up everywhere on screens large and small these days, is wonderful as the adult Jakob. He always seems to imbue his roles with a sense of simultaneous strength and fragility, and his Jakob Beer is haunted and hurting, living on a knife edge. Even when happy, you get the impression that Jakob is merely an observer of his own life. He is a distant spectator, anguished; when he meets Michaela, and finally begins to really begin to live again, Dillane peels away the layers and layers of Jacob's moribund heart and soul until we finally see him redeemed.

In fact, the entire cast is stellar. Robbie Kaye is excellent as the young Jakob -- frightened, wary, guarded, truly a stranger in a strange land. His large, sad eyes evoke images of Oliver Twist, but with a stolen innocence. Rade Serbedzija’s gentle Athos is part Zorba and part Tevye, showing us a man suffering from his own grief and loss (his wife), which is mitigated by his love for the young Jakob.

This is not a film for everyone; it is quite bleak, and the sadness is occasionally oppressive. But director Jeremy Podeswa’s beautiful rendering and Dillane’s sensitive and graceful performance make it so very worthwhile (but bring a handkerchief or three).

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 01:18 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

By Chris Beaumont

Way back in the early to mid-1990s I went through a big time comic book phase. Sometimes I wish I was still in that phase, but I get by. Comic books and their heroes will always hold a special place in my heart. Why do I mention this? Well, whenever a comic book movie is made it is time to imagine the world of possibilities. There are so many characters and so many stories and so many different ways to interpret a character.

Hellboy is a character that I never read much about, despite liking the strange, angular style of creator Mike Mignola. So, back in 2004, when Hellboy came out, I anxiously went in and was rewarded with a fun movie that introduced me to the world of Hellboy, Abe Sapien, and Liz Sherman. Now, four years later, the original creative team behind that modest box office hit are back with a sequel that retains the sarcastic wit, big action, and character while expanding the universe with an obviously bigger budgeted film.

As Hellboy II: The Golden Army opens, we get a quick reintroduction to where Hellboy came from, as well as a bedtime story about an ancient battle that led to the creation of The Golden Army. Is it a bedtime story, or something more? Of course it is something more! Generally this type of exposition is clunky and detracts from the film, meaning we are told information that would be better told more organically through narrative. That isn't the case here. I found this tale to be quiote ingenious in its presentation; you really need to see it. We see a young Hellboy enjoying some Howdy Doody, insisting the wooden puppet is real, and the puppet imagery carries through to the telling of the bedtime tale. The classy reintroduction of the character gets us off on the right foot heading into the larger story.

We jump to the present where we learn just how real the story was. You see, the tale told of a truce that came about after the creation of the indestructible Golden Army, but, as is always the case, there was someone who did not believe the truce should have been made. That person is Prince Nuada (Luke Goss), who returns with the intentions of reigniting war with humanity, employing the Golden Army in the process. Believe me, Nuada will not let anyone, and I mean anyone, stand in his way.

On the other side of the coin, back at the ranch, we have the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense, home to our heroic trio of Hellboy (Ron Perlman), Abe (Doug Jones, who also provides Abe's voice, taking over from David Hyde Pierce), and Liz (Selma Blair). All three of these characters get good screen time and are allowed to develop over the course of the action. We are also introduced to a new team member, Johann Krauss (voiced by Seth McFarlane). It sounds like there are a lot of characters to get to, but they all have time and they all play an important part.

Of course our primary concern is going to be Hellboy himself. The character heads in some interesting directions this time out. We still have his love for pancakes and cats, but we also get into his inability to carry on a relationship (carrying over from the first film), and his desire to operate out in the open, rather than in secrecy. This desire leads to a revelation that the big guy had not considered before. The exploration of Hellboy adds considerable depth to the visually-oriented action film, which helps it become something more than just another action film.

The performances are all quite strong. Ron Perlman seems to have been born to play Hellboy; he brings a marvelous sarcastic delivery to the snarky lines while also displaying surprising emotional depth. Helping him along is the sullen work of Selma Blair, who has her own troubles dealing with who she is and with the relationship. Then there is Doug Jones who is a fantastic physical actor with great control over his body. Frankly, I am not sure I even know what he looks like, as he generally is covered in his roles (see Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and Pan's Labyrinth). Then there are the deeper supporting roles like the one played by Jeffrey Tambor as the government’s liaison.

The film was written and directed by Guillermo Del Toro (from a story co-written with Hellboy creator Mike Mignola), and is an original story, not adapted from any pre-existing Hellboy comics. Del Toro has crafted a story that for all of the fantastical elements still feels grounded in reality. Combine that with his great eye for the visual and you can see just how this was not going to be anything but a good film. Following his critical success with Pan's Labyrinth, it seems that Hollywood is finally recognizing his talent, and this film looks like a near perfect blending of his arthouse and mainstream sensibilities.

The scope of The Golden Army is much bigger and more epic in tone than the first film, and while that initial film was quite necessary in introducing our heroes, The Golden Army outdoes that movie every way. The story is simultaneously bigger and more personal, and combines a strong narrative that is more than just dealing with the primary antagonist with a fantastic set of visuals.

Bottom line. Hellboy II: The Golden Army is not a perfect movie, but it is enormously entertaining and a big step up from an already entertaining original movie. The problem is that there are no egregious problems and anything I come up with would most likely fall under the banner of nitpicking. So, rather than pick at it, I would rather just marvel at Guillermo Del Toro's seemingly endless imagination and enthusiasm for anything he is involved in.

Highly Recommended.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 01:08 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

August

By Ethan Stanislawski

It’s an inauspicious coincidence that August runs 88 minutes long. While the film’s premise is more Wall Street than Dog Day Afternoon, August and 88 Minutes are comrades-in-stupid. Together, they represent a new, indefensible breed of bad movie. These are genre films with marquee actors and modest budgets that have scripts so amateurish, incoherent, and illogical that it poisons everything and everyone associated with the film.

The difference between August and 88 Minutes is that the latter starred Al Pacino, an actor with more than enough of a track record to be given a pass for a lone flop. August, on the other hand, stars Josh Hartnett, a young actor with an inconsistent career in desperate need of an unqualified hit. Hartnett at least tries to go in a new direction by taking on a Gordon Gekko meets Mark Zuckerberg kind of role. Yet, his performance is so painful to watch — and he gets no help by screenwriter Howard Rodman — that you’re reminded that the actor’s breakthrough came with Pearl Harbor.

August focuses on a hotshot tech mogul of Web 1.0 who, after skyrocketing onto the scene in March of 2001, has seen his fortunes erode to 1% of their peak by August. The film’s trailer makes it seem like he spends the month trying to build his fortune back, but don’t be deceived. There’s no attempt to regain fortunes, or even any plot conflict to make you believe its possible. Hartnett’s Tom Sterling, CEO of Landshark, talks a big game, but has no authority to back it up. Sterling’s like an 8-year-old who tries to be a bully but just ends up looking even more pathetic.

In fact, everything about Landshark suggests childishness. Tom’s immaturity is matched by his awkward, nebbishy, kid slang-using brother Joshua (a completely lost Adam Scott), his employees whose average age must be about 15, and Robin Tunny and Andre Royo as annoyed fellow executives. It’s one thing for a movie to focus on a poorly-run company. It’s another when a non-farcical movie presents a company so hopelessly incompetent, employed by workers with no skills to speak of (and equally ineffective acting skills), and then expects you to believe this company could be worth $100 million.

The workings of Landshark are much closer to a bunch of grade schoolers playing business. In perhaps the most telling scenes of the childishness of the characters, a scene which is obnoxiously intentional, Tom and Josh meet at a strip club, but rather than stare at breasts, they’d rather play pinball. The closing scene of the film has the two actors returning to the pinball machine, fighting over who gets the next game.

The premise of August is marginally interesting, if for nothing else than it occurs with the shadow of 9/11 hanging over it and could make some interesting points about overeager tech investors. The problem occurs within the fundamental execution of this premise. August would have been much better, or at least competent, if it was called March-August, focusing on the rise and fall of a tech company with a little too much hubris. In its actual form, Landshark is doomed from the start, and you spend the entire film knowing it's going to crumble, if not before 9/11, then after.

If the film wins any Razzies, which it certainly could, I’d like to propose a new category for which it would be a lock: Most Gratuitous Use of David Bowie. Bowie plays Cyrus Ogilvie, something of a gender-bending Mr. Burns, who eventually takes over Landshark and buys Tom out. Bowie, along with Rip Torn as Tom’s Yosemite Sam-resembling father, is at least in touch enough to play the role with a level of camp silliness reflective of the silliness of the film. There may be some intended significance to Tom being the only one to cash out before 9/11, considering that Ogilvie’s office is located in the World Trade Center. Yet the film is too incoherent to make that point, and considering that Tom is bought out at 15% of market value of a stock that’s already under a dollar per share, morality is insignificant anyway.

The film's allusions to Marshall McLuhan and Un Chien Andalou seems like its filmmakers were going, “Look at us! We're cultured!” Rodman, a professor at USC, should know better than to tell rather than show. His previous screenplay was the recently released Savage Grace, which received mediocre reviews, but was based on a much better book with a lot of quality source material to work with. He seems lost on his own. Equally lost are director Austin Chick and especially editor Pete Beaudreau, who have included multiple scenes that agonizingly extend for minutes too long and ultimately go nowhere. The filmmakers are just as childish and amateur as Tom and Josh themselves.

When I was walking out of theater, wondering how a film like this could ever make it to the screen, I immediately got my answer. Two females in their early twenties were walking behind me, and one of them stated "it was pretty bad, but he [Harnett]’s just so cute though.” Not only are Josh Hartnett’s looks the only reason anyone could justify seeing August, but they’re also the only thing that can salvage Hartnett’s career at this point. There’s been some debate as to whether or not Hartness is, or can be, a skilled actor. August answers the question with a commanding “no.” He just better pray that he ages well.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 12:37 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

In the Valley of Elah

By moviejohn

Look at Tommy Lee Jones. What grizzled hurt and weariness he can project with his face. Listen to his voice. His words seem like advice coming from a man who has endured enough hurt to be jaded but still with an ounce of idealism left to pass on his words of wisdom. And when he barks and explodes from his pools of reserve, it feels like an icy cold splash in the face.

I start out with this praise for Jones (and I could go on) because he is the main reason to see Paul Haggis’ latest film, In the Valley of Elah. Much like Haggis’ Oscar-winning Crash two years ago, this film uses strong emotions to portray a set of political ideas. But where Crash greatly succeeded in presenting a world of good and bad frequently intertwining, this film ultimately presents a one-sided and somewhat muddled argument.

It’s a good thing Jones provides such a strong, subtle anchor to the emotions so we can just focus on his performance as a father searching for his lost son. He plays Hank Deerfield, a former MP during the Vietnam War who gets a call from the base saying that his son has gone AWOL after his platoon returned from the Iraq war. Leaving his wife Joan (Susan Sarandon) behind, he sets out to find out what happened. Along the way, he recruits the aid of a detective, Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron) to aid him in the search.

Thus sets the stage for Haggis to construct an emotional mystery to arrive at some sweeping political statements and there are two approaches to take towards this movie. From a political standpoint, the film unfortunately does not bring anything new to the table. Without giving too much away, the story delves into the effect war and combat has on its fighters but never shows the people who actually seek help from professionals for their post-traumatic stress syndrome.

Moreover, such a syndrome is obviously not unique to the current Iraq war and this is where the movie unwisely confuses cause and effect. That veterans struggle mightily to recuperate in the aftermath of a war is one thing and explaining the rationale for fighting a war, even the so-called necessary war, WWII, is another. When the film has not really delved into how the Iraq war went wrong (see the great recent documentary No End in Sight for that) and then supplies a closing passage lamenting the current state of the nation, we can’t buy it because it has assumed a general effect of combat to be an exclusive cause to stop fighting.

In the emotional journey of getting there, however, Haggis delivers an effective portrayal of the effect war can have on those closest to the soldiers on the battleground. He has also responded to his previous critics by showing his characters’ inner feelings in a decidedly quieter fashion. All of the performances, despite the conventional anti-government trappings and the cliché that the protagonist is inevitably the only one with the right instincts to solve the mystery, find the right notes to transcend them by behaving exactly the way they would in the given situations. For example, Theron could have played the detective who is the object of sexist ridicule as an ultra-feminist type but plays her as a solemn cop who dutifully does her job as she, along with Jones, fights through military jurisdiction and secrecy to get at the truth. Even more noteworthy is Susan Sarandon, who strikes a powerful note by avoiding the typical movie histrionics of a worried mother.

Then there is Jones, who has never been better than he is here. Here is an actor who can compellingly play a man of fierce words as in The Fugitive or provide a more heart-rending presence when he keeps his angry thoughts bottled inside as in this movie. Watch here in a key moment as he shudders and shakes in his chair watching a soldier in his son’s platoon being questioned by Theron and barely manages to keep his rage under the surface. He, along with Haggis, knows that a coarse tongue-lashing or fist-lunging would be completely out of key and he present a man who has the patience to implode rather than explode. Also, observe how he narrates to a child the story of the famous battle between David and Goliath in the valley of Elah and reinforces its message of spiritual mettle and courage.

So, no, the film does not offer any new insight and discerning viewers, whether pro or anti-Iraq war, will see right through its heavily flawed political argument. But rejecting the film would mean to deny the power of the performances, particularly Jones’s, which alone will be remembered as a compelling cinematic document of a parent’s heartbreak in the midst of war. To that end, I can’t help but recommend the film.

Bottom line: Well worth seeing.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 09:06 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

Across the Universe

By Randall A Byrn

Julie Taymor’s ambitious movie has already divided critics right down the middle, and it may do the same with audiences. (Its 49% on Rotten Tomatoes' "Tomatometer" and 59 rating on Metacritic represent a near-balance of wide-eyed raves and vicious pans from critics around the country.) When I saw it Saturday in Manhattan, at least half a dozen people walked out. Yet there was sustained applause and cheering when the credit “Directed by Julie Taymor” appeared at the end. (In case you don't recognize the name, Taymor is the gifted, innovative director of The Lion King on Broadway, The Magic Flute at the Metropolitan Opera, and two dazzling but uneven movies, Frida and Titus.)

Even my own reaction is somewhat divided. At several points in the movie, I was happily and deliriously transported in a way that is all too rare in recent movies. The music, the hyper-stylized theatricality, the extraordinary visuals provide a direct, hardwire jolt to one’s nervous system and emotions. I wept at the beauty of it more than once. And it’s not surprising that this sort of power is impossible to sustain for 133 minutes. It’s certainly wildly uneven, but the best parts are as amazing as anything you can see at the movies right now.

The conception, which sounded ridiculous to me when I first heard it and may well sound ridiculous to you now, is to tell an iconic love story set in the 1960s in which the characters express themselves by singing Beatles songs. “Iconic” in this case means that the characters are constantly at risk of becoming symbols. There’s little room for depth in this conception, and indeed none would call the results deep on an intellectual, sociological, or political level. The theatrical shorthand used to depict Vietnam, demonstrations, race riots, and other sixties iconography comes off as shallow and facile in several instances. But it reminded me at times of Milos Forman’s film version of Hair; if you love that movie as I do, you won’t want to miss this one.

Despite its very real weaknesses, in individual scenes the movie can be surprisingly powerful and wonderfully entertaining. There are 29 Beatles songs, which means hardly two or three minutes go by between musical numbers. They are performed by the cast, in simple, straightforward arrangements that are often achingly beautiful. (I am mystified by the critics who have attacked the soundtrack as a Muzak or karaoke bastardization of the original songs. I adore my Beatles records, yet I also enjoyed nearly all of the rearrangements here. Judge for yourself.)

As the two young lovers at the movie’s center, Jim Sturgess and Evan Rachel Wood are quite remarkable. Sturgess has a beautiful voice and a vital, charismatic screen presence, and his genuine Liverpudlian accent helps in the dialogue scenes, which are far less effective than the music. Wood is given several early Beatles songs to sing as heartfelt solos, used to express her innocence in the first half of the film; this works startlingly well.

A few highlights stand out for me: The marvelous opening with Sturgess as Jude, sitting alone on a beach, turning to the camera to sing “Girl” (“Is there anybody going to listen to my story/All about the girl who came to stay?”); a startling and moving “Let It Be,” sung by a young boy killed in the Detroit riots, backed by a gospel choir; a ferocious, phantasmagorically violent “Strawberry Fields Forever,” with strawberries dripping blood and smashing gorily against a backdrop of Vietnam battle scenes; “I Want to Hold Your Hand” transformed into a plaintive ballad of longing (in this case, lesbian longing!); the inevitable but beautiful moment when another character begins singing “Hey Jude” to our hero.

The film does run at least 20 or 30 minutes too long. It would probably benefit from losing several numbers (they should have saved them for the DVD). (The walkouts all occurred just before the two-hour mark. There is a limit to how much of this some people will tolerate, however well done it may be.) But when it works, there’s real magic in it.

If I had to guess, this movie will have a cult following but not a mass one. So catch it quickly when it opens near you. And try to see it on the largest possible screen, with digital projection if you can. The visuals and the sounds of Across the Universe provide some of the year’s great pleasures.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 08:24 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

Dragon Wars

By Matt Paprocki

When your movie is advertised showcasing giant dragons shredding Los Angeles, it would be proper to make this the centerpiece of your film. Dragon War's trailer lets you view everything worth watching in a disastrous, unexplainable mess that can’t even be considered entertainment. Laughably bad, appalling, grotesque, and unexplainable are only some of the adjectives available to toss out in the general direction of this unbearable Korean-filmed effort.

To get the important stuff out of the way, yes there are dragons in LA. Yes, their fight against military forces is spectacular. Yes, there are plenty of explosions, lots of implied deaths, and surprisingly well-rendered special effects.

That’s about 10 minutes of this supposed epic. The rest is a meandering, pitiful excuse for, well, anything resembling a film. The explanation for the dragons takes nearly 20 minutes and multiple flashbacks to explain. Instead of giving the audience the basics (good dragon, bad dragon, every 500 years they awaken to find an object), the audience is forced to endure immeasurable agony as this is all spelled out to the point that it somehow becomes confusing.

What audiences will likely expect to be a basic dragon story turns corners that are never explained. Flashbacks have legendary warriors flying through the air and flinging fireballs from their hands. Reincarnated versions of these ancient people seem to have lost these powers, but gained the ability to morph into others.

A major plot point concerns the great cave, which two young reincarnates must reach to fulfill their destiny. You’ll never know where or even what this is. The film at one point stops dead with its main characters knocked out cold. The screen fades to black, and suddenly the actors are in the middle of who-knows-where, complete with giant stone structures that the military must have missed in their fight. This was the last chance to see the great cave. The wait continues.

Plot holes are gaping, and it’s impossible to track them all. Somehow, the largest dragon is lost in the middle of the LA melee. No one seems to care even though it’s the most crucial element in the plot. Then there’s the good dragon who will save all of mankind, yet takes his sweet time in arriving. Why not try and stop the evil before is reaches a major metropolis and kills thousands? What kind of a savior is this exactly?

As for the two leads, Jason Behr and Amanda Brooks, they couldn’t have reached any further to find the bottom. When you’re forced to recite lines (with a straight face no less) such as, “I’m getting real sick of this destiny crap, Jack,” call it quits immediately. Better yet, have the common sense/courtesy for yourself and to the people paying to see you to ask for a rewrite.

If you’ve never asked for a refund on a movie before, prepare to ask for one if you pay for this. Dragon Wars is a travesty, something that the Sci-Fi Channel would love to have for a short Saturday night run before retiring the print forever to a locked vault where no one else should ever be subjected to it. And no, it’s not worth $10 to see dragons munch on LA.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 08:14 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

Balls of Fury

By Hombre Divertido

Balls of Fury is the greatest ping-pong movie ever made!

In a movie that easily could have been called Balls of Glory, Dan Fogler takes the Ferrell role as Randy Daytona, a once great Olympian who became an outcast after an embarrassing incident at the Olympics. Sound familiar? What if I throw in Jim Lampley as the commentator?

Picking up the action years later; Daytona is now a cheap ping-pong lounge act. Yes, you read that right. The FBI recruit him to infiltrate the underground world of Ping Pong in order to help capture the evil Feng (Christopher Walken).

George Lopez plays the FBI agent who takes Daytona to the local Ping Pong guru: Master Wong (James Hong), so that he and his daughter Maggie (Maggie Q) can whip Daytona into shape. Maggie is an amazing ping-pong player, and one might wonder why she was not recruited for the mission instead of Daytona since the FBI obviously had access to her, but this is no movie in which you should be thinking.

Fogler plays the character with more subtle innocence than a Farrell creation, and Hong has some wonderful moments, but the rest of the cast just seems like they owed someone a favor or had a mortgage payment due.

The film actually opens with some solid laughs as it manages to spoof numerous other films, but gets bogged down and repetitive about 40 minutes in. Lopez hangs around waiting to do his Scarface impression, and Walken is wasted. Though it has a ninety-minute run time, the last ten minutes amazingly look as if the writers knew the story was over and that the film was too short, so they came up with a couple more gags.

Recommendation: Wait for it to come out on DVD; then wait some more cuz it will be on Comedy Central soon after.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 04:45 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

3:10 To Yuma

By Colin Boyd

Running roughshod over a very talented cast to the point that you nearly feel sorry for those in his warpath in between takes, Russell Crowe reaffirms in 3:10 to Yuma that, yes, he is probably the most imposing great actor of his generation.

A combination of Olivier and Robert Mitchum, Crowe has been the bull in the china shop many times before, most notably as Lt. Bud Black in L.A. Confidential and as the flawed but noble leader of men, Maximus, in Gladiator. The Australian is capable of overpowering a bad film and transforming a good one into something great.

And for the first time in years, Crowe takes his inhuman intensity to the wrong side of the tracks, portraying soulless, calloused gunfighter Ben Wade, whose heart is as black as the barrel of his gun. He runs into the Pinkerton detectives while marauding a small Arizona town, and unimpressive rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale), desperate for money to feed and care for his family, agrees to help transport Wade to the nearest city with a train station, where the outlaw would await passage to the federal prison in Yuma.

The battle of wills between Evans and Wade takes a back seat to the battle of styles between Bale and Crowe, two of the better character actors who have become reliable leading men, but go about their business in entirely different ways. Where Bale almost exclusively is better working from the inside out, Crowe is at his best when his presence cannot be contained.

Director James Mangold (Walk the Line), wisely recognizing that his lead actors can’t just have a two-hour showdown (otherwise the audience would be exhausted), has surrounded them with wonderfully memorable performances first and foremost by Ben Foster as Ben Wade’s demonic understudy and 15-year-old Logan Lerman as Evans’ son, and secondarily with nice character work by Peter Fonda, Alan Tudyk, and Gretchen Mol.

A remake of sorts of the 1957 film of the same name, the writers and Mangold have gone back more to Elmore Leonard’s original story as a blueprint and have worked, quite successfully, to create 3:10 to Yuma as a western that feels desperate and desolate, the only kind of western that works in a genre so inherently informed by Clint Eastwood’s The Unforgiven that anything since has to play by the rules of William Munny and the dark nature of that film.

Crisp, clean shirts with consciences to match don’t fit in the new definitions of the genre, and Mangold knows it, Bale knows it and Crowe exemplifies it, giving his best performance in a decade.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 04:27 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

Resurrecting the Champ

By Chris Beaumont

Yet another "based on a true story" film has reached the big screen. It has journalistic origins as does David Fincher's Zodiac; however Fincher's film stuck much more closely to the procedural aspects, seeking to retain the integrity of the original story, while Resurrecting the Champ looks more to the overly dramatic human story surrounding the source material. The act of writing the article is merely window dressing to the story itself. As for the movie, it is a decent tale, but the execution looks for the dramatic in the mundane, and in the end is carried by one spectacular performance.

Erik Kernan (Josh Hartnett) is the boxing beat writer for a Denver newspaper. He prides himself on his fast growing number of bylines, and struggles with his editor, Ralph (Alan Alda). Erik is accused of not having a voice, no personality showing in his articles. While Erik struggles with taking criticism, constructive or otherwise, he has raised his sights. He aspires to write for the newspaper's magazine section. This would afford him more time to focus on each article, and attempt to be a better father to his son, Teddy, and reunite with his estranged wife, Joyce, who is also a journalist.

One night, after covering a fight, Erik finds a homeless man being beaten up by a group of kids. He steps in to help and is introduced to a man who calls himself Champ (Samuel L. Jackson). Champ claims to be a former professional boxer, ranked number three in the world, having fought Jake Lamotta and sparred with Rocky Marciano. He says his name is Bob Satterfield. Erik files the name away, but has no idea who Satterfield is -- strange, considering boxing is the sport he covers. Anyway, he pulls the name out the hat when he interviews for that magazine position. The editors buy into his pitch, and he is off to make the story happen.

He proceeds to conduct a number of interviews with Champ. With the application of a little alcohol, Champ opens up about his past. As their talks go on, Champ tells more and more, with an amazing recall of his past. Erik sees this as his ticket to bigger things. However, the further in he gets... well, let's just say that things are not quite as they appear, and the integrity of our feature writer is called into question as he is forced to confront his own motives and relationships.

Samuel L. Jackson reminds us, for the second time this year (following Black Snake Moan), of just how good an actor he is. Following such films as Freedomland, The Man, and Snakes on a Plane, it can be easy to forget just how good Jackson can be. He completely disappears into the role of Champ. He created a compelling, convincing character that could just have easily fallen into the tearjerker cliché of the down-on-his-luck former star. It really was amazing watching him work. Champ is a sympathetic character, who tells his story with wit and insight, regardless of the plainness of the spoken words.

On the other end of the scale is Josh Hartnett, who just doesn't carry the weight or the emotional depth required to make Erik an interesting figure. Erik is emotionally fragile, dealing with living in the shadow of an absentee father, who is a legendary boxing reporter from the 1950's. On top of that he is struggling with his role of father, wanting to do better by his son than his father did by him. The problem lies in Hartnett's inability to play that range -- he comes across as being terribly bland. The supposed struggles are conveyed in dialogue, but not delivered in a convincing manner.

Finally, in a supporting role, Alan Alda does a very good job as Erik's editor. He is believable and imparts constructive criticism of the sort that I have received in the past. That is perhaps why his performance hit home for me.

The sad thing is that this movie tries so hard to be good, yet fails to deliver on its promise. Everything that didn't directly concern Jackson felt soft and weak by comparison. The moral conflict that is built up doesn't really pay off, nor do the problems that Erik had with his father. All of these elements, some of which seem like they should be important to the story, fail to really deliver anything of real use. When it was all over, I felt rather empty. I had a definite reaction to Champ, but everyone else failed to register.

Bottom line. A great performance brought down by a sub-par surrounding story and performances. This is definitely worth seeing for Jackson's knockout performance. It has the basis of an interesting story about journalistic integrity, personal responsibility, and the desire to make a mark, but in the end it fails to really offer anything on the subject.

Mildly Recommended.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 04:47 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

Rush Hour 3

By Chris Beaumont

When the first Rush Hour landed back in 1998, Jackie Chan was riding high on his recent explosion of popularity in mainstream America. Recent outings such as Rumble in the Bronx, Supercop, and First Strike were proving to be hits and his stock in the West was rising. It only made sense to put him in an English language film to capitalize on that newfound fame.

At the same time, Chris Tucker's stock was rising with turns in Friday, Fifth Element, and Money Talks. It seemed like the perfect idea to pair up a guy who does not speak English all that well with a guy who never shuts up. The result was a fun buddy comedy which delivered big laughs and big action. Three years later, director Brett Ratner brought the duo back in an equally good sequel. Now, it has been six years since we last saw them together, and six years since Tucker has been on the big screen. This time the result is much less satisfying.

As Rush Hour 3 starts, James Carter (Tucker) is doing his duty as an LAPD officer by directing traffic. Of course, he is doing this in his own style, singing and dancing until he inadvertently causes an accident. At the same time, Inspector Lee (Chan) is accompanying Ambassador Han (Tzi Ma, reprising his role from the first Rush Hour) to World Criminal Court. It is a big day for Han, as he plans to reveal the leader of the Triads. Before he is able to make the announcement, he is he victim of an attempted assassination. This leads to a chase in old school Jackie style, which is as unlikely as it is exciting.

The chase takes him right by the intersection where Carter is screwing things up. Upon seeing Lee race by, Tucker joins the chase, thereby reuniting our buddy cops and allowing the "plot" to begin in earnest. The two visit Han in the hospital and learn of a secret letter that Han sent his daughter, Soo Yung (Jingchu Chang). In typical buddy comedy fashion, Carter and Lee team up (despite Carter being told no) to find the letter and catch the assassin.

The chase leads them to Paris, where they are greeted by Roman Polanski playing a rather thorough police inspector. After that discomfort, they team up with an America-hating cabbie as they search Paris for the Triads and their mysterious leader. Along the way Tucker lets loose a non-stop barrage of one liners and quips, while Lee just roles his eyes and does most of the required fighting.

Despite my anticipation, Rush Hour 3 did not really inspire me. Without even discussing the content, I believe that they waited too long to make it. Six years is a long gap between sequels, and this franchise's continued popularity is suspect at best. On top of that, Tucker's star is nowhere near shining as bright as it was back in 1998. Since that time he has only made two films, and both have Rush Hour in the title. By the same token, Chan hasn't had a bona fide hit since 2003's Shanghai Knights. I guess those could also be good reasons to go back to the well one more time in the hopes of bringing them both a hit.

As I sat in the theater, I found a movie that was not downright bad, but there was a lot not to like about it. The story is simple, and never really explodes into anything terribly involving. The plot serves as a mere device to move our buddies into a variety of situations leading to flying quips and fists. Chris Tucker is more annoying here than he was as the motor-mouthed DJ Ruby Rod in The Fifth Element. He is always letting his mouth fly off the handle with witty one liners that aren't nearly as witty as they should be. Much of the comedy comes across as worn out and tired, as if the jokes were being recycled from the first two films. Jackie Chan still has a lot of charm and charisma, despite playing the same character in virtually every movie he's in. Even Chan often times has this worn look, like he is wondering why he agreed to do this.

With all of the negatives, it is a wonder it is as solid as it is -- well, as solid as a two star movie is going to be. There is still some chemistry between the two, and the worn formula still works. There is nothing that will make you walk away saying the movie was terrible. However, you may walk away thinking about how the first two were better, and how loud Tucker is.

Bottom line. Slightly entertaining later summer popcorn muncher. It is what it is, and it can't be any more. Rush Hour 3 is broad action/comedy made to draw upon a wide cross section of demographics. On that strength, it works. But you know, trying to be everything for everyone is not the best way to go.

Not Recommended.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 08:43 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

Becoming Jane

By Chris Beaumont

If you are a fan of Jane Austen's work, skip this review. If you continue reading, you will find a review of a partly factual/partly fictional romantic period drama focusing on a small part of Jane Austen's life.

You will also find a movie review written by someone who knows nothing about Jane Austen and has never read any of her novels or other writings (at least not that I can remember). I did see the Bollywood-style take on Pride and Prejudice called Bride and Prejudice, though I doubt that counts. Becoming Jane is the new film in question, and I left the screening conflicted.

Becoming Jane is a movie that features some fantastic shots, a middling romance, good performances, and a sleep-inducing pace. I wanted to like the movie. Both Anne Hathaway (as Jane) and James McAvoy (as would-be suitor Tom Lefroy) are good.The supporting cast is also quite good, in particular Maggie Smith as the superior Lady Gresham.

The cinematography also offers up some great shots, such as when Jane is walking along a beach (viewed from a distance), and the gritty Fight Club-style underground boxing matches that Lefroy likes to engage in. Despite all there is to like, the screenplay moves at a snail's pace and fails to really deliver any insight. I feel as if I have seen this story before, and done better than it is here.

We first meet Jane sitting in a window in the early morning, apparently suffering from a bit of writer's block. She works through this by letting loose her creative juices on a piano, much to the chagrin of the rest of her family so early in the morning. While Jane longs to put creative thought to blank page, her mother (Julie Walters) wishes she would find a husband and marry into some money. This while her father (James Cromwell) says she should follow her heart; money will bring comfort, but it will not fill a heart.

Tom Lefroy is a poor young lawyer, with a reliance on an allowance from his uncle. In an effort to help him get his head on straight, he is sent to spend time with relatives in the country. It is during this supposedly head-clearing trip that he encounters Jane.

At first, it is clear that the two are at odds in their outlook. In movie talk, that means they will end up being madly attracted to each other. Anyway, the relationship is not one smiled upon by their respective families. Jane's mother wishes her to marry into wealth (the family was suffering financial woes), while Lefroy's uncle will not consent to him marrying a country girl. Then there is Lady Gresham, a lonely woman who believes she is above everyone when it comes to deciding what is best for all around her. She wishes Jane to accept the pending proposal from her nephew, Mr. Wisley.

It is my understanding that the romance that is depicted is more speculation than anything else. There is a factual basis in the mention of Lefroy in a pair of letters to Jane's older sister, Cassandra (Anna Maxwell Martin), however, the details are not known. This allows screenwriters Kevin Hood and Sarah Williams room to play with what may have happened. They use elements of her novels as the seeds of the story. In a way they reverse engineer her writings to create potential inspirations from her real life. This may be pretty close, as most authors take cues from their real life for their writing. It would not be much of a stretch to assign Austen's narrative elements to pieces of her life in the search to fill in what she was like.

My conflicted feelings are too hard to ignore. I wanted to like the film, and by and large the performances are good. The failure lies in the hands of the screenwriters and on the shoulders of director Julian Jarrold. The screenplay fails to offer anything of real interest, and the direction is straightforward and just a little plain. It is a tale of unfulfilled potential.

Bottom line. A costume drama that fails to rise above the level of mediocrity. Despite the pretty images, and strong performances, I found myself fighting the oncoming of sleep for much of the runtime. If you are a fan of Austen, you will likely enjoy this much more than I did. Still, it is a film that doesn't deliver on its romantic premise.

Not Recommended.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 08:35 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

Stardust

By El Bicho

Stardust, Mathew Vaughn’s adaptation of the graphic novel by Neil Gaiman and Charles Vess, is a marvelous fairy tale the likes of which haven’t been seen on the silver screen since Rob Reiner’s The Princess Bride. It is filled with whimsy and menace and laughter, yet at its core is a love story.

Tristan is an awkward young man trying to woo the hand of the pretty Victoria who has no interest. When he hears she is getting married to a rival, he offers to prove his devotion and worth by fetching a falling star and returning with it for her birthday. He leaves the protective boundaries of the village of Wall and heads into the land of Stormhold where he encounters all sorts of magical and mysterious things, including unicorns, sky pirates, and most importantly, the true meaning of love.

When Tristan finds the star, it turns out to be a young maiden named Yvaine. She has no interest in becoming someone’s gift and is rather perturbed about being knocked out of the sky. What dislodges her is a magical jeweled necklace that determines the ruler of Stormhold. It flew out of the hands of the dying King and his sons now seek it to see who is the heir to the throne. Ghosts of the King’s sons also have a vested interest as they are stuck on Earth until the new King is crowned. The quest is made all the more difficult as Yvaine found the necklace lying next to her and put it on before leaving with Tristan.

The path home is made even more difficult as Tristan isn’t the only one who saw Yvaine fall from the sky. Three sister witches do as well and they also have plans to find her and bring her home although their reasons are sinister: when eaten, the heart of a star is a source of longevity and youth. Lamia takes the last they have and ventures out; however, each time she uses magic her appearance returns to her true state.

While all the elements of Stardust are very familiar archetypes from fantasy and fairy tales, they don’t come off as tired clichés. Of course, all the plot lines converge, but do so in a believable way. Vaughn and co-screenwriter Jane Goldman do justice to the graphic novel, although fans of it should know there are numerous changes. However, both Gaiman (“I think it's a lovely movie, and that it's a movie, not a book, and those places where they changed things to make it work as a movie, work just fine”) and Vess (“[they] have managed to capture the essence of the novel and then have skillfully edited as well as extended plot and characters where needed to transform those elements from one medium to another”) are quite fine with the results.

Every moment on screen works. It is so rare anymore when every line, every look of an actor, has purpose and isn’t filler. Michelle Pfieffer’s Lamia deserves to be added to the pantheon of movie witches. Robert DeNiro’s comedic turn as Captain Shakespeare is one of the funniest roles he’s had. Even smaller parts like Mark Williams as a goat turned human and pirates with one line are memorable.

Stardust is a grand fantasy adventure and one of the better films of the summer. Not only do I want to tell people to go see, I want to bring them. While rated PG-13, it’s a very good family film for most. Kids and kids-at-heart will enjoy it.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 05:27 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

No Reservations

By Chris Beaumont

What was I expecting when I went to see No Reservations? Not much. It isn't that I expected it to be bad, it is just that I looked at it as a sort of fluffy space filler kind of a movie. It is true that it is a bit on the fluffier side, but it is anything but a space filler.

This movie, a remake of a German film called Mostly Martha, is a nice slice-of-life kind of movie. No Reservations is not about plot, it is not about getting from point A to point B, it is not about having a script go through hoops to make the story work, it isn't even about how it ends. What it is about are the lives of those involved and the changes that these characters go through. The plot points flow naturally, moving along in a matter of fact way. Life changes, that is a fact, and this movie takes us through a certain period in the lives of three characters.

The story is centered on Kate (Catherine Zeta-Jones), an emotionally unavailable master chef whose life revolves around preparing some gorgeous-looking food. While she may be unable to maintain a relationship for any amount of time, she is more than happy to show off her mean streak should any of her culinary talents be challenged. It is this show of temperament that leads to the disappearance of customers, and the subsequent demand from the restaurant owner (Patricia Clarkson) that she seek counseling to save her job. Kate is not a terribly pleasant woman, but she is also not a particularly mean one, she is just passionate about her kitchen and about her culinary work. Her life is thrown for a loop one day when her sister and niece (Abigail Breslin) are coming to visit. The visit never happens, and Kate is left to care for young Zoe.

Kate is ill-prepared to care for Zoe. She is so singularly focused on her career that she has no idea how to care for her. In the meantime, things are changing at the restaurant as well. The owner has brought in a sous chef to assist in the kitchen duties. The new kitchen co-habitator is Nick (Aaron Eckhart), an equally skilled chef with a decidedly different approach to working the kitchen.

Of course, this will lead to the standard cliches of the genre. There will be a personality clash between Kate and Nick, there will be an attraction between the two, and young Zoe is here to play matchmaker. Yes, there are cliches here, but director Scott Hicks does not overplay his hand; it never plays too broadly, nor does he take it into the realm of melodrama. It is an understated film that rests squarely on the shoulders of the three principals to carry the weight of the film. It is a testament to their work that the movie works as well as it does.

There is something sweet in the way Zoe and Kate come to need each other, and the tentative nature of the relationship that develops. Zoe has lost her mother, and does not want a replacement; she has a fear of abandonment. Combine that with Kate's inability to make emotional connections and there is a recipe for disaster. What helps is that they are family, and they do care about each other, which brings them together, and they are able to work their way through the issues.

Then we have the issue of Nick in the kitchen. Kate, besides her emotional issues, is also a controlling woman, not mean, but has a specific way that she goes about business. So, when this new guy shows up with a vastly different demeanor, she is threatened by his presence, leading to a climate in which mistrust and dislike fester. The tale brings Zoe back into the fold when she plays matchmaker a bit, because she develops a daughterly fondness for the sous chef.

When No Reservations reaches its conclusion, it does not come to a definitive end. Rather, the trio have just moved beyond this stage of their life and everything is moving on to the next level. Like I said, it is not about plot or reaching an ending, but about this slice of life. This slice is finished, and it is time to cut another piece, but that is for another time.

Bottom line. A movie I did not expect much from ended up delivering a sweet cinematic experience, while also making me quite hungry. The performances were good, and the writing was nice. Nothing was overdone, nothing was played too comedically or too melodramatic. It cruises along, giving us a glimpse into the lives of these people. Nicely realized movie.

Recommended.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 09:55 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

No End In Sight

By Ray Ellis

I was watching the news the other day — MSNBC, CNN, it doesn’t matter — when I saw a video clip that was almost surreal. The Prez was jogging with two double amputees. Apparently, they were Iraq War veterans who had been outfitted with the latest in prosthetics, proving that they can run with the best of them. Now, while it’s great that technology in that area has progressed to the point that people can function regardless of disabilities, it’s distasteful as hell that Bush would use the jog as another photo op and a plug for his latest half-assed assurance that veterans will be afforded the very best in medical care. It caused me to flashback to the first of May 2003, when Bush, resplendent in fighter pilot gear, stood astride an aircraft carrier and proclaimed that the Coalition had emerged victorious in the Iraqi War.

Over four years later, over 4000 American soldiers have died in Iraq, and more than 20,000 have been wounded. Some estimates put the Iraqi civilian death toll at well over 600,000. Clearly, in the summer of 2003, the battle to secure Iraq was just beginning.

No End in Sight is a film that coldly details the crucial missteps by the Bush administration in the days following the fall of Baghdad. First-time director Charles Ferguson’s film cannot be described as a left wing diatribe — there are no Michael Moore-style bombastics here. Rather, this is a film that raises emotional temperature by virtue of its objective approach. Ferguson, a former senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, with a solid background in political science, steers away from obvious ideology, allowing the chronology of events to speak for themselves.

Putting those events into perspective are a number of administration officials, including former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, General Jay Garner (who was initially in charge of the Iraqi occupation) and Ambassador Barbara Bodine, who was in charge of Baghdad in 2003. Many of the people interviewed were on the ground in Iraq, and those who weren’t, were directly involved in the planning stages of Iraqi reconstruction. The most impassioned of the interviewees is Col. Paul Hughes, former officer of strategic policy in Iraq. He pulls no punches as he recounts how his efforts, and those of other advisors, were trivialized, and in many cases outright ignored, by administration officials at home.

No End in Sight takes no position on our justifications for going to war with Iraq. It does look at how we screwed up the aftermath by allowing career politicians with no military experience to oversee the rebuilding of the country. As a result, we were left with insufficient troop levels to maintain the unsteady peace. Donald Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration labored under the fallacious premise that the Coalition forces would be greeted as liberators. As a result, they paid scant attention to the realities of what was happening on the ground, and essentially turned a deaf ear to military officials working there. In effect, there was no plan to rebuild Iraq. Consequently, the military, with no police authority, did nothing to stop the widespread looting following the fall of Baghdad. That early looting also included robbing weapons caches of the Hussein regime.

That was only the beginning. Under the auspices of Paul Bremer, the Iraqi military was dismantled, and all Ba’athists were purged from the government. This left thousands of highly trained professional and military personnel unemployed and disgruntled. That move was largely instrumental in the origins of the current insurgency. By 2006, Americans were hardly seen as liberators, but rather as an occupying force.

This film doesn’t delve into the current troop surge, or any of the current debates surrounding the war. It doesn’t need to. It graphically illustrates how we got into this mess. From the outset, the Bush administration mishandled the reconstruction of Iraq with recklessness, arrogance, and incompetence. The beauty of No End in Sight is the way in which it deftly pursues that history relentlessly, but with chilling objectivity.

No End in Sight won the Special Jury prize for Best Documentary at this year’s Sundance Film Festival. Expect it to be in the running for an Oscar this year. It is, without doubt, the most relevant documentary about the Iraq War thus far. No End in Sight is now playing in select theatres in New York and Washington, DC, and will be playing across the country later in August. A DVD release is tentatively scheduled for 30 October.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 09:47 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

The Simpsons Movie

By Dave Lifton

When I started seeing ads for The Simpsons Movie, I recalled the episode in season four where Bart and Lisa see a commercial for the upcoming Itchy and Scratchy movie, which promises something like "63% new material." Bart was banned by his parents from ever seeing the film, and he becomes isolated from his classmates who talk about nothing else, taking on what Lisa described as the "demented melancholia of a Tennessee Williams heroine." As a result, I was compelled to see the movie on the opening weekend.

There are millions of fans, like me, who have picked apart the details of every episode of The Simpsons since its debut in 1989, and plenty more who can't remember a time when The Simpsons wasn't a part of their Sunday night ritual. Add that to the critical acclaim heaped upon the show throughout its remarkable 400-episode run, and the traditional difficulties in adapting a half-hour sitcom for the big screen, and you have expectations that couldn't possibly be met by mere mortals.

Except that they did it. From the typically brilliant self-referential opening joke, The Simpsons Movie hits all of the targets that we've have come to expect. I'm not going to give away any of the jokes (one reviewer spoiled a particularly sublime moment), but the plot centers around a Homer-created environmental disaster in Springfield. The federal government, under advisement from the corporation-run Environmental Protection Agency, intercedes in devastating fashion. Homer becomes an outcast - first from the town, then his family - and he takes it upon himself to save the town and win back Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie. The subplot revolves around Bart realizing that he needs a more positive male role model, and finding one in Homer's nemesis, Ned Flanders.

All of this could have come directly from the series. At its core, The Simpsons has always been about the necessity for a strong family unit as the unholy marriage of corporations and government threatens our existence, so the creative team finds themselves on familiar ground.

The opening half-hour is simply remarkable, as jokes fly by even faster than on TV. Some are familiar, as you would expect from characters whose catch phrases have become part of the vernacular, but come at you from different angles. As a result, you not only laugh at the recognition of the punch line, but marvel at how the writers and performers continue to find new ways to hit you with the same joke. The humor slows down as the story takes over, but there are still plenty of moments throughout where you will realize that you need the DVD to be able to get everything you may have missed.

From a production standpoint, Springfield looks fantastic. The tacky pinks and light blues of Springfield translate very well to the screen, giving the town the depth that the movies based on South Park and Beavis & Butthead, funny as they were, lacked.

If I have a complaint, it's that many of the residents of Springfield we have grown to love don't have lines; they simply appear in crowd shots. But to give everybody from Superintendent Chalmers to Disco Stu their moment of cinematic glory would have added about 20 minutes of filler. At 87 minutes, slightly longer than it takes to watch four episodes on DVD, the film feels just right.

I'm not going to go all Comic Book Guy and call The Simpsons Movie the "Best. Movie. Ever," but it's pretty darn close.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 09:40 PM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

By Chris Beaumont

A new year at Hogwarts is brought to us by a new creative team, building on what has come before, as should be expected. I have found that each successive outing makes it a little bit harder for newcomers. You almost need to have seen the previous four films before going into this one in order to get the full effect. Now, I know that there are probably very few viewers like that, but I found myself feeling a little at a disadvantage, as it has been a while since I've seen Goblet of Fire, but I think I fared pretty well.

This outing picks up with Harry feeling the dramatic effects from the conclusion of the last film, leading us into a world that is getting considerably darker than it had been. The Order of the Phoenix is a step up from the last one, and promises that the true darkness is yet to come.

Goblet of Fire came to a close following a battle between Harry and the returning Voldemort which resulted in the death of fellow student Cedric Diggory. This death and the the danger that Voldemort represents lies heavily upon the head of young Harry. The weight is evident in the very first scene, which is one of the few, so far, to take place away from Hogwarts and its related areas, and occur in the "real" world.

Harry, wearing a face that is much more angst-ridden and weary beyond his years, has a confrontation with his cousin, Dudley, which is stopped short by the appearance of a pair of Dementors on the prowl for the young wizard. Left with little choice, Harry casts a spell to save himself and Dudley, an action which results in his prompt expulsion. You see, it is against the rules for minors to cast spells away from the school.

This brings Harry back together with his permanent companions, Hermione and Ron, and also introduces him to The Order of the Phoenix, a group that is all about putting a stop to Voldemort's advances. All this before they even get back to the school!

Anyway, once they get back to Hogwarts, Harry must go before a council to win back his spot at the school. This sequence goes a long way towards setting up the best conflict of this go-around, that being the one between Dumbledore and the Ministry of Magic. The Ministry has been badmouthing Harry and his mentor for claiming the return of Voldemort, so they have been actively attempting to discredit the two, and for a little while it seems to be working.

A couple of new characters are introduced in The Order of the Phoenix, the best being Dolores Umbridge. She enters by way of the revolving door of Professor of the Defence Against the Dark Arts -- if you are looking for trouble, this is the first teacher you should look for. She is, essentially, a tool for the Ministry to move into the school, where she employs all sorts of new rules. Imelda Staunton's portrayal of the woman is that of a sweet, but stubborn, woman who really needs a good smacking. I guarantee that by the end of the movie you will want to throttle her -- she's terribly effective. The other character is a new student named Luna (Evanna Lynch); I'm not sure where they are going with her, but I found her to be a little bit creepy.

The Order of the Phoenix offers considerable growth in the title character. Gone are the big eyes and smiles of wonder, gone is the "magic" of youth, slowly being replaced with the moodiness of the teenage years. Harry is recognizing the real dangers around him, and he is becoming more of an adult, making decisions and hesitantly taking up a leadership role in the battle that is to come. It is interesting to think of the growth that he has attained over the course of five movies; to see it visualized is quite good. Daniel Radcliffe slips into character like a worn-in coat; he has been playing it so long that it cannot take long to get into that mindset and become this young man who seems to attract danger.

This film is a definite step up from its predecessor; it delivers on a story level that I did not find last time. The stakes are higher, and the darkness is growing. Is the film perfect? No, but it still delivers some excitement. The narrative felt a little choppy at times, but still better than last time, and there seemed to be more actual plot to this one. From the Dumbledore/Ministry conflict to the Harry/Voldemort conflict, to Harry stepping up as something of a leader and the way the friends stick together, there is some great chemistry and forward motion.

Director David Yates brings a stronger vision than Mike Newell did last time, and is more on par with Alfonso Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban. I am happy that he has been signed to direct the sixth film as well, so we will be able to see how his vision continues as the stakes continue to go higher.

This film also brought in a new screenwriter, Michael Goldenberg, replacing Steve Kloves, who had written all four of the prior films. He developed a nice script, for the most part, that really allowed the characters and their relationships to grow (except for the big kiss, which felt like a throwaway scene just for the fans). There is also a new composer in Nicholas Hooper, who has brought a nice touch to the film with a strong score that successfully builds the emotions throughout.

Bottom line. This is a good movie, not my favorite -- that's still Prisoner of Azkaban, but this likely falls somewhere between the first and The Chamber of Secrets. The acting is all quite good (I loved everything featuring Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, and Imelda Staunton). It was quite thrilling as the conclusion came around. Of course, I still have issues with the big stuff only happening during the school year in and around Hogwarts, but it is a conceit I think i can live with. Anyway, go see it, enjoy it, and look forward to the next one.

Recommended.

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 11:36 AM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

Live Free or Die Hard

By Daniel Cummings

There is no denying the huge contribution that Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone made to the action genre in the eighties. But it was a certain Bruce Willis who came along in 1988 and completely re-defined the genre starring as New York cop John McClane in Die Hard. The film was a huge success at the box office and naturally two sequels followed in 1990 (Die Hard 2) and 1995 (Die Hard With A Vengeance). Now in 2007 Willis returns as McClane in Live Free or Die Hard.

Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) and Mai Lihn (Maggie Q) set in motion a devastating plot to completely take down the computer and technological structure that supports the United States economy. A group of unknowing hackers aid his operation and are killed off one by one apart from Matt Farrell (Justin Long), who is inadvertently saved by Detective John McClane after he is called to pick up the young hacker. Now McClane, aided by Farrell, must track down Gabriel and stop his operation.

Die Hard is still very much the quintessential action picture; if you only own one it has to be that one. Looking at the genre since Die Hard was released, there are a few standout films that come close: John Woo’s Hard Boiled and Face Off, Jan de Bont’s Speed, Simon West’s Con Air, Michael Bay’s The Rock, and James Cameron’s True Lies.

All of those above movies contained the key elements to a great action picture: likable and believable leading man backed up by likable and convincing supporting characters. An over-the-top, menacing, sometimes hammed-up villain. Entertaining and engaging action sequences with spectacular stunt work, occasional use of CGI if need be. Also, witty one-liners from the principal character are a must.

Die Hard 2 and Die Hard With A Vengeance stuck to the above rules, so now does Live Free or Die Hard keep up the tradition? I am glad to report that it certainly does in general. Like most action films, in places it does get a little ridiculous; for example Maggie Q’s character apparently has nine lives. Her fight scene with Willis is very brutal though; Bruce actually ended up with 43 stitches in his head after filming it -- ouch.

Overall, the action scenes are highly entertaining and I happily smiled through every one of them. The stunts are fantastic and CGI was only used once to aid the deliciously over-the-top finale. One scene in particular finds McClane out of bullets; the answer? He accelerates a car up to a ramp, dives out at the last minute leaving the car to propel airborne into a helicopter causing it to explode, and they really did perform this stunt with no CGI (now, that’s old skool).

Justin Long comes across as a very likable nerd perfectly playing off Willis’s tough guy. Timothy Olyphant hams it up just enough and is convincing but not very menacing; not surprisingly, he can’t hold a candle to Alan Rickman’s villain in the original Die Hard. Kevin Smith also pops up in a cameo role as a super-hacker known as the Warlock; it could have been cheesy but Smith plays it straight and is very funny.

Willis slips back into character with ease and is clearly enjoying every single second of the movie. The one-liners are aplenty and full of humour with Bruce delivering them straight as an arrow. Willis brings back all of McClane’s mannerisms including his tendency to rant to himself. And yes, he still looks the part.

I must give credit to director Len Wiseman who delivers easily his best film to date. He handles the action sequences very adeptly, keeping the thrills coming throughout the two-hour runtime.

Whilst Live Free or Die Hard never manages to hit the brilliant highs of the original (can’t really say I expected it too, either) it is still a worthy sequel much like parts two and three. Going back to what makes a great action film, this comes very close with the likable lead already firmly in place, and the bottom line is this: the main reason to watch Live Free or Die Hard is Mr. Willis as he expertly drives this very entertaining action vehicle. Yippee-ki-yay!

To comment on this and more reviews go to Blogcritics.org.

Posted by lmckay at 11:20 AM

Print | E-mail to a friend | Permalink | Subscribe via rss

Nancy Drew

By Chris Beaumont