Cinephilia

Akeelah and the Bee (Doug Atchison, 2006)

2010-02-18T18:44:00.010-05:00

A pleasant but simplistic story of beating the odds. Akeelah Anderson (Keke Palmer) is an 11-year-old student at Crenshaw Middle School in southern Los Angeles. She is far from a model student. She has a tendency to cut class, and for various reasons lacks the motivation to commit to her education. But in one particular area she excels far beyond the abilities of all of her peers. Akeelah Anderson has a natural gift for spelling. Based on a love of words instilled in her by her deceased father, she has a flawless record on her spelling tests. The principal of her underfunded, underachieving inner-city school sees an opportunity in Akeelah: he encourages her to compete in spelling bees with the assistance of one Dr. Larabee (Laurence Fishburne). The film tells her story as she enters the world of competitive spelling as an outsider.

It is a nice story. However, it is a simplistic one in which even the villains have hearts of gold. A heavyhanded but competent family film.

GRADE: B-

Details: Directed by Doug Atchison. Written by Doug Atchison. Running time: 112 minutes.

The Birth of a Nation (D.W. Griffith, 1915)

2010-02-14T22:13:00.019-05:00

According to (very likely erroneous) tradition, President Woodrow Wilson described D.W. Griffith's 1915 epic The Birth of a Nation as "history written with lightning". This mistaken quotation is equal parts horrifying and visionary.

The film follows two families from the outset to the aftermath of the Civil War: the Stonemans from the North and the Confederate Cameron clan. This is a sweeping story told in a grand scale, with big battle scenes and the rise and fall of families. It is a story well told. Griffith was a pioneer moviemaker, with a real genius for editing and visual storytelling. Because of Griffith's expertise and artful direction, The Birth of a Nation is often hailed as the first real movie. It is also meant to be a history lesson, with specific tableaux for major events such as Lincoln's assassination. This is where the film becomes troubling.

Griffith is a man of the American South. His father was a colonel in the Confederate Army. His perspective on race is clearly shaped by this culture. Black and mixed-race characters in The Birth of a Nation, played by white actors in blackface if they have any significant screen time, are fairly despicable caricatures. The slaves are happy to be under the control of their masters. Freed-men are treacherous and hungry for power and for white women.

In fact, the entire thrust of the film is that the barriers that keep the races in their proper places are all stands between order and chaos. As such, the Ku Klux Klan are the heroes of the picture as defenders of southern traditions.

This is the terrifying part of The Birth of a Nation. Griffith meant it to be a purely factual and objective account of American history, and it was accepted as such by some despite the film's horrific racist bias. And still, Griffith's most controversial offering has stood the test of time. It is arguably the first film to reveal the awesome potential of the medium for serious storytelling, and it pioneered techniques that have been used in most every movie since.

Details: Directed by D.W. Griffith. Written by Thomas F. Dixon Jr., D.W. Griffith & Frank E. Woods. Running time: 187 minutes.

Angels and Demons (Ron Howard, 2009)

2010-02-12T16:53:00.018-05:00

Going into Ron Howard's Angels and Demons, based on Dan Brown's novel and following 2006's The Da Vinci Code, you know what to expect. It promises a conspiracy-focused story that may not make a great deal of sense in the end but that has enough momentum, excitement and twists to keep you entertained. Howard, with the help of screenwriters including the often horrendous Akiva Goldsman, delivers all of the delightful stupidity but undercooks the adrenaline.

The story begins as the Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church convene to elect a new Pope. The four most important Cardinals are kidnapped by the Illuminati, a secret historical group of scientists who want revenge for past persecutions, who promise to kill a hostage every hour before annihilating the Vatican with a superbomb. Thankfully they provide the church with cryptic clues about the location of the eventual murders and detonation, allowing the Vatican to call in the expertise of Harvard "symbologist" Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks).

The setup, with its frantic timeline, calls for a frenetic pace with claustrophobic tension as the characters are increasingly squeezed by the hands of the clock. And yet the movie wants to be more than empty entertainment; it has BIG THINGS to say! And so, despite having mere minutes to save Cardinals' lives, the characters take time for exposition and speechifying and every time they do all the pressure is released. Adding insult to injury, the BIG MESSAGE that the film takes great care to deliver isn't worth the effort. Its comments on history, science and religion show a lack of insight and understanding. Beyond the problem with pacing, Howard's direction is also fairly bland. The movie, which depends a lot on location, is really hampered by not being allowed to film at the Vatican. It also includes a lazy and ridiculous twist ending of the worst kind, one that is purposely out of left field so that the filmmakers can pat themselves on the back for being shocking. It has come to the point that such unpredictable moves have become all too predictable.

GRADE: C-

Details: Directed by Ron Howard. Written by David Koepp, Akiva Goldsman & Dan Brown. Running time: 153 minutes.

Inglorious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

2010-01-02T22:38:00.014-05:00

Whatever one thinks of Quentin Tarantino as a person, it is clear that the man knows how to make a movie. There is a language of filmmaking, made up of angles and lighting and camera movement and framing and all sorts of things. Some movie-makers know the rudiments of this grammar and vocabulary. Tarantino has attained a natural fluency. His latest offering, 2009's Inglorious Basterds, may not be his greatest film. It doesn't accomplish anything truly novel, certainly not in the way that Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction did. But even Tarantino's mediocrity is better than a lot of director's best efforts.

The film itself is a comic-bookish treatment of occupied France during World War II, in which a bloodthirsty team of American commandos and a young Jewish theater owner work to end the war by detonating the top Nazis. It is, I think, indicative of Tarantino's great love of the cinema that it is a film that is the key to ending the war. The story is told with surehanded cinematic flair, and includes a series of signature standoffs that ratchet up the tension and excitement. Not a classic, but a very enjoyable film nonetheless.

GRADE: B+

Details: Directed by Quentin Tarantino. Written by Quentin Tarantino. Running time: 153 minutes.

2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)

2009-12-30T23:42:00.012-05:00

Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is often hailed as the greatest science-fiction film, bar none. This was Kubrick's very conscious goal: to elevate the genre to a new level of significance. It is undeniable that this film contains a narrative, images, ideas and scenes which are mesmerizingly powerful. The opening sequence portraying a vision of the dawn of humanity is perfectly brilliant. The images, the monolith and the balletic spaceships and stations and HAL's unblinking red eye, are unforgettable. The issues at play, examining what it means to be human, are deep and are deeply explored. Because Kubrick helmed the film, it is technically flawless down to the tiniest detail.

Still, I can't truly say whether or not it is the greatest of all science fiction films. It is, in large part, a mystifying picture that would take multiple viewings to interpret and understand. It is also very slowly paced. I don't mind slow movies, but I did find myself checking the time at certain moments which is never a good sign. I lost my immersion, but I am definitely sufficiently intrigued to give 2001 another go sometime soon.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by Stanley Kubrick. Written by Stanley Kubrick & Arthur C. Clarke. Running time: 141 minutes. Rated PG.

Searching for Bobby Fischer (Steven Zaillian, 1993)

2009-12-26T22:17:00.014-05:00

What is screenwriter/director Steve Zaillan's Searching for Bobby Fischer about? Well, it’s about chess. But it’s about so much more than chess. It's about Bobby Fischer, but not Bobby Fischer the man necessarily. It's about Bobby Fischer the ideal, the prodigy turned genius who beat the Cold War Russians at their own game and brought chess to new heights of skill and fame. But it's about so much more than chess and Bobby Fischer. It's about Josh Waitzkin, the young prodigy hailed to be the next Fischer. And it's about what it takes to be a good father or mother. And it's about competition and everything that competition involves.

Josh Waitzkin (Max Pomeranc) is a nice, ordinary kid, but after he witnesses hustlers playing speed chess in Washington Square Park it becomes clear that he has an extraordinary gift. He intuitively reads the chess board and knows how to attack and defend with skill beyond his years. Moving from the dynamic world of blitz chess to the highly intellectual world of professional chess, led by his tutor Bruce Pandolfini (Ben Kingsley), Waitzkin's young life highlights the highs and lows of competition and reveals some of the beauties of chess itself.

What is chess? Is it a game? A science? An art? What is a simple diversion for some consumes the passions of others, who dedicate all of their focus and energies to it. For some it seems a dull and plodding affair, but for a select few a chess game has all the grueling intensity and excitement of a cage match. One of the great successes of this film is the way it demonstrates the excitement and intensity of competitive chess. Through clever and energetic editing Zaillan manages to portray the visceral thrills that chess has to offer, and introduces an auditory dimension of clicks and clacks to the game that have now come to be a part of my chess ideal.

But this film truly is about much more than chess. It is about parenting, as Josh's mother and father struggled with encouraging their little boy's success without sacrificing any of his childhood or humanity. There is a very delicate balance at work here, and a similar conflict between intellect and heart is very intriguing. Searching for Bobby Fischer is also about the nature of competition itself. Fischer typifies one type of pure competitor: a man who dominates his peers because he despises them. Waitzkin does not naturally share this trait, but must he develop contempt in order to compete? It is this human drama that elevates this film beyond the clichés of other sports movies.

And because human drama is key, the success of this film depends to a large extent on the believability of the characters and therefore on the quality of the performances. The cast, from top to bottom, is quite good. Youngster Max Pomeranc as Josh is competent, if not brilliant. Josh's parents, played by veterans Joe Mantegna and Joan Allen, are pitch perfect and become true and nuanced human beings. Josh's teachers are also brilliant. Ben Kingsley as Pandolfini is at his best, and Laurence Fishburne as Vinnie, the Washington Square shark who introduces Josh to the game, is equally good. Really, the only misstep the movie makes in my mind is the introduction of a villain against whom Josh must compete in the big finale. It is, of course, a highly unoriginal element and it feels cartoonishly out of place in an otherwise honest movie.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by Steven Zaillian. Written by Fred Waitzkin & Steven Zaillian. Running time: 110 minutes. Rated PG.

Scrooge (Brian Desmond Hurst, 1951)

2009-12-24T19:16:00.016-05:00

Like many families, I suppose, here at the Harsevoort household we have a Christmas Eve tradition. Invariably we gather downstairs to enjoy an adaptation of Charles Dickens' classic A Christmas Carol. Not just any version, either: only the 1951 version originally titled Scrooge will do, starring Alastair Sim in the title role.

The plot follows Dickens quite closely, and thus will be familiar to most. Ebenezer Scrooge is a miserly businessman whose pennypinching has led to success in business and bitterness in life. He is a man who treats the world with suspicion, believing that selfishness is a universal rule and therefore selflessness is a scam, pure humbug. Yet one Christmas Eve he is forced to reflect on his past, present and future as four ghosts lead him on a path of self-discovery and redemption. I am definitely a sucker for stories of redemption, and this is certainly a good one. It is a classic tale with good reason.

This version of the story, directed by Brian Desmond Hurst, has some minor weaknesses and major strengths. Hurst was not a prolific or celebrated director, and his work here is competent but certainly not groundbreaking in any way save, perhaps, for the non-chronological storytelling device popular in contemporary films. His use of special effects and editing are pretty rudimentary, with double exposures allowing for visualizations of spectral ghosts. Some of the performances he oversees are pretty hammy, and some sequences are pure schmaltz but that is not necessarily a negative thing given the film. At Christmastime one craves sweetness more than at other times in the year.

An otherwise competent but relatively unremarkable film is elevated by one single performance: that of Alastair Sim. As the curmudgeonly skinflint Scrooge is delightfully acidic, but it is in the end when Scrooge has seen the error of his ways that Sim really hits his peak. His joy, making up for so many years of lost time, is uncontrollable and infectious and somehow as honest as his bitterness once was. The fact that Sim convinces us of this transformation from sinner to saint underlines the success of his flawless performance.

GRADE: A-

Details: Directed by Brian Desmond Hurst. Written by Charles Dickens & Noel Langley. Running time: 86 minutes.

Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)

2009-12-23T15:23:00.026-05:00

Avatar, the latest event picture from James Cameron, had been germinating for some time before finally reaching the screens this year, the reason for the delay being the technology needed had not been invented or at least economical until recently. It is a decidedly ambitious project, with a massive budget estimated at somewhere between $200,000,000 and $300,000,000. The computer effects, used to create an alien world in 3-D, are very impressive. Unfortunately, the A-level special-effects are put to work in service of a B-grade plot.

The story deals with a paraplegic Marine and the alien planet Pandora. Here is the conceit: Pandora is a very harsh environment, with a poisonous atmosphere and filled with aggressive, dangerous and massive creatures. However, humanity has developed a genetic process by which they can develop Avatars of individuals, crossing they are human DNA with that of the Na’vi, Pandora's humanoid species. These Avatars are telepathically controlled by their dormant human hosts. In this way humanity can interact with the natives, and attempt to gain from Pandora's rich mineral resources.

Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), our protagonist, comes to Pandora with his Avatar and soon falls into a conflict. As he learns more about the Na’vi his appreciation for them grows. And yet, those in positions of authority above him are only looking to exploit Pandora and its inhabitants, and want Jake to provide them with needed intel. If this sounds to you a little cliché, you're wrong. It is very cliché. Cameron could well have called this film Dances with Na’vi to save everybody the trouble of writing up synopses. Throw in an evil corporate type who only cares about the bottom line and an evil military type who only cares about shooting stuff and your cliché-o-meter should be redlining. I am being overly harsh, I think, but with such a massive budget and years to perfect every detail you'd think they could come up with something better than this.

It seems clear that the effects were the focus of this team, rather than plot and character. And the effects are quite brilliant. I saw this film in 3-D, which did add a level of visual flair to the happenings on-screen. The CGI is all top notch, and the jungle world of Pandora is quite beautiful to say the least. This is one movie that ought to be seen in the theater, as it really relies on its impressive audiovisual spectacle. (For this reason, I'm glad it is doing well financially. The theaters need all the help they can get these days.) And yet, even here there is some disappointment. Not in the technical details, certainly, which are terrific. But, again, given the massive budget and the creative freedom implied by CGI I was unpleasantly surprised to see that the best they could come up with for an alien world was a jungle inhabited by dinosaurs and big blue Native Americans.

I hope I'm not being a contrarian, knee-jerk reactionary here. Although I haven't said much positive, I certainly believe that Avatar is a decently good movie. If nothing else, it provides enough spectacle to be worth the price of a ticket. The story and characters, though certainly not original, are serviceable enough to hold the attention and provide sufficient excuse for the visuals. This film would make for a good summer blockbuster, it just isn't a great step forward in the art of filmmaking. And because Cameron was given much, I think we can ask of him something more than a simple popcorn movie.

GRADE: B

Details: Directed by James Cameron. Written by James Cameron. Running time: 162 minutes.

Bride of Frankenstein (James Whale, 1935)

2009-12-22T21:56:00.022-05:00

On the list of iconic movie monsters, the bride of Frankenstein has an important but surprising place. Her image, especially her sculpted hair with its white streaks up the sides, is instantly recognizable. The film which bears her name is hailed by many as the greatest of the classic Universal monster movies. And yet she really is a bit player in her own movie with very little screen time. Frankenstein's monster is the main character and focus. Still, the fact that her massive impact is based on so little is a testament to the brilliance of the film which tells her story.

Bride of Frankenstein follows directly from James Whale's Frankenstein. I have never actually gotten around to reading Frankenstein, nor did I watch the first film before viewing its sequel. Thankfully, one only needs to know the rudiments of the story of Frankenstein and his monster to be sufficiently equipped to appreciate this picture. We open with a prologue featuring Lord Byron and the Shelleys, but the plot commences with the aftermath of the destruction of Dr. Frankenstein's tower and the presumed death of his monster. We soon learn, surprise surprise, that such is not the case after all. Although Frankenstein's lab was burnt to cinders, his monster survived the fire and is soon on the loose once again. His creator, Dr. Frankenstein himself, survived also and has realized the error of his ways. He vows to forget his obsession and to become an upstanding citizen and husband. However, temptation comes in the form of the insane Dr. Pretorius who shares Frankenstein's follies but not his guilt. Will Frankenstein's hubris win out over wisdom? Similarly, how will his increasingly human yet misunderstood creation fare on the fringes of society? Will his growing need for companionship be met?

As mentioned, director James Whale also helmed the first Frankenstein film for Universal, and it was a great success. Perhaps fearing being pigeonholed, he was very reluctant to take on this sequel. However, the studio execs were persistent and persuasive. They convinced Whale to take the job on the condition that he would have a healthy budget and artistic freedom, and movie lovers everywhere must give thanks. Every detail of this film is superb. The sets are beautiful and intriguing. The score, providing important characters with their own musical cues, is great. The cast is especially good, aside from some hammy comic relief. Much like Bela Lugosi's performance provided the world with the dominant image of Dracula, Boris Karloff is Frankenstein's monster. Not only is Karloff a horror movie icon, he is also a superb actor. For this role he is under pounds of makeup, in a heavy and uncomfortable suit that makes movement awkward, and yet he still manages to communicate the heart and soul of his character. He barely speaks, and yet Frankenstein's monster conveys his thoughts and desires with clarity and power. Karloff somehow creates a real depth of humanity and wisdom hidden deep below the rough exterior of Frankenstein's monster. Also notable among actors is Ernest Thesiger who plays Pretorius, the mad scientist. His performance is pure camp, but it is as entertaining as it is brilliant. He takes such joy in his insanity that it is hard not to be swept up in it.

But the real hero of this film is not someone in front of the camera, but the man behind it all. James Whale's vision and direction are flawless. Like every good horror film, or any good genre picture in general, he uses the details of plot and character to explore bigger issues. In this case, under scrutiny are the dangers of judging others based on appearances, the need for companionship, and the harm that comes from obsession. Whale tells a good story, and tells it very well. His bag of tricks is very deep. There is a jaw-dropping scene in which Pretorius and Frankenstein animate the title character, and in it Whale uses every trick at his disposal. Dutch angles, rapid editing, flashes of light and darkness, all of it energetically communicates the unhealthy insanity what is going on. It is a virtuoso sequence, and one that would not look out of place in a 21st century film.

I really liked this movie. I'll have to see if Whale's Frankenstein is equally good.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by James Whale. Written by William Hurlbut, John L. Balderston & Mary Shelley. Running time: 75 minutes.

Howard's End (James Ivory, 1992)

2009-12-20T22:14:00.022-05:00

Because of their watermark collaborations, producer Ismail Merchant and director James Ivory have become synonymous with a particular subgenre. When you see a Merchant-Ivory picture, it is clear what you'll get: an impeccably acted and written literary adaptation and sumptuous period piece. Their 1992 production entitled Howard's End, based on EM Forster's novel of the same name, is widely regarded as the Merchant-Ivory picture par excellence, with a complex plot and characters elevated by some superb performances by a top-notch cast.

All of the various machinations of the plot center around the relationship of two upper-class families: the Schlegel siblings and the Wilcoxes. The Schlegels, sisters Meg (Emma Thompson) and Helen (Helena Bonham Carter) and youngest Tibby (Adrian Ross Magenty), are half British and half German. Their aunt says it best: "All the Schlegels are exceptional. They are British to the backbone, of course, but their father was German, which is why they care for literature and art." Set in the Britain of the early 20th century, a time of economic and social transition, the Schlegels embody all the hope and daring of new ideas and progress.

On the other hand, the Wilcoxes are British through and through in their ideas and behavior, but the sun may have already set on their attitudes. The patriarch of the wealthy family, Henry (Anthony Hopkins), has views on class and society that were once dominant but are increasingly under fire. He, and his children, typify the small-minded and uncaring privileged few. Through the lives of these people, and their interactions, we are given an intriguing glance into a historical moment and a handle on the issues that drive it.

This is not to say, however, that the characters we meet in Howard's End are shallow people, simply stand-ins for ideas and philosophy. On the contrary, the beauty of this film is in the depth of its characters and the artistry with which they are realized. Emma Thompson won the Best Actress Oscar for her performance in this film, and deservedly so. She brings a real vibrancy to Meg, and makes her both eloquent and kind. Watching her navigate the various relationships in her life, some of which conflict, is a lesson in acting. All of the other principal actors are also excellent, with Hopkins especially notable for his measured and cold but still human portrayal of Henry Wilcox. Some more minor characters are a bit more cartoonishly exaggerated, unfortunately, but nevertheless this is a very well acted film. It is also lovingly and beautifully shot.

I would not say that costume dramas are my favorite genre, but one so well made as this is a real pleasure.

GRADE: A-

Details: Directed by James Ivory. Written by E.M. Forster & Ruth Prawer Jhabvala. Running time: 142 minutes.

Grizzly Man (Werner Herzog, 2005)

2009-12-17T22:44:00.022-05:00

Timothy Treadwell had an obsession with grizzly bears ever since becoming fixated on them after recovering from a near-fatal overdose. He needed meaning in his life, and found it in bears. For 13 summers he spent time in Alaska living with the grizzlies, getting close enough to touch them and building relationships with individuals he would see every year. At the end of his 13th summer, in 2003, he was killed and eaten. His girlfriend Amie Huguenard died with him.

Over the years Timothy shot hours of video of himself and the bears while on his expeditions in Alaska. Grizzly Man, a documentary from Werner Herzog, edits together this footage along with (sometimes bizarre) interviews of Treadwell's friends and other interested parties to create something very unique. Another director may have made a nature documentary out of these pieces. Still others would have turned it into a biopic. In Herzog's hands, the material becomes a platform by which to examine the deepest and darkest corners of human nature, to explore humanity's relationship to nature, and to discover the magic of filmmaking.

For many reasons, Herzog was the ideal person to bring this material to the screen. First of all, Treadwell is the kind of obsessive and unbalanced individual that Herzog seems especially drawn to. When he comments on a crazed Treadwell rant that he has seen such behavior before on set, Herzog is of course referring to the incandescent actor Klaus Kinski with whom he made his greatest films. Thus, he has a special familiarity and insight into madmen.

More importantly, Herzog as director and narrator of the film has views that are entirely opposed to those of his subject. Treadwell saw in nature, and especially in the world of grizzly bears, a utopian world of beauty and untouched purity. Herzog is quick to point out the failings of this perspective, as he himself sees in nature only indifference, "chaos, hostility, and murder." The confrontation between these extreme viewpoints forces the viewer to reflect on her own ideas concerning the nature of nature. Still, however fascinating this issue is, the real beauty of Grizzly Man is its examination of the man rather than the grizzlies.

Timothy Treadwell was a fascinating and unique individual. The film begins with this side of his character, showing us his marvelous and seemingly magical rapport with his friends the bears and his childlike charm on camera. Gradually, his image darkens and his mood swings and insecurities come through. Still, Herzog always treats him with the respect he deserves. I do love a good nature documentary, especially for stunning visuals, but nothing can compare with an honest trip into the human heart and soul, and that is what Herzog has accomplished here.

GRADE: A+

Details: Directed by Werner Herzog. Running time: 103 minutes. Rated 14A.

The Searchers (John Ford, 1956)

2009-12-11T22:43:00.034-05:00

As I believe I've written before, the history of the Western genre is one of the creation and deconstruction of sets of clichés. Some of the most enduring and important tropes have come to us from director John Ford, one of the greats of American cinema. His towering stature as a filmmaker is such that Orson Welles watched Ford's Stagecoach dozens of times while preparing to film Citizen Kane in order to learn how to make a movie. Ford's greatest cinematic triumph, according to the American Film Institute which named it the 12th best film of all time and the #1 Western ever, is The Searchers.

The story begins, as so many do, with a pleasant family, the Edwards who run a ranch in the deserts of the southern States. A happy family in a movie? This spells trouble. And indeed, trouble comes in the form of raiding Comanche who massacre the family and kidnap teenaged Lucy and young Debbie. Shortly before the tragedy, the girls' uncle Ethan (John Wayne) had returned home from soldiering in the Civil War and elsewhere. Being a man of ability and action, and no love for Comanches, he sets off with a pair of young men with reasons of their own to rescue the girls and get vengeance.

It is somewhat difficult to evaluate a film like this one because all of its surprising innovations have ceased to surprise after being subsumed into the genre in particular and into filmmaking in general. One of John Ford's great contributions to the Western is the way he dealt with location. Ford often framed his characters in long shots against the backdrop of harsh locales, leaving the actors dwarfed by the landscape. In this way, he visually communicates one of the key tenets of the Western genre: the battle of man against the powerful forces of nature. And beyond this, Ford also had a superb eye for striking locations. If you've seen a few westerns, no doubt you've seen sequences shot amongst the stunning mesas of Monument Valley. It was Ford who saw the potential of that locale as an ideal Western setting.

Undoubtedly, John Ford knew how to film a story. In this case, the story is a particularly good one with a few particularly good characters. Although I haven't seen much of his work, I haven't been terribly fond of John Wayne. He is very good at playing himself, it seems, but does he have the range to play a truly complex and deep character? It seems he does. In the role of Ethan he must handle a lengthily sustained and developed character arc. He handles it well, especially convincing in subtle moments in which he communicates his feelings and reveals relationships without a spoken word. He rises to the quality of the material he is given, and Ethan Edwards is a quality character: a capable loner who protects society but as a result can never be a part of society. Some of the attitudes of the film are outdated, and it doesn't even attempt to be historically or geographically accurate, but the universals of character and plot and craft have lost very little with the passing decades. It may seem cliché from time to time, but not because it relies on them. It created them.

GRADE: A-

Details: Directed by John Ford. Written by Frank S. Nugent & Alan Le May. Running time: 119 minutes.

Aguirre: The Wrath of God (Werner Herzog, 1972)

2009-12-10T22:31:00.043-05:00

When director Werner Herzog paired himself with actor Klaus Kinski, it was the start of something twisted but magical. Working together on five films in all, the two had a murderous relationship with each other and yet together they produced two brilliant movies and three that are flawed but nevertheless absolutely fascinating.

Their first collaboration, the 1972 picture Aguirre: The Wrath of God, is also their best. It is the story of a Spanish expedition deep into the heart of the Amazon basin in search of the mythical golden city of El Dorado. When the journey becomes too treacherous for the hundreds of conquistadors and servants and slaves and paraphernalia, a team of soldiers led by Don Pedro de Ursua (Ruy Guerra) sets off to scout ahead of the main party. Although Ursua is officially in charge, from the outset it is clear that Don Lope de Aguirre (Klaus Kinski) has ideas of his own and the ruthlessness to realize them. Much of the film describes Aguirre's megalomaniacal descent into delusions of grandeur and madness.

The success of this film, centered as it is around the larger than life character of Aguirre, is reliant on the success of the man playing Aguirre. There could be no one better for the job than Klaus Kinski. Acting, in its purest or deepest form, requires one to find within oneself authentic elements of the character being portrayed. Kinski wouldn't have had to dig too deep to find Aguirre: he was himself obsessive, egotistical, and capable of insane rage. He was also capable of controlled intensity, and he brings all of his brilliance and ability to his portrayal of the mutinous madman. Kinski perfects every detail of Aguirre, right down to his bizarre, crab-like gait, to realize an inhuman yet utterly believable portrayal of delusion and madness. It is brilliant stuff, and Kinski pulls off every detail flawlessly.

Of course, a great performance can be utterly wasted in a mediocre picture. Thankfully, Kinski's is matched step for step by the obsession of director Herzog. Werner Herzog is a proponent of a type of realism in filmmaking that seeks the truth in and behind a situation. He is a believer in what he calls the voodoo of location, a sort of added dimension of authenticity that comes with filming precisely where the story is set. He could have shot Aguirre in California or perhaps Vancouver, with local fauna sitting in for the Amazon rainforest and comforts and amenities close by. Instead, stubbornly he dragged his cast and crew far from civilization into the South American wilderness and in doing so managed to create a mood that suits the story perfectly. The setting of the film is crucial, as (à la Conrad) Aguirre's descent into madness is mirrored by his voyage deeper into the jungle where, as the film's tagline states, "God never finished his creation." As such, the real and imagined dangers of the location add to the power of the setting as a location and as a metaphor.

This film has power, and it has a mystique as well. It tells the story of a group of Europeans and locals, driven by madness, trekking into the Amazon rainforest in search of fame and fortune. In order to tell the story, a group of Europeans and locals, driven by a pair of madmen, trekked into the Amazon rainforest in search of fame and fortune. Along the way, legends were born. Herzog reportedly directed Kinski at gunpoint after his star threatened to abandon the project before it was complete. Herzog threatened to kill Kinski and then turn the gun on himself, and through threats and force of will Herzog saw his project through to the end. The stunning result is proof that there is a very fine line between genius and insanity.

GRADE: A+

Details: Directed by Werner Herzog. Written by Werner Herzog. Running time: 93 minutes.

Amarcord (Federico Fellini, 1973)

2009-12-08T22:31:00.028-05:00

From the little I have seen of Federico Fellini, he seems to excel in two areas. He has a way of imbuing his films with a dreamlike ambience which, nevertheless, does not undercut the honesty and truth of each sequence. And he has a way of making films that are accessible and yet feel so autobiographical that, as you watch, you cannot help but feel that you are peeking into Fellini's soul. These two strengths are combined in Fellini's most popular film: Amarcord in which he creates a surreal and drifting ode to the Italy of his youth.

The title of the film is a phonetic version of the words "I remember" in the Italian dialect spoken in the town of Rimini, where Fellini was born. As if we needed it, this is a hint that what we will see is inspired by, if not a recreation of, Fellini's experiences as a young man. The film's focus jumps from character to character, the main character, really, being the town of Rimini itself. The film shows a year in its life during the reign of Mussolini. At the center of much of the film is a young man named Titta Biondi (Bruno Zanin), a fairly rebellious son on his way to becoming a man. Titta's father, an easily enraged builder who has no love for the fascist government, also plays a major role. But we also spend time with the lovely Gradisca (Magali Noël), Rimini's most glamorous inhabitant and the amour of many young men. And with Teo (Ciccio Ingrassia), Titta's mad uncle, and countless others. Even Mussolini himself (Ferruccio Brembilla) stops by at the head of the parade! Throughout, some history and background is provided by a narrator of a sort who addresses the camera, but gets a little respect from the people of Rimini.

This is not the most controlled and streamlined of films in the history of cinema, but it moves along with such energy and joy that one cannot help but be swept up with it. Fellini's skill in creating striking imagery is evident in every scene. There are a great variety of little vignettes, ranging from simple humor to more involved commentary on the political situation or human nature, and all of them ring true in one way or another. Not historically true, I suppose, but psychologically true.

So, this is a film built around the recollections and memories of Federico Fellini. A lesser director would have filmed a period piece, accurate to the inch, of the way things were, like a snapshot of the past. But Fellini is keenly aware that memory isn't like that. Memory isn't like a photographic copy of the past. Our memory banks are not like reliable hard drives. Memory and imagination work together on our impressions of past experiences, and it is these impressions that Fellini re-creates here. It may not be true that Rimini ever experienced a snowfall so deep that it could not be cleared away: walkways had to be cut through the banks instead. But that is how Fellini remembers it, and that is how Amarcord shows it. This is both a psychologically savvy perspective from which to create, and allows for a lyrical film which tells more about the way things were than a standard bit of historical filmmaking may have.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by Federico Fellini. Written by Federico Fellini & Tonino Guerra. Running time: 123 minutes.

Shoot the Piano Player (François Truffaut, 1960)

2009-12-07T21:15:00.028-05:00

"The film of tomorrow will not be directed by civil servants of the camera, but by artists for whom shooting a film constitutes a wonderful and thrilling adventure."

So said François Truffaut, director of Shoot the Piano Player. In many ways, this film is proof of the truth of Truffaut's words and exemplifies many of the touchstones of the movement within which he was a pioneer. The French New Wave was a reaction against the dominant movement of the 40s and 50s: cinéma de qualité, consisting essentially of big-budget literary costume dramas. Think of Merchant Ivory productions for an English-language equivalent. The New Wave shows the birth, or perhaps rebirth, of the independent film. They are the work of a group of directors who viewed themselves as relating to their art in the same way that an author relates to her book. They were also cinephiles who combined ideas and elements from world cinema, especially from Hollywood and Italy.

This film, which has been recommended as a good introduction to the French New Wave, is a bit of a beautiful mess. It was filmed guerrilla style, without any studio backing or permits, and was largely improvised. As such, the plot was made up on the fly, and ended up drifting here and there. At the centre is Charlie/Edouard (Charles Aznavour), a talented pianist who spends his evenings playing honky-tonk at a dive for an inebriated but enthusiastic crowd. His life is disturbed when his brother rushes into the bar with a pair of disgruntled gangsters on his tail. The thugs end up targeting Charlie in order to get back money they feel they are owed. Toss in some tragic backstory, some romance, some fisticuffs and some comedy, and you've about got it.

That is the plot, but who cares? The beauty of this film is in its style and mood. The first thing you may notice is, even though this is a French film, it doesn't really feel like it. Truffaut borrows some key elements from two main sources. First off, the film takes some of the noir tropes, such as the gangster plotline and the main character dumped into a situation he doesn't understand. A second source is the neorealism of Italian films, which entirely avoided contrived things like movie sets and soundstages. Shoot the Piano Player is shot on location throughout.

What this all adds up to is a daring and energetic feel, and a mood that oozes cool. There is a fresh attitude to this picture, and it has not faded with the passing of the decades. The improvised dialogue adds vibrancy. The performances are great, especially that of Charles Aznavour who brings a suave smoothness to his character alongside his tragic angst. For, although this film is not primarily a vehicle for ideas, there is some depth to the proceedings. Truffaut and the other New Wave directors were shaped by existentialism, and in this film he addresses issues like personal identity and self-destruction. Still, even if you are not really into existentialism, Shoot the Piano Player is a wonderful and thrilling adventure and has a lot of entertainment to offer.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by François Truffaut. Written by David Goodis, François Truffaut & Marcel Moussy. Running time: 81 minutes.

The Road (John Hillcoat, 2009)

2009-12-04T22:10:00.024-05:00

I was eagerly anticipating seeing The Road ever since this summer when I read Cormac McCarthy's novel on which it is based. The book was superb, and it was obvious that it would also make for a good movie. Still, one thing I refuse to do is compare the two. Even though the film is based on the book, it is a work of art on its own and must stand or fall on its own. For this reason, the common comment that the movie, whatever it may be, is never as good as the book is, essentially, irrelevant. The only question is, "Is the movie a good movie?" And, in this case, the answer is a qualified yes.

At the center of this film are two characters: The Man (Viggo Mortensen) and The Boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee). They aren't given names not because they are meant to be everymen, but rather because they are isolated to such an extent that names would be superfluous. And if there is one thing that The Man detests, it is wasted energy. In the recent past there was some sort of cataclysmic eventthat has left what we see of the world as an ashy, barren wasteland. With the collapse of the society comes the collapse of humanity, with people resorting to absolutely anything in order to survive. There is no food. There is no safety. There is a man and his son, trying to make their way south to the coast.

There have been a great number of post-apocalyptic films, but few are this bleak. This film is certainly not optimistic, but I believe it is realistic about the beauties and horrors of the human soul. Even the most sickening sequences, which thankfully rely not on gore but on imagination, are tied to real world history, as when the house of an organized group of cannibals is shown to include a collection of discarded shoes in an image which reminds the viewer of the real atrocities of the Nazis.

The world itself is well realized by director John Hillcoat. His previous film, The Proposition, was an extremely gritty Western set in the harsh and empty landscape of Australia. Here too his creation of a post-apocalyptic wasteland is convincing. There is no sun. Nothing but cold ash. It is a cruel world, full of danger and hunger. Its ravages are written on the gray face of the Man, who is played with a steely weariness by Mortensen. If there is hope, it is not obvious. They truly are walking in the valley of the shadow of death.

And yet, there are still good guys. The Man and his son retain their morality, although it is sorely tested and stretched in their fight to survive. The psychology of these two, cruelly driven on by the survival urge in an ugly world in which nothing can be trusted, is something the film gets right. In a lesser film they would be seeking escape. On The Road, escapism means giving up and giving up means death. This bleak reality is maintained throughout the film up until its final moments, which end up feeling like a bit of a cheat. Although it is hinted at, it feels too much like deus ex machina in a world that the gods have forgotten.

GRADE: B+

Details: Directed by John Hillcoat. Written by Cormac McCarthy & Joe Penhall. Running time: 112 minutes. Rated 14A.

Orpheus (Jean Cocteau, 1950)

2009-12-02T22:20:00.032-05:00

With his 1946 adaptation of Beauty and the Beast (reviewed here on June 2, 2009), French director Jean Cocteau showed himself to be adept at creating a unique fantasy world in his fairy tale for adults. In his 1950 film Orpheus, Cocteau moves from fairy tale to myth but again brings to life a universe that is intriguing and unique, if somewhat mystifying.

As you may have guessed, this is an adaptation of the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. Classically, the story goes that Orpheus, chief among poets and musicians, loved Eurydice who died. Overcome by grief, Orpheus travels to the underworld and, because of the beauty of his song, convinces Hades and Persephone to release Eurydice but there is a condition: Orpheus may never look at her again! As they reach the land of the living, Orpheus forgetfully glances at his love and loses her forever.

Cocteau's version maintains some of the key elements of the myth, but is a modern updating set in 20th century France. Orpheus (Jean Marais) is France's leading poet, loved by the populace (a hint that we are dealing with fantasy?) but resented by his fellow poets because of his popularity and success. After a dustup at the local poets' hangout in which a young man is hit by some passing motorcyclists, Orpheus is commanded to escort him to the hospital by his companion, a princess. Orpheus is intrigued by the mysterious woman, whose behaviour becomes odder when it is learnt that the young man is dead. She is not an ordinary woman, but rather death herself, serving an underworld bureaucracy which controls our world. When Orpheus' wife Eurydice (Marie Déa) is struck down, he travels to get her back but by then he must sort out his relationships with the two women in his life: his wife and his death.

The plot and characters are interesting, but rather involved. Cocteau's adaptation adds a great deal to the myth, including new layers of complexity. Whichever version you think best, what is beyond doubt is that the layered world Cocteau creates is fascinating. It is a world run by seemingly unaffected but powerful forces embodied in an underworld bureaucracy. Even Lady Death is merely a servant of these fates. Cocteau's use of simple special effects and trick shots, like reversing the film to show the dead coming to life or using a vat of mercury to show Orpheus going through the looking glass, adds interest and some convincing detail to this world.

This is quite a technically brilliant film. The performances are suitably complex, given the complex characters. In fact, not much of it is simple. I expect that this is the kind of movie that would bear repeat viewings. Seeing it for the first time, especially not being overly familiar with the mythological background, I do feel that I missed out on certain details. This film, I'm convinced, as treasures that repeated viewings could uncover. But even the first time, its dreamlike fantasy world and intriguing machinations have a great deal to offer.

GRADE: A-

Details: Directed by Jean Cocteau. Written by Jean Cocteau. Running time: 95 minutes.

Where the Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)

2009-12-02T14:27:00.031-05:00

How does one film an adaptation of a beloved children's book in which there are only ten sentences of dialogue, almost the entire story being told in images? Your first choice to direct such a picture might not be the man behind Being John Malkovich and both of the Jackass movies. But when Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are was set to be put to film, Spike Jonze was the man for the job. His unique sensibilities and visual style tempered by years of experience making music videos matched the unique visual sensibility of Sendak's story.

The story begins with our protagonist: Max, an imaginative young boy. He has an older sister who, unsurprisingly, ignores him in favor of hanging out with her friends. He has a mother who loves him, but whose attention is also taken up with work and a new boyfriend. After an attention grab in a wolf costume that goes wrong, Max runs away and somehow finds himself on an island populated by a bizarre variety of furry creatures. They make him their king, and he attempts to create a world with them in which loneliness and sadness will disappear.

When doing my undergraduate studies in religion/theology, a constant emphasis was on approaching the Bible as a metanarrative. That is to say, the Bible primarily presents a grand story which provides a framework with which we can answer all of the big questions in life. Who are we? Why are we here? We make sense of these questions, and our experience, most often in terms of stories. How is this relevant? Well, the only way that Max can process the realities around him, his experiences and relationships, is by way of creating a story for himself. It is a testament to the power of narrative, both as a means of reflection and personal growth.

Thankfully, Jonze and Sendak have a convincing story to offer. They capture childhood with a remarkable degree of honesty. It is easy to sentimentalize one's younger years, when life as we remember it was easy and carefree, but as Max demonstrates it is a time in which simple joys and pleasures compete with feelings of isolation, insignificance and helplessness. As far as I can read it, the key to this film is its psychological treatment of Max. I would have to see it again to comment further, but Max's wild things are furry embodiments of little bits of himself: his relationships with his mother and sister, his loneliness and longing for acceptance, his appetite for destruction, etc.

Technically, Spike Jonze tells this story very well. If nothing else, he is very good at creating striking visual tableaux and sequences, and this talent serves him well as he brings to life Max's fantasy. It's landscapes, architecture, and inhabitants are suitably unique and engaging. Jonze is, of course, very experienced with merging audio and video, and the indie, post-rock soundtrack adds a lot to the film. It isn't necessarily a children's film, but it is a solid fairytale for adults.

GRADE: A-

Details: Directed by Spike Jonze. Written by Spike Jonze, Dave Eggers & Maurice Sendak. Running time: 101 minutes. Rated PG for mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language.

Equilibrium (Kurt Wimmer, 2002)

2009-11-25T23:30:00.028-05:00

In the first years of the 21st century, a third World War broke out. Those of us who survived knew mankind could never survive a fourth; that our own volatile natures could simply no longer be risked. So we have created a new arm of the law: The Grammaton Cleric, whose sole task it is to seek out and eradicate the true source of man's inhumanity to man - his ability to feel.

With this narrated backstory Kurt Wimmer begins his 2002 film Equilibrium. As you may surmise, it depicts a dystopian vision of the future in a similar vein to novels like Orwell's 1984 or Huxley's Brave New World and films like, well, 1984 or V for Vendetta. In this dystopia there is a metropolis in which every citizen periodically takes an injection that negates their capacity for emotion. They also exercise control over the rundown ghettos which surround the shining city.

John Preston (Christian Bale) is one of the so-called Grammaton Clerics, who essentially enforce the decrees of the Tetragrammaton Council. He seeks out and destroys all contraband that may incite feeling, things from decorations to paintings to books to music, and kills or incarcerates those who give in to emotion. When his partner (Sean Bean) is caught appreciating the beauty of Yeats, Preston is set on a path of self-discovery which puts him at odds with the society he protects.

It has been awhile since I read Bradbury, but as far as I can recollect the plot of this film largely follows that of Fahrenheit 451. In fact, I'm fairly surprised that there were no nods to Mr. Bradbury. Wimmer's Clerics who destroy art are, essentially, the same as Bradbury's firemen who burn books. And, like this film, Fahrenheit 451 is about a man who has an epiphany after encountering the contraband art he was employed to destroy. So, this film doesn't necessarily get full marks for originality but it is more about style than substance. Sure, there is a pseudophilosophical veneer but the heart of the film is not found in ideas but in choreography.

You see, the Grammaton Clerics are not just specialists in the destruction of forbidden items, they are ridiculously skilled, highly trained killing machines. They can kill groups of armed police officers with their hands. They have a sublime expertise with the katana. Most significantly they are rigorously proficient in gun katas, which combine the practiced movement of martial arts with dual-wielded pistols. The conceit is that statistically firefights bear a certain resemblance and that, therefore, a set of trained movements capitalizing on statistical probabilities of enemy placement gives the Cleric a decisive advantage. It is a ludicrous idea, and the extent to which the film pulls it off is a testament to the competent choreography and one's suppression of disbelief.

The plot doesn't really bear much scrutiny. The performances are good. But the selling point of this film is its action scenes. Whether fencing, fighting or shooting the confrontations are ambitious and energetic. The skill with which Preston dismantles his opposition is unstoppable. It may actually be too much, as the tension is lessened due to the fact that one never gets the sense that Preston is vulnerable. His abilities are comic bookish, making him less easy to care about as a character. Still, as a comic book kind of movie Equilibrium has its moments.

GRADE: B-

Details: Directed by Kurt Wimmer. Written by Kurt Wimmer. Running time: 107 minutes. Rated R for violence.

Manufactured Landscapes (Jennifer Baichwal, 2006)

2009-11-23T10:57:00.027-05:00

Manufactured Landscapes, a Canadian documentary directed by Jennifer Baichwal, has one of the most quietly audacious opening shots I have ever seen. The camera simply glides past the aisles of a Chinese factory that assembles small appliances. It may not sound jaw-dropping, but the uninterrupted shot goes on and on for minutes, gradually revealing what certainly must be thousands of quietly efficient workers. Every time you think the shot is over, it just keeps on going.

The central thrust of this film comes from Canadian photographer Edward Burtynsky. It is essentially an expansion on and exploration of a photo exhibit he put together exploring the contemporary landscape. He is not interested in nature as such, but rather in the large-scale physical changes the human race has made to its environment. It is really about the effects, the real physical effects, that our way of life has on the world around us. These effects are massive!

Burtynsky leads us to Chinese factory complexes that are little cities, to a Bangladeshi beach where teams of young men disassemble the hulks of oil tankers, to gargantuan mining operations, and in every setting powerfully reveals the vast impact ordinary economic forces are having on the natural world and those who inhabit it. Through the lens of Burtynsky's camera, every setting takes on a sort of terrible beauty. If nothing else, this film is recommended simply for the images it will indelibly burn into your brain: images of seemingly post-apocalyptic landscapes littered with the skeletons of industry, or of engineering projects that dwarf everything around them, or of startling contrasts between new and old, between natural and artificial.

This is a documentary that raises some interesting and important issues. Now, this is not a preachy film. There is no narrator to hammer home a message, or to guide the audience to a conclusion. It certainly has a perspective, but the purpose of Burtynsky's photos and this documentary is simply to reveal the shocking truth of what it takes to provide humanity with all of the stuff we consume without a second thought. Just like the modern grocery shopper can grill a steak without ever connecting it to the cow from whence it came, it is very easy for the modern man or woman to never really come to terms with where gas, or plastic, or electricity, or kitchen mixers come from.

The film, in its choice of subject matter and its choice of what information to present and how, shows a particular bias. It highlights the dark side of the global economy and of modern industry. Whether or not you share this view, the questions raised by Manufactured Landscapes deserve attention. And at the heart of it, I believe, is not an issue of morality but of practicality. Whether or not you think we are being stewardly in our use of the natural world, is our lifestyle sustainable? When you see the amount of coal it takes to provide electricity to China, you must ask yourself if it's going to last. And if not, what then?

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by Jennifer Baichwal. Running time: 90 minutes.

A Fistful of Dollars (Sergio Leone, 1964)

2009-11-20T22:24:00.042-05:00

"Baxter's over there, Rojo's there, me right smack in the middle...There's money to be made in these parts."

So says the Man with No Name (Clint Eastwood) in a characteristically terse summary of Sergio Leone's classic Western A Fistful of Dollars. The Western genre is one that has largely disappeared from the contemporary filmmaking world, but which has a long and interesting history. From the very beginnings of cinema the medium was used to chronicle the Wild West. Its history is one of the creation, exploration and deconstruction of a series of sets of clichés. You know most of them, probably. The reluctant gunman. The loner who comes to town and defends the helpless. A strict dividing line between good and evil.

A Fistful of Dollars is one of the transitional points of the Western genre. It begins, fairly typically, with a grizzled loner riding into the isolated Mexican border town of San Miguel. This is not an ordinary village. As one character puts it, it is a place in which there are no women, only widows. The reason is that the town has two bosses, the Baxter clan who smuggle liquor over the border and the Rojo clan who smuggle guns. Their violent competition has drawn crowds of hired guns to San Miguel, and respectable folk have largely moved on. Joe, as he is called, decides to stay to make something of the situation. His motivation is unclear, but it is not purely self-interested and certainly not purely altruistic. He cleverly, if dangerously, plays the two sides against each other and eventually ends up in a showdown with the dangerous Ramón Rojo.

This is one of those films that, like Casablanca, didn't seem destined for great things. It was one of the early Spaghetti Westerns, which were European productions shot with Italy and Spain standing in for the American West. Aside from then TV star Clint Eastwood, the cast and crew were comprised of Germans, Italians and Spanish locals who didn't speak English and thus had to be dubbed in postproduction. According to Eastwood, they did not know a great deal about the historical setting. Thankfully, what they did have was a ton of talent and a fresh perspective on a played-out genre.

The major departure made by Leone in A Fistful of Dollars has to do with morality, or the lack thereof. The protagonists of Westerns up to this point, even though they were oftentimes man accustomed to violence and death, always employed their guns and fists in defense of order, and always as a result of some external stimulus. They are men called to action. The protagonist of this film does what he does because of who he is. He is a force that acts on his environment, rather than reacts to it. And he is most certainly not motivated by a moral principle like the sanctity of life. On the contrary, life is cheap in San Miguel.

The film also treats its subject with operatic reverence. The characters and interactions are all larger than life. The landscape is a vast empty stage on which each person plays his part. The direction and editing from Leone, especially the cutting from long shots to close-ups, multiplies the tension when conflicts arise. And the music, especially, gives the film a decidedly epic feel. Ennio Morricone scored this film, along with many other Leone pictures, and the music is brilliant and memorable.

The genesis of this particular film is an interesting story in itself. It is essentially a ripoff of Akira Kurosawa's Western-inspired samurai movie Yojimbo, which in itself was inspired by one or both of Dashiell Hammett's hard-boiled novel entitled Red Harvest and the 1942 noir film The Glass Key. Although Leone cannot get all the credit for developing the plot and characters, he certainly deserves praise for rejuvenating the genre and providing us with one of the classic Westerns.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by Sergio Leone. Written by A. Bonzzoni, Víctor Andrés Catena, Sergio Leone & Jaime Comas Gil. Running time: 99 minutes. Rated PG.

Diva (Jean-Jacques Beineix, 1981)

2009-11-14T15:23:00.028-05:00

Diva, from French filmmaker Jean-Jacques Beineix, is not a simple film to describe. It bridges genres. It has everything from a heartfelt ode to the power of Opera all the way to a fascinating high-speed chase on the streets of Paris. Although it is relatively lightweight throughout, the film's tone switches from time to time. There are serious, if somewhat cartoonish, moments in which bad guys do some seriously bad stuff. The next scene may involve a man chopping onions while wearing a mask and snorkel. No tears!

The plot, when it starts to get going, is equally complex. In one thread we begin with motorbike deliveryman Jules (Frédéric Andréi) as he attends a performance of superstar vocalist Cynthia Hawkins (Wilhelmenia Fernandez). On his lap is a satchel, and inside the satchel is a high-end recording device. You see, Jules is such a huge fan of the brilliant Ms. Hawkins that he likes to relive her performances at home. The only problem is, Hawkins strongly believes in each concert being an unrepeatable event and therefore refuses to be recorded. In the other plot thread we have a pair of detectives trying to get to the bottom of a series of murders of prostitutes. As their story begins they are about to receive an incriminating tape recording that will reveal exactly who is behind these crimes. The two threads come together when Jules' recording of Hawkins' performance is switched with the tape the police are after.

Jules ends up with two sets of nasty people on his tail. There are a pair of Taiwanese thugs who want to profit from his pirated recording, and a pair of thugs who want to destroy the recording that implicates their boss. Thankfully, Jules has people on his side as well: the extremely well-connected polymath Gorodish (Richard Bohringer) and his trusty and capable sidekick Alba (Thuy An Luu). These two are fascinating characters, and were the central characters in a series of novels. Somewhat like Michael Lonsdale's character Jean Pierre in the film Ronin, or Harvey Keitel's The Wolf in Pulp Fiction, or perhaps like a more benevolent Mr. Ripley, Gorodish and Alba have all the resources, connections, street smarts and wisdom to control any situation. Très cool!

The plot, as you might imagine, is incredibly complicated. It is also told with tons of style. Everything is done well, and a few elements are handled brilliantly. The film holds opera to be a source of transcendent inspiration, to the extent that the camera tends to float and ascend when the music starts to play. It seems obvious that the filmmakers are as much audiophiles as their characters. The film also brings something fairly novel to the chase scene, with a sequence on a moped and foot that spans the city streets and the Parisien underground.

GRADE: B+

Details: Directed by Jean-Jacques Beineix. Written by Daniel Odier, Jean-Jacques Beineix & Jean Van Hamme. Running time: 123 minutes.

Easy Rider (Dennis Hopper, 1969)

2009-11-11T21:57:00.028-05:00

"Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em."

Easy Rider, a film that is the child of Peter Fonda and directed by his friend and costar Dennis Hopper, is a fascinating snapshot of a very particular moment in American history. It is the late 1960s. Mainstream American culture is coming under attack from disillusioned youth and younger adults who see the assumed cultural limitations and restrictions to be nothing but a straitjacket. True freedom, to these hippies and outsiders, seems to mean a self-invention that overturns social norms. Freedom and love are the touchstones. The general population are largely unable to deal with the revolution, except in suspicion and violence. This is the stage on which Easy Rider is played out.

As befits its countercultural cred, the film is focused on a pair of antiheroes of a sort. At its outset, Wyatt (Fonda; this character is better known as Captain America) and Billy (Hopper) broker a drug deal that leaves them with a very hefty chunk of cash. And so the two set off on their gorgeous choppers into the great wide open. They are free from every constraint. They have enough money to pay for everything they need or want. They have no schedule to keep. The entire country opens up for them to explore and enjoy. From the outset their encounters with their countrymen, whether they be like-minded hippies and outcasts or hateful yokels and policemen, give a very clear and fascinating image of the world in which this film was made. It is an America that is seemingly in conflict between two different ideas of freedom: the status quo of freedom protected by law and order, and the rebellious freedom of those who overturn every rule.

The film itself is an embodiment of the countercultural values it espouses. The gorgeous cinematography shows the landscape of the Southern states to be a place of limitless opportunity. The horizon is massive. The road goes on endlessly The characters are dwarfed, but this reality is liberating rather than intimidating. The film also makes superb use of audio. This is one of the first movies to use pop music on the soundtrack rather than a score or songs written specifically for the film. The tracks chosen work admirably to establish the mood and setting.

The characters spend a lot of time smoking weed, and this definitely was not simulated by the actors. Purportedly the cast and crew were under the influence throughout the making of this film, and in some ways you can tell. Some strange, staccato editing techniques are used early in the film. Much of the dialogue is improvised, giving it a very low key feel. There is also a bizarre LSD trip sequence which is as mystifying as it is enlightening, but interesting nonetheless. All of this adds to the revolutionary cred of the film. Hopper et al were not content to follow the mainstream guidelines for how to make a film. Although what they came up with is at times offputting, it is always honest and real.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by Dennis Hopper. Written by Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper & Terry Southern. Running time: 95 minutes. Rated 14A.

Darwin's Nightmare (Hubert Sauper, 2004)

2009-11-07T10:59:00.044-05:00

In the 1950s the Nile perch were introduced to Lake Victoria in East Africa. This species is a greedy top-level predator and correctly established itself at the apex of the food chain. Growing up to 6 feet long, and weighing anywhere up to 200 kg as adults, the Nile perch have taken over Lake Victoria in great numbers. They have decimated local populations of native cichlids and tilapia. This movie is not about the Nile perch.

Darwin's Nightmare, a documentary from Austrian filmmaker Hubert Sauper, chronicles the dark side of globalization. I came across this unattributed quote some time ago:

What is a Canadian? A Canadian is a fellow wearing English tweeds, a Hong Kong shirt and Spanish shoes, who sips Brazilian coffee sweetened with Philippine sugar from a Bavarian cup while nibbling Swiss cheese, sitting at a Danish desk over a Persian rug, after coming home in a German car from an Italian movie...

I personally love living in this global village, in which the world is at my fingertips and I can enjoy some of the best that every continent has to offer. This is a beautiful thing. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, the system that delivers all these great things, from diamonds to dinners, to my doorstep is terrifyingly flawed. It is this reality that Sauper highlights by examining the Nile perch fishing in Tanzanian Lake Victoria.

The industry is clearly booming, at least for the time being. Tons of fish are harvested daily. This sounds like a good situation for the locals. They have open access to a good food source, and/or have a good commodity to trade with Europe. And yet, the radio speaks of a famine in Tanzania. How can a country with this abundant resource of food be in dire need of $15 million worth of food aid from the UN? The simple reason is that there is a not so simple imbalance at work.

The film opens with the silhouette of an airplane gliding over the waters of Lake Victoria like that of a hawk. It will land, fill its belly with the best of the fish harvest, and then wing its way back to Europe where consumers will pay a higher price for Nile perch fillets than the average Tanzanian. So, the locals don't really benefit from the Nile perch as a food source. Adding to this, they don't benefit from the Nile perch in trade either. The money doesn't stay with the workers, but fills the wallets of businessmen and politicos.

Essentially, the Nile perch themselves are a metaphor for foreign involvement in Tanzania and in Africa as a whole. They are voracious consumers who took control of Lake Victoria, dominating the local species and putting them at risk. They are bigger and stronger than their competition, and that puts them at the pinnacle of the food chain. As terrifying as this reality is, Sauper builds his case with clarity and precision. Apart from one or two brief episodes, he does not rely on hyper-emotional moments simply to tug at the hearts of his audience. He uses no narrator to guide the audience response. He simply documents the thoughts and lives of some of the people affected by the exploitative situation of Lake Victoria. Because of this straightforward approach, his message carries much less obvious bias and more weight.

This is a film that demands a response of some sort. I watched it with a few friends, and our subsequent conversations have often turned to Darwin's Nightmare. It exposes a real and undeniable problem with the way we live our lives. It offers no simple solution. Personally, I don't believe it is up to outsiders such as Sauper or myself to fix an African problem like this one. However, at the very least we can do our best to stop being part of the problem.

GRADE: A-

Details: Directed by Hubert Sauper. Written by Hubert Sauper. Running time: 107 minutes.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (Stephen Sommers, 2009)

2009-11-06T10:26:00.032-05:00

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra does not come with high expectations. As a film based on action figures (THEY'RE NOT DOLLS!), it is designed not to wow the audience at Cannes but merely to provide some decent escapist entertainment. It is stupid. The plot does not hold together, perhaps due to the fact that there are five credited writers. But it is flashy and exciting enough that, for a forgiving viewer, it has its rewards.

As you might imagine from the title the plot concerns the birth of the villainous Cobra organization. The film begins with a long-established family of nefarious weapons traders who in the modern world are represented by James McMullen (Christopher Eccleston), CEO of the multinational MARS Corporation. Having developed a super weapon, it is entrusted to the American military for transport but, en route, the convoy is attacked by a group of super soldiers led by The Baroness (Sienna Miller). Two survivors from the convoy, best friends Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) are rescued by friendlies with the same super weaponry and skills as the weapons thieves.

These are the G.I. Joes: a secret group of the world's best soldiers! Square-jawed Duke and wise-cracking Ripcord join the Joes and seek to protect the world from proto-Cobra. Lots of stuff gets blowed up real good. National landmarks get dissolved. Ninjas do battle. Hot chicks duke it out. If these are the kinds of things that sound entertaining to you, you may enjoy this film.

Helping matters is the fact that this is a big budget picture, and it looks great. The sets and accessories are cool. The special effects are impressive. It offers up some real spectacle in scenes of disaster and action. Since the characters are based on toys, we don't need a great deal of time spent on deeply nuanced personalities. We want to see them shoot stuff, and the film largely delivers. It also helps that the cast is quite good. Tatum's jaw is sufficiently square. Marlon Wayans is the least annoying of the Wayans brothers, and acquits himself fairly well. The rest of the cast is fine, and contains some superb talents (Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a favourite of mine, as is Jonathan Pryce, but they are both mostly wasted in minor roles (or are they?!)).

It is a very good thing that the film looks great, and has its share of thrills, because unsurprisingly G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is pretty stupid. The characters are defined and redefined at will. The plot is convoluted, and at times nonsensical. It has moments that insult the audience. But I enjoyed watching it. It is not a good movie, but in the right company and with low expectations it can be a good night in.

GRADE: B-

Details: Directed by Stephen Sommers. Written by Stuart Beattie, David Elliot, Paul Lovett, Michael Gordon & Stephen Sommers. Running time: 118 minutes. Rated PG-13 for strong sequences of action violence and mayhem throughout.

The Football Factory (Nick Love, 2004)

2009-10-30T08:45:00.045-04:00

Nick Love's 2004 film The Football Factory gives us a glimpse into the world of British hooliganism. In it we meet Tommy Johnson (Danny Dyer), a Chelsea supporter and his gang of friends, most of whom live only for the weekend tussle with other hooligans. This is a fascinating world of thuggery to explore, and Love attempts to tell the story with as much stylistic flair as he can muster, but unfortunately there is little on offer here.

Back in 1998, director Guy Ritchie revolutionized the British gangster film with Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. It introduced, or at least popularized, a new set of minor clichés: a large cast of colourful, unrepentant criminals; a fast-moving and complex plot; a darkly comic tone; quick and dynamic editing; voiceover narration to introduce characters and plot points; and most importantly, perhaps, dialogue spoken in oftentimes incomprehensible local dialects. Love checks off most things on this list, but somehow misses out on cleverness and energy of Ritchie (or at least, Ritchie at his best). The palette of the film is fairly dull, minimizing the visual impact. Although the film is focused on a culture of violence, the gang wars and individual tussles lack the shock factor due to direction that is only workmanlike. The acting is all right, but everybody seemed second rate. Other than the liberal profanity, I found this film a lot like a made-for-TV version of a Guy Ritchie film.

However, I didn't choose this film for reasons of directorial style and I hadn't seen many (or any) of its cast members in anything else. Its appeal, to me, was the subject matter. I was hoping for some honest insight into the mindset and lifestyle of modern hooligans. Is such a bizarre thing that these gangs are so closely organized around sporting groups. I was disappointed. No real insights into the psychology of hooligans are to be found here beyond the obvious. Sure, Love demonstrates some characteristics of these Chelsea fans. They are largely marginalized, directionless young men who find community and protection among their fellow gang members. They are misogynistic, racist, and fueled by lager, drugs and testosterone. They are locked into a system that allows no simple escape. But an escape is possible: a minor character in the film is an ex-hooligan who now lives an ordinary life.

Here is one major failing of The Football Factory. It describes some facets of the hooligan lifestyle but it is almost without reflection or analysis. No character honestly contemplates his lifestyle and alternatives. Sure, Tommy Johnson is plagued by a premonition that he is on his way to a premature burial but this is more of a nightmare than a serious moment of self-doubt. Tommy's friend Rod (Neil Maskell) flirts with ordinary life, but only because of an attractive "vanilla" girlfriend.

It is one thing for the characters to avoid unpleasant self-analysis, but the film itself largely shares a similar mindset. It presents no real alternative for these young men. We do meet a contrasting positive example of a meaningful life in Tommy's grandfather, a war hero, but his life is entirely and disappointingly empty save for memories of better times and a better world. Every other peek we get at the world outside of hooliganism, the world of everyday people, all the film shows is meaningless busyness and empty, shallow, materialistic lives. It is a juvenile perspective on the world, and one that tends to glorify the chaos of gang life.

GRADE: D

Details: Directed by Nick Love. Written by John King & Nick Love. Running time: 91 minutes. Rated R for pervasive strong language, brutal violence, drug use and some sexuality.

No Country for Old Men (Joel & Ethan Coen, 2007)

2009-10-28T16:52:00.046-04:00

The thematic heart of Joel and Ethan Coen's No Country for Old Men is found especially in its opening and its closing moments. The film begins and ends with two brief monologues from Sheriff Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), an old law man in Texas who thought he had seen it all. His introductory thoughts highlighted the central problem: as he gets on in years, Bell is confronted with new evils that he simply cannot understand. He gets why people are driven to commit crimes of necessity, or crimes of passion, but what about murder for the sake of murder? What can one say in response to such amorality?

Bell is lost in a world that he no longer comprehends. At the outset of the film, good ol' boy Llywelyn Moss is about to encounter that same evil. When hunting in the desert, which is gorgeously shot by longtime Coen cinematographer Roger Deakins, he comes across a drug deal gone awry. Moss is a hard man, and makes off with the abandoned cash, but in doing so he sets on his trail forces that he doesn't comprehend. Chief among them is Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), a hitman of unique principles. Killing is his business, and he likes his work in a twisted kind of way. He is not out for money. He cannot be paid off. If he takes a job, nothing will dissuade him. He is a force, like that of random chance, that for some is in charge of deciding life and death. Uncaring. Remorseless. Amoral. The chain of events set off by Moss's discovery of the cash provides the plot of the film, around which these major characters and others circle.

In many ways, No Country for Old Men is a disconcerting film to watch especially for the first time. It breaks quite a few rules of cinematic storytelling, or narrative in general. Loose ends remain untied at the movie's end. Characters rarely get what they deserve. Most frustratingly, and I hope I'm not spoiling too much here, certain major characters are killed and they meet their end offscreen. Even more strangely, the audience is blindsided by it and doesn't know of their death until it is all over. When time is invested in a character, it usually means that you will be with them in the end. As off-putting as this may be, I've come to realize that it is at the very core of what the Coens are trying to accomplish.

There was a time when heroes in movies wore white hats and villains wore black. There was a time when good guys were rewarded and bad guys were punished. This, especially, is a foundational assumption of films from juvenile slashers like Friday the 13th to Westerns to romantic comedies. When we are slightly baffled by a turn of events in No Country for Old Men, it is as if we were feeling the same bewilderment as Sheriff Bell when confronted with a cruel and uncaring world. We, too, intuitively feel that something is not right about the things that happen in this broken world of ours. It simply does not make sense.

Because of its bleak outlook on the realities of evil in the universe, this film has been critiqued for supporting a nihilistic pessimism. There is no doubt that it is a dark film. The Coens Fargo examines a somewhat similar conflict between good and evil, but the unshakable wholesomeness of Marge Gunderson would seem out of place in this country. Yet because of its closing monologue I would strongly hesitate to call this film nihilistic. It ends with a dream of Sheriff Bell in which he sees his father, a former sheriff who died in the line of duty, as preparing a light in the darkness. There is hope, hope in ideals that are good and true even if they seem inadequate. Still, this is a dream and the waking reality seems to be a harsh and chaotic universe.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by Joel & Ethan Coen. Written by Joel Coen, Ethan Coen & Cormac McCarthy. Running time: 122 minutes. Rated R for strong graphic violence and some language.

Battleship Potemkin (Sergei M. Eisenstein, 1925)

2009-10-26T20:35:00.026-04:00

I think there may be an assumption in the minds of most moviegoers that the history of cinema is one of gradual progress from crude first attempts to the sophisticated output of today. Obviously, there has been development of the artform over the decades, but this assumption belies the fact that some truly great films were made in the early years of moviemaking. It was a time of great artistic innovation, in which the rules of what makes an effective movie were being written and tested and stretched.

One of the more important films from the 1920s is Sergei Eisenstein's epic bit of propaganda titled Battleship Potemkin. It tells the story of a mutiny in which mistreated sailors rose up and overthrew their oppressors and joined the Communist revolution, inspiring their brothers and sisters by their bravery and revolutionary spirit. It is most decidedly epic in its approach to storytelling. As befits a Soviet story, it is not about an individual character or group of characters, it is about the collective spirit of the common man and woman. We don't meet fleshed out people, but rather we meet ideas and history in human garb. It is also epic in its visuals. It helps, I suppose, that Eisenstein has the support of a totalitarian regime with a massive army, as the scale of certain scenes is extremely impressive.

This is undoubtedly Communist propaganda. The conflict between the noble Everyman as embodied by vanguard sailor Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov) and his corrupt and authoritarian superiors is sketched in extreme strokes. The church also comes in for harsh criticism for its duplicity in victimizing the common folk of Russia. There is, of course, an element of truth to this critique. Though it is undeniable that the revolutionary optimism embodied in Battleship Potemkin was cruelly unfounded, and whatever your perspective on the politics, as a piece of art it has real merit.

Eisenstein was both a filmmaker and a theorist. He is especially known for his thoughts on montage or film editing. He taught that the juxtaposition of images in the film could do more than simply signify events, it could also communicate themes and ideas to an audience. For example, after a sequence in which the Potemkin bombards Odessa in retaliation for a massacre of civilians, Eisenstein edits in three quick shots of lion statues in poses that are progressively more alert. It shows the audience nothing about the events themselves, but it clearly shows through a striking image that the rulers have been roused from their slumber and have taken notice of the revolution. This is a clever device, and one that is foundational to modern filmmaking.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by Sergei M. Eisenstein. Written by Nina Agadzhanova & Nikolai Aseyev. Running time: 71 minutes.

Grades

2009-10-24T15:08:00.002-04:00

Much of reviewing films (and perhaps other things as well) is reduced to a simplistic numerical rating: four out of four stars; two thumbs up; etc. This is an unfortunate reality, as the write up with all of its nuance and explanation is so much more important than the rating. For this reason when I set out upon this movie reviewing venture I decided I would avoid the use of a summarizing rating scale. However, I have had second thoughts about this decision. For ease of recommendation a simple rating has its merits. Plus, if opportunity ever arises for me to review professionally it will be useful to have some practice with rating films.

So, I have decided to add a letter grade to all of my reviews. I've gone through those which I have already written and added a grade at the bottom of each. The grades are also included in the labels below each post, so that you can easily discover all of the movies to which I've given a specific score.

I decided to use letter grades so as to have a bit more flexibility in giving ratings. I find a four or five star system unwieldy simply because there are not enough options into which every film must be squeezed. So, here is a very rough outline of what the ratings mean:

A Grade: Films in the "A" range are highly recommended. These are movies which combine real substance with real style, or rich flawlessly excel in one specific area (general entertainment, visual style, importance, etc). They are not to be missed.

B Grade: These are good movies, and are recommended especially to those who are fans of their specific genres. They are competent, if not brilliant. They may, however, be objectionable in content or lacking in one or more areas (performances, plotting, etc).

C Grade: These are poor films that may be elevated by one specific aspect, such as dynamic direction or a good performance. Not totally without merit, but problematic.

D Grade: Poorly made, poorly thought out, unenjoyable. If you are a diehard fan of the genre you may want to check it out, but do so with low expectations.

F Grade: I'm reserving the grade of “F" for films that are both poorly made and irredeemably objectionable. Keep your distance!

The Age of Innocence (Martin Scorsese, 1993)

2009-10-22T10:14:00.028-04:00

Scorsese is the cinematic storyteller of New York City. In his 1993 film The Age of Innocence he turns his attention to New York's high society in the 1870s. Interestingly, if not surprisingly, although America is thought to be the land of opportunity and freedom, a land without the harsh confines of rigid class distinctions, Scorsese reveals the truth that in many ways those imprisoning hierarchies are not so easy to do away with. He presents an America that is very far from the open, frontier mentality that characterizes many popular conceptions of 19th-century USA.

The movie tellingly begins in the opera house, and from the outset it is somewhat difficult to tell the performances on stage from the real lives of the people in the audience. The upper crust do not wear clothes, they wear perfectly presented bits of costume that tell as much about who they are as does the drapery of the divas under the limelight. They do not simply speak their minds. They couch every sentence in highly nuanced and elaborate verbiage. When the members of the haute couture socialize, it is just as much a careful and artful performance as one sees in the theater.

And our players in this drama are focused around the relationship between the young but respected lawyer Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis) and the vivacious but unfortunate young Countess Ellen Olenska (Michel Pfeiffer). Ellen had wed a wealthy European nobleman, but because of his wayward ways she had left him behind and returned to her family in New York. She and Newland meet by way of her cousin May Welland (Winona Ryder), who is Archer's fiancée. And here we have the central dynamic of the plot. May is ideal: she is lovely, dutiful, of good social standing, and she knows her place as a woman of her time and place ought to do. She is happy with her blessed but constrained life. Archer loves her dearly, but is much more progressive in his thoughts than she. Ellen, on the contrary, came to New York in order to be independent and make a life for herself in what she thought was a country free from social rules and regulations. Her spirited response to her somewhat tragic life shows her to be a kindred spirit with the relatively free-thinking Archer. The conflict, then, comes to be between what people know to be right and true and what their community knows to be right and true. It is fascinating to see how social mores undercut real relationships when the truth cannot be plainly spoken.

Now, I am not usually fond of period melodramas but this one is elevated by Scorsese's direction and, especially, by the power of the central performances. Winona Ryder is perfectly cast as the innocent but not naïve young May. Pfeiffer makes the most of the deep character of Ellen Olenska. But stealing the show is Daniel Day-Lewis who surely must be one of the greatest actors of his generation. Every major role in this film is challenging inasmuch as what the characters feel is never stated outright. Their language only hints at the truth of the situation, but in every situation Archer's face clearly shows the reality of his internal life. It may not be the most subtle of performances, but it is exactly what this film needed.

Scorsese could have relied on his mastery of direction and the strong performances to tell the entire story, but unfortunately he ends up utilizing voiceover narration to flesh out what we see on the screen. This is a major misstep. It may be useful to set the stage for the story to have a narrator fill in some background details. And in making the transition from novel to film it is a simple way to include a character's inner thoughts and motivations. But it breaks a cardinal rule of storytelling that commands one to show, rather than tell. We do not need to be told what an actor is feeling; it is up to the director and actor to show us! And when you've got a great director and an even greater actor, nothing more should be necessary.

GRADE: A-

Details: Directed by Martin Scorsese. Written by Edith Wharton, Jay Cocks & Martin Scorsese. Running time: 138 minutes. Rated PG for thematic elements and some mild language.

The Untouchables (Brian De Palma, 1987)

2009-10-22T10:12:00.038-04:00

Brian De Palma's The Untouchables tells the story of the fall of one of the most famous criminals in North American history. During the prohibition era in 20th-century America Al Capone built a massive and lucrative criminal empire based largely on the illegal sale of booze. Through bribery and extortion he controlled the Chicago government and police until G-man Eliot Ness was put on the case. Ness assembled a team of trusted men who could not be bought, the Untouchables, and started to chip away at Capone's organization until the man himself was finally put behind bars.

De Palma puts a good deal of effort into re-creating a period accurate 1920s Chicago, all the way from its architecture to the minute details of wardrobe. It looks and feels quite nice, but really this is just a veneer over a very in accurate retelling of the story. Rather than factual accuracy, De Palma goes for a highly simplified, somewhat comic-bookish adaptation of the history that manages to include much more action and confrontation. This is not, necessarily, a bad thing especially if you are looking for some decent entertainment, but it does make for a bit of a stupid movie with some nasty clichés worked in. It can get a bit insulting, like when a capable hitman is caught because he didn't throw out a matchbook with incriminating evidence written on it, or when an accountant on Ness's team turns into a commando after his friend is wounded in a firefight. For these reasons, De Palma's film cannot be taken seriously but it does work as a fairly exciting adventure story.

The cast is fairly deep with big-name draw. De Niro does very well with Capone, turning him into a volatile kind of ubermensch who controls everything by force of will and ruthless intelligence. He can be jolly if things are going his way, but he does not tolerate failure. Sean Connery, who won a best supporting actor Oscar for this picture, essentially plays himself in the garb of a wily old beat cop. I don't necessarily understand the accolade since virtually all of his performances identical, but he certainly has charisma. Andy Garcia might be the best of the lot, bringing a cool menace to his role as a surer-shooting police cadet. The only real misstep is, unfortunately, an important one as Costner is lackluster in the central role. The character of Eliot Ness is a meaty one: he is driven to take down Capone out of a respect for the law, but it is this nobility that is put under pressure when he takes on a man who will not play by the rules. There is a great deal of internal struggle written into the role, and Costner is simply not sufficiently expressive to communicate the nuances of that struggle. This is partly a failing of Mr. Costner, but partly of the screenplay as well.

The script was adapted by my personal favourite screenwriter: David Mamet. Aside from a few memorable bits of dialogue, this is far from his best work. As mentioned, the plot includes some idiotic clichés. It also creates characters who are supposed to be very smart but makes them do some strange and stupid things. Two examples. First off, when Capone's dangerous hitman is tasked with taking out a crafty Untouchable in his home, he devises a stupidly complicated plan of action when a simple shot through an open window could suffice. Needless to say, the craftiness of the victim is not highlighted in his idiotic demise. Secondly, Ness is presented as a man of intelligence and virtue, but he is so shocked by a nasty insult from one of Capone's men that he kills the man in cold blood. You think he'd be a little more thick-skinned after waging war on the Mafia.

This is not quite an idiot picture, but it is uncomfortably close at times. If you are looking for some simple entertainment you may find it in De Palma's The Untouchables, but don't look for anything more.

GRADE: B-

Details: Directed by Brian De Palma. Written by Oscar Fraley, Eliot Ness & David Mamet. Running time: 119 minutes. Rated 18A.

The Fifth Element (Luc Besson, 1997)

2009-10-21T19:17:00.031-04:00

I wasn't entirely surprised to read on its IMDb trivia page that Luc Besson's The Fifth Element had its origin in a story idea he came up with in high school. The plot of the film plays like a particularly well formed juvenile daydream. Every idea may have begun with the phrase, "Wouldn't it be cool if..." However, this is not a dismissive fact for the simple reason that the film itself is a superb example of escapist entertainment.

It is the future. Our protagonist, Korben Dallas (Bruce Willis), is a lowly taxi driver but he once was a super-skilled fighter pilot and the best soldier in the galactic forces. Although he has seen better days, he is still sarcastically super cool. One day, much like any other, a beautiful and scantily clad young woman literally drops into his cab and turns his boring life upside-down. As it turns out this woman, Leeloo by name (Milla Jovovich), is the key to saving the universe from nefarious arms-dealer Zorg (Gary Oldman) and a seemingly all-powerful nihilistic force. It is up to Dallas to play the white knight by saving all of life and winning the girl. On the way he gets to read high-speed chases through a city in the sky, rub elbows with superstars, take out nasty space pirates in a massive firefight, blow stuff up real good, and romance a perfect specimen of womanhood. Like I say, it is essentially a bit of adolescent fantasy.

The plot, though exciting and sufficiently fast moving, definitely isn't the selling point of this particular film. What has made me watch and rewatch The Fifth Element is the manic stylishness with which the story is told. In the first place, this movie is an audiovisual treat. It is bright and bold and loud and energetic. It includes stunning set pieces, a particular favourite of mine being a futuristic opera edited with a fight scene. It is gleeful, virtuoso directing that gets your heart pounding every time! This is the film that I use to show off my home theater setup.

Backing up Besson's superb direction is almost flawless casting and performances. Willis was born to play the cynical but vulnerable bad-ass, and his portrayal of Korben Dallas could not be better. Jovovich is certainly lovable in this role, although my one complaint is that I never believe her as an action star despite her cinematic resume. She is physically beautiful, but not physically intimidating. Gary Oldman, playing another villain in a Besson film, is absolutely genius. His Nietzschean villain may not have thought through his plans too thoroughly, but Oldman somehow brings something entirely new to his bad guy. He is both menacing and laughable without either characteristic canceling out the other. The rest of the supporting cast is solid.

Although filmed in English, this is a French production. However, it is part of a trend in French cinema that seeks to compete with the big bluster of bloated Hollywood productions. Whatever one thinks of the value of such an approach, it is undeniable that The Fifth Element has something to offer. It may not be philosophically profound, or psychologically deep. It is not incredibly groundbreaking. But one reason people go to see movies is to escape, for a few hours, into fantasy. What movies can offer is an intoxicating depiction of a strange new world in which one can imagine great adventures taking place. It is this type of cinematic daydreaming that Besson has mastered here.

GRADE: B+

Details: Directed by Luc Besson. Written by Luc Besson & Robert Mark Kamen. Running time: 126 minutes. Rated PG-13 for intense sci-fi violence, some sexuality and brief nudity.

Away We Go (Sam Mendes, 2009)

2009-10-02T23:03:00.024-04:00

Yes, Sam Mendes' Away We Go is an indie comedy centering around a road trip. Yes, it is quirky. Yes, it is stocked with zany characters. Yes, it will remind you of Little Miss Sunshine, or Juno, or to a lesser extent the works of Wes Anderson. Although this may not be the most original of films, stylistically at least, it does have its charms.

By means of vignettes from the life of Burt (John Krasinski) and Verona (Maya Rudolph), Away We Go offers a light but heartfelt examination of what it means to be a parent and of what it means to be home. We meet this unmarried but very committed couple at the moment that they discover that Verona is pregnant. Along with happiness, this discovery brings with it a question: where should they raise their child? Because of their work and family situation, Burt and Verona are not tied down to anything. And so, they visit family and friends in various cities in order to find the best home for them and their child. On the way they meet various couples and parents who offer a variety of perspectives on parenting and life in general.

These encounters provide the film with its comedy and pathos. They meet parents who essentially ignore their children in order to focus on their own empty happiness. They meet parents who go to the opposite extreme of being a little too close to their children. And they meet more realistic parents who struggle with real issues like infertility and separation. The film is a bit uneven, with examples of unbelievably bizarre behaviour alongside more mundane reality, but each separate vignette is well made.

The performances are good, and they need to be. The cast includes some top-notch actors, like Catherine O'Hara, Jeff Daniels and Maggie Gyllenhaal, and each one adds believability to some pretty out-there characters. Fans of NBC's The Office will no doubt enjoy seeing John Krasinski who essentially plays Jim on the big screen. He may not demonstrate a great deal of range, but Krasinski does prove that he can perform as a straight man in the movies as well as he does on TV.

GRADE: B-

Details: Directed by Sam Mendes. Written by Dave Eggers & Vendela Vida. Running time: 98 minutes. Rated R for language and some sexual content.

All About Eve (Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1950)

2009-09-28T22:36:00.029-04:00

After the horors of World War II, with its shattering revelations of the dark depths of the human soul, it is not surprising that there are quite a few cynical and dark films from the 1950s. Billy Wilder's Ace in the Hole, reviewed here back on March 29, 2009, is one example. Joseph L. Mankiewicz's All About Eve is another, this one giving us a scathing treatment of self-destruction and coldheartedness as embodied in a group of theater elites in 1950s New York.

The film is bookended by a hoity-toity award show to which only the best of the best of the theater world are invited. The prestigious Sarah Siddons Award is being handed to the young but prodigiously talented (if the verbiage is to be believed) Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter). She is lovely. She is gracious. The crowd is delighted, or most of them are. The camera picks out a few people who have not joined in the applause, and it is this group of friends and acquaintances who provide the film with its plot.

At the heart of the story we have Margo Channing (Bette Davis), the brightest star on the stage but whose 40-odd years mean she is becoming less suitable for the roles of the young characters at the center of great plays. Her actor boyfriend, Bill Simpson (Gary Merrill), is a leading man with no pretentious ideas about his place in the universe of entertainment. Lloyd and Karen Richards (Hugh Marlowe and Celeste Holm) are the playwright and his wife who provide Margo and Bill with their legendary roles and who are their friends. On the fringes, there is also powerful theater critic Addison DeWitt (George Sanders) who has a very weighty pen and enough pride and pretension to go around. Young Eve enters this group of friends and colleagues as a fervent admirer, and her interactions that challenge relationships and reveal the souls of each character fuel the plot.

As befits a plot with actors at its core, this is an actors film. It gives juicy characters with meaty dialogue to a fantastic cast. Every major character is perfectly played, along with a few minor ones as well (including a magnetic turn from a young Marilyn Monroe), but the standards are Bette Davis and Anne Baxter. Baxter's Eve is imbued with layer upon layer of depth, each of which is subtly evident from the start. Davis does steal the show, however. In a role that fits her perfectly, she creates a character in Margo Channing that is both vulnerable and untouchable. She is a cynic who holds people off with a vitriolic wit, but who recognizes her own faults and seeks to get past them. She is not always a model of good behavior, but she is very real and always captivating. Every actor is assisted by Mankiewicz's superb script which is as clever as it is honest.

There are certain elements of the film that date it. Its perspective on gender and relationships is quite outdated. But what it reveals of human nature is, of course, eternal. It has something useful to say on the topics of fame, and of personal identity and hero worship. These lessons it offers are still relevant, and have been addressed by recent films (for example, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford which I reviewed back on March 1, 2009). Moreover, like all of the greatest movies, it embodies these issues in an engaging story with interesting characters. The lessons may not be pleasant, they may point out weaknesses in human nature, but they are nonetheless true.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Written by Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Running time: 138 minutes. Rated PG.

District 9 (Neill Blomkamp, 2009)

2009-09-27T22:14:00.028-04:00

District 9, from director Neill Blomkamp, at the moment sits at #71 on the IMDb's Top 250 movies of all-time. This tells us two things. First, this fact provides evidence that the IMDb's Top 250 is a bit of a joke. But secondly, it is clear that there is something about this film that has won it a large following. I can say in all honesty that it deserves all of its popularity. It uses the science fiction genre to capably tell an interesting story with some solid subtext and depth.

Here is the backstory, presented to us in faux documentary style: A massive alien ship came to earth and stopped above the city of Johannesburg where it hovered in silence. Humanity, eager for first contact, cut its way into the ship where it found, not super intelligent greys or aggressive invaders with laser guns, but a vast number of malnourished and disorganized creatures. These aliens, which came to be known somewhat pejoratively as "prawns" based on their resemblance to a local insect, were shuttled down to earth and housed in a camp just outside the city. Although a humanitarian (humanoid-itarian?) initiative, by the time the events of the movie take place in the year 2010, this complex called District 9 precisely resembles the poverty and chaos of a ghetto.

This is not, according to the IMDb, a South African movie. However, it is a South African movie. The cast is South African. The writer/director is South African. The film is set entirely in South Africa, and its setting adds a brilliant layer of subtext. The treatment of the prawns is consciously presented as a new apartheid, and District 9 is identical to the townships on the fringes of the South African metropolises. In fact, sequences showing the streets of District 9 were filmed in a real shantytown outside of Johannesburg that was set to be evacuated. The visuals, the sounds and the music are exactly what you would see in modern day South Africa, minus the aliens.

In this near-future alternate Johannesburg, we find our protagonist: Wikus Van De Merwe, an employee of military contractor Multinational United (MNU). Wikus is made responsible for a massive relocation scheme that involves infecting all the prawns from District 9 and shipping them off to a brand-new camp farther away from human civilization. While on his mission he is exposed to a foreign substance that changes his life and sets in motion a series of events that reveal to us the realities behind human-alien interaction. I'll let you discover the details for yourself.

This is a fine bit of science fiction filmmaking. It creates an interesting world with a novel twist. Movie aliens are so often presented as highly culturally developed and sophisticated, as one might expect from their highly developed technology. Now, there are films that present aliens to be more akin to semi-intelligent animals. But those that show us humanoid extraterrestrials, like Star Trek or Star Wars, treat aliens and humans as if they are different yet equal. What District 9 offers is a bleaker but more realistic perspective. Historically speaking, humanity has not been quick to include those that it feels are somehow other. On the contrary, we are quick to dehumanize those on the margins. It is this xenophobia that Blomkamp capably highlights.

There is also a message about the danger of big corporations that reduce lives to bare dollars and cents. You will not be surprised to find out that MNU is a fairly nefarious organization. This may be the film's biggest misstep, as the villainous capitalist is incredibly cliché and District 9 doesn't bring any new insights on the matter. There are other flaws. There are certain details of the plot that do not hang together very well. The film abides by filmmaking clichés such as the hero's/major villain's death exemption. But most of these imperfections are very minor and nitpicky. Blomkamp has put together a very good movie, one that uses a fascinating setting and interesting characters to tell a story that is both intellectually engaging and viscerally entertaining (though not always pleasant to watch, be warned). It may not be better than Rashômon (IMDb's #77) or Blade Runner (#113), but it is nevertheless a great science fiction offering.

GRADE: B+

Details: Directed by Neill Blomkamp. Written by Neill Blomkamp & Terri Tatchell. Running time: 112 minutes. Rated R for bloody violence and pervasive language.

Annie Hall (Woody Allen, 1977)

2009-09-24T21:59:00.030-04:00

This is my first foray into the world of Woody Allen. As much as he is a respected filmmaker I've never been in a hurry to see an Allen picture, likely because of Allen himself and his bizarre romantic relationships. In this film, among others I imagine, Allen virtually plays himself or at least his Woody Allen persona and yet I found myself liking the character despite his faults.

Allen plays Alvy Singer, a New York City comedian who is plagued by cynicism and some self-destructive habits that make lasting relationships difficult. He has been divorced twice, and his relationship with longtime girlfriend Annie Hall (Diane Keaton) has come to an end. Most of the film is told from the perspective of Alvy, and there are even moments at which he addresses the audience directly, giving us a good glimpse into the workings of his psyche. He is unable to find happiness in life. More than that, he is unable to believe that happiness exists! He cannot conceive of a real possibility that somebody with a sane and realistic grasp of the way the world works could be anything but miserable. This leads him to mistrust his friends and lovers, and to look every gift horse in the mouth. Real relationships with Alvy tend to fall apart, simply confirming his mistrust of happiness.

Singer is also nervous to the point of paranoia, rather self-obsessed and controlling, and he has a juvenile fixation on sex. So far, he may not sound like a character that you would want to spend an hour and a half with. Yet despite his many glaring flaws, you cannot help but feel a certain fondness for Alvy Singer. He is intelligent, if somewhat pretentious. He is incredibly clever, and has a sharp wit and superb sense for comedy and timing. He can be kind and charming, in his own way. He is also the kind of pitiful individual that you can't help but root for.

Part of Singer's likability comes from the basis for his pronounced gloominess. It isn't due to his own hard luck story. The key is to be found rather in the stories of others. Singer is fascinated by The Sorrow and the Pity, a documentary about French resistance to the Nazis. Compared to the lives of his compatriots just a few decades earlier, Singer lives a blessed life but therein lies the problem. He suffers from survivor's guilt. While other human beings are suffering, what right does Alvy Singer have to ignore their trials and smile and laugh? This is not a healthy way of living, but there is something honest about Singer's recognition of the powerful importance of human suffering.

Allen's performance is superb, but to a large extent he is safe in the comfort zone of playing himself. His direction is also superb, with a mastery of comic timing. The rest of the cast is also excellent. Diane Keaton's performance in the title role is especially notable. Her Annie Hall is a complex but lovable mix of shy vulnerability and bubbly joie de vivre. She is loving and, despite what she may think, intelligent. You can tell the caliber of the cast from the fact that it includes Carol Kane, Christopher Walken, Paul Simon and Shelley Duvall (not to mention cameos by Jeff Goldblum, Truman Capote and Marshall McLuhan).

Woody Allen's output may have dipped in quality over the past decade or two, at least according to Rotten Tomatoes, but his comedy has lived on in the careers of modern comic giants like Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David. Fans of their work should definitely acquaint themselves with that of Allen.

GRADE: A-

Details: Directed by Woody Allen. Written by Woody Allen & Marshall Brickman. Running time: 93 minutes. Rated 14A.

The Butcher (Claude Chabrol, 1970)

2009-09-09T14:40:00.016-04:00

It is a small French town, in which one finds a tightknit community. Most everybody knows most everybody else. It is, in many ways, idyllic. Yet all is not well. The peace is broken by a series of brutal murders. Young women are found stabbed to death in a most violent fashion. An unhinged killer is seeking prey. In the midst of this situation we find Helene (Stéphane Audran), a schoolteacher who is cool and always in control, and Popaul the local butcher (Jean Yanne) who is haunted by his wartime experiences. Their relationship and the impact it has on the little world around them provide a focus for the film.

There are a few things that Claude Chabrol got right when making The Butcher. The characters have some psychological depth to them. Helene is distant and unemotional, and Popaul is a tortured soul underneath a thin shell of self-control. The lead performances are both very good. The style of the film is subtle, but notable. Chabrol is very confident with his mastery over the camera and its movement. He does not engineer remarkable set pieces, but instead creates an air of surprising suspense and voyeurism. It won't leave your heart pounding, at least not often, but that isn't the point here.

Still, I did not find myself connecting with this film. I was not incredibly engaged in what was going on and did not care a great deal about what happened to the characters. Part of that may be my own fault, with the film's subtlety passing me by, but in all honesty this is not the kind of memorable film that grabs you from the very first scene. It has something for the serious moviegoer, but the rewards it offers must be diligently sought out.

GRADE: B+

Details: Directed by Claude Chabrol. Written by Claude Chabrol. Running time: 87 minutes.

Shakespeare in Love (John Madden, 1998)

2009-09-09T14:34:00.017-04:00

Shakespeare in Love, from director John Madden, is a Best Picture winner along the lines of last year's Slumdog Millionaire. It is an entertaining crowdpleaser with romance and intrigue and comedy. It certainly is not on the same level as classic Best Pictures like On the Waterfront or The Godfather, but it is a fairly pleasant and well-made movie.

The plot begins with Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) in a bit of trouble. He has promised to provide another play for his benefactors, but the muse has left him. Suffering from writer's block, he hopes to find the inspiration that will allow him to produce greatness, but is luckless until he encounters Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow), a beautiful young noblewoman who adores his writing. After an extended meet-cute, of a sort, they fall madly in love. As you no doubt expect, there are large barriers put in the way of their relationship. Viola is to be married to a jerk of a nobleman. Shakespeare is a married womanizer. But, and I don't believe I'm spoiling anything here, true love prevails! Inspired, Shakespeare writes Romeo and Juliet.

The film is, as I've said, well made. The performances are good. Paltrow is as lovely as she needs to be for the picture to work. Madden, and the cast as a whole, have a good sense of comedy and the tone of the film is light and funny. Still, it does have some serious flaws.

Most basically, some characters lack a sort of permanence and seem to change from scene to scene. The most egregious example is that of Queen Elizabeth who is introduced as a lowbrow lover of cheap slapstick and stupid onstage antics but who, by the end of the film, is a shrewd connoisseur of the finest that culture has to offer. It is a bit jarring. More importantly, the film itself shows disdain for lowest common denominator entertainment but it is, by and large, the type of entertaining fluff it critiques. Finally, it seems to want to be a grand statement on true love but I think it is dishonest. The type of love shared by Shakespeare and Viola is that which one sees only on the movie screen. They are young, beautiful, obsessed with each other, and can seemingly make love for days on end. Honest true love, I fear, is somewhat more mundane. It is interesting that (Spoiler Alert!) the film does not allow the two lovers to be united forever. Cooling ardour and the onset of old age would undercut their love rather than strengthen it.

But when all is said and done, Shakespeare in Love may be somewhat unworthy of any sort of deep analysis. It is not meant to be an important statement on the human condition, or any such lasting thing. It is meant to be a bit of escapist entertainment. It is meant to put a smile on your face, a laugh on your lips, and perhaps even a little tear in your eye. With these goals in mind, it is certainly a success.

GRADE: B

Details: Directed by John Madden. Written by Marc Norman & Tom Stoppard. Running time: 123 minutes. Rated R for sexuality.

Au Revoir Les Enfants (Louis Malle, 1987)

2009-09-09T13:43:00.016-04:00

I am convinced that all art is autobiography, and few films are so obviously autobiographical as Louis Malle's haunting Au Revoir Les Enfants. As a child of wealthy parents in World War II France, Malle was sent to an exclusive Catholic boarding school. While he was there, he witnessed a Nazi raid on the premises in which a Jewish teacher and three Jewish students were rounded up to be sent off to concentration camps along with the headmaster who was guilty of harboring such undesirables. All four died. As you may expect, being a witness to such injustice had a profound effect on Malle and his 1987 film follows his recollections very closely.

The title of this film is literally "Farewell Children," but it may be as much a farewell to childhood itself. Our protagonist is Julien Quentin (Gaspard Manesse), a popular boarding school student with influence among his peers. One year, during the war, Jean Bonnet (Raphael Fejtö) joins his class. The the film focuses on the growing relationship between the two, as Julien comes to know more about who Jean really is and what that really means given the world in which they live.

Malle offers an understated film. Despite his close connection to this particular picture, he does not give in to sentimentality or forced emotion. He simply allows his camera to observe the interactions between the characters. Thankfully, Malle also is honest in his depiction of childhood relationships. This is not an easy thing to get right. There is a tendency in film and literature to depict children as wise innocents, uncorrupted by adult vices. Instead, Malle reveals the truth that children are sometimes wise, sometimes foolish, sometimes noble, sometimes petty.

The relational realism, if you will, of this picture is what gives it its emotional punch. You cannot help but realize that there is a truth to these characters and that there is an honesty to what happens on the screen. You care for Julien and Jean, and you care about what happens to them. And when their insular world is breached, you can't help but feel that you've lost something of value.

GRADE: A-

Details: Directed by Louis Malle. Written by Louis Malle. Running time: 104 minutes.

The Fall of the House of Usher (Jean Epstein, 1928)

2009-08-27T17:50:00.013-04:00

Jean Epstein's The Fall of the House of Usher is an exercise in style more than anything else. Although the film shares its title with Edgar Allan Poe's story, its plot doesn't retain much of what Poe included. We do have the ominous titular estate, visited by Allan (Charles Lamy) who was a childhood friend of Sir Roderick Usher (Jean Debucourt). What Allan finds is a man possessed by melancholy and madness, obsessed with painting a portrait of his forlorn wife Madeleine (Marguerite Gance). They are obsessed with death, their lives as empty and lifeless as their surroundings.

This film, shot in 1928, is a relatively early example of the horror genre and what Epstein seeks to produce is not primarily an engaging plot but rather a feeling. He wants the audience to feel the dread experienced by the characters on the screen. He relies on a dreamlike tone and disconcerting visuals to create the feeling of a Gothic nightmare. In particular, Epstein's use of slow-motion is notable. He capably creates a disorienting setting in which things are a little off, a little abnormal. The setting is also a highlight, with vast empty rooms seeming to highlight the barrenness of those who inhabit them.

This approach to the genre is one I can appreciate. It takes no great artistry to shock an audience with spring-loaded cats and other jump scares, or with blood and guts. It does take some artistry to create a feeling of dread without resorting to the excesses of the majority of horror films.

This is not to say, however, that Epstein's film is a total success. Much of the imagery is difficult to decipher. There were times when I didn't even know what I was looking at, never mind why I was looking at it. I never really connected with any of the characters, and at times couldn't grasp their motivations. This is certainly an artistic picture. Its artistry is its strength, but also provides a weakness when it leaves the audience [read: me] behind.

GRADE: B-

Details: Directed by Jean Epstein. Written by Edgar Allan Poe, Luis Buñuel & Jean Epstein. Running time: 63 minutes.

After Hours (Martin Scorsese, 1985)

2009-08-07T14:58:00.022-04:00

I didn't know much about Scorsese's 1985 picture After Hours before watching it. I only knew that it was about a man who got stuck in the wrong part of town in New York City in the middle of the night and struggled to get back home. With Taxi Driver in mind, I was expecting a harsh and gritty portrayal of New York's dark underbelly. What I got was something very, very different but pleasantly surprising.

What After Hours actually has to offer is a bit of surrealist dark comedy. Paul Hackett (Griffin Dunne) is a 1980s era office worker, a word processor in specific. One evening while he is reading at a diner, a beautiful young woman named Marcy (Rosanna Arquette) strikes up a conversation out of the blue and gives him her number. When he calls later that same evening, she invites him to her shared studio apartment in Soho but from the very outset his late-night adventure takes a turn for the bizarre.

Almost every single person he meets during that fateful night is a little bit off, a little unhinged. Actually, not just a little bit. Paul is the character that we can identify with. He is the sane voice in a mad world that we the audience can identify with. But his perfectly normal behavior and attempts at conversation produce perfectly abnormal reactions. Nothing he can say or do turns out well for him. It is not just the people he meets that are driven to turn on Paul, even the divine seems to have it in for him. Seemingly random circumstances combine to prevent him from simply making his way back home. Every newly opened door slams in his face leaving him lost and bewildered.

While watching I could not help but see Paul as a sort of Kafkaesque victim of circumstance. The filmmakers clearly had this in mind as well, as one conversation from the film is taken directly from a parable in Kafka's The Trial. What Kafka mastered, and what Scorsese's direction and Joseph Minion's script offer as well, is presenting us with an insane world but nevertheless making it believable and somehow natural. Although all the people Paul meets are a bit wacko, they remain characters with personality and depth. They remain human beings, rather than zany stereotypes.

When watching a film like this I have a natural tendency to look for allegory. I thought each character I met stood for something, or some elusive type. The more I think about the more I think I was on the wrong track. But even if I'm not mistaken, and there is no great complex meaning to the goings-on of this film, it is still a definite success. I will admit that I have not been the biggest Scorsese fan. I haven't seen all of his work, not even close, but the only one that has impressed me (although still leaving me with a negative feeling) was Taxi Driver. After Hours is my new favourite Scorsese film.

GRADE: A-

Details: Directed by Martin Scorsese. Written by Joseph Minion. Running time: 97 minutes. Rated 14A.

The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, 2008)

2009-08-06T16:54:00.020-04:00

The Hurt Locker, a film set in the conflict in Iraq from director Kathryn Bigelow, is not really focused on plot. What it offers is a bit of a character study of the type of person that feels most at home within the dangerous chaos of a warzone. Specifically, we get a glimpse of the psyche of the kind of person who volunteers to handle improvised explosive devices. These are not quite suicide missions, but they come pretty close.

The film begins with a quotation from journalist/writer Chris Hedges: "The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug." The truth of this statement is demonstrated in the actions and attitude of our protagonist, Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner). James is the man who defuses the explosives before they can destroy lives and property. He is supported by the cautious and professional Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and the nervous Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty). James is neither cautious nor nervous. An expert at his job, he is nevertheless entirely reckless when it comes to his own personal safety. Rather than use a robot, from a distance, to take care of the explosives he prefers to put on his suit and get down and dirty with his bare hands. When you see him enjoying a cigarette after a successful mission, you realize that he is coming down from a high. He is addicted to the rush of danger, and ordinary life no longer holds interest for him.

The characters in this film are genius, and the setting is equally well done. Whenever the soldiers leave the base and head to some local neighborhood to dispose of a bomb, we share in their experience and emotions. It is a world fraught with danger. Any moment some unseen sniper may open fire. At any second, the bomb could obliterate these men. The locals are unpredictable. When they try to strike up a conversation, are they simply curious or are they trying to cause a diversion, to divert attention away from where the real danger lies.

The title itself unifies these two elements of character and setting. The young men we meet have been put into the proverbial hurt locker, a world of pain in which suffering seems inevitable. But James revels in it. He keeps a less metaphorical hurt locker under his cot: a stash of components of all the different bombs that could have reduced him to mangled flesh. They are souvenirs that connect him to the excitement and joie de vivre he experiences when putting his life on the line.

In every respect this is a well-made film. The casting is perfect, aside from a somewhat distracting visit from Ralph Fiennes and Guy Pearce. Filming in the Middle East rather than on the backlot adds a lot to the atmosphere. The Hurt Locker benefits from what Werner Herzog calls the voodoo of location.

As a film set within a controversial contemporary conflict, there is a danger that the film may be used simply to make a statement rather than to tell a story. Bigelow avoids this danger capably. Her film does have something to say, but its stand is not on top of a soapbox. It is simply about the characters it presents, and in that way it characterizes the larger geopolitical setting.

GRADE: B

Details: Directed by Kathryn Bigelow. Written by Mark Boal. Running time: 131 minutes. Rated R for war violence and language.

Defiance (Edward Zwick, 2008)

2009-08-03T16:06:00.018-04:00

Defiance, from filmmaker Edward Zwick, is based on the true story of a group of Jews in Eastern Europe who resisted the Nazis and survived World War II by creating a hidden community in the forests of what is now Belarus. This is perfect fodder for a good movie, but Defiance never quite reaches its potential. The film is lacking in a central focus or thrust, and scattershot in its thematic approach to the events and characters.

The film begins with the Bielski brothers escaping to the forest where they plan to live out the war in hiding, living off the land along with the support of some sympathetic locals. Their solitude is threatened when they come across more and more Jewish refugees looking for a safe place to live. Will this growing community survive? Will they succumb to the Nazis? Will starvation do them in? These were the questions that came to my mind, but they do not form the core of this film. Rather, the story arc follows the relationship of the two eldest Bielskis: Tuvia (Daniel Craig) and Zus (Liev Schreiber). Zus wants to take the offensive against their enemies, to form a fighting force rather than a community. Tuvia feels that revenge is too costly, and that they have a responsibility to protect everybody that comes to them for aid. Both Tuvia and Zus want to be in charge, and their differing responses to their situation lead them to conflict.

To be honest, this may be a misstep from the outset. Against the backdrop of the Holocaust, the relationship of our Bielski brothers just doesn't seem significant enough to provide a unifying thrust to the film. Their sibling rivalry seems more like a distraction from the real story than the story itself. I care a lot more about the community, if and how it survives, than whether or not Tuvia and Zus get along.

Though the Bielski brothers provide the core of this picture, thrown in to the storyline are a huge variety of different little subplots. We have a few different love stories. We have a mutiny that seems to come from almost nowhere and disappears just as fast. We have crises of religious faith in the face of great suffering. We have an examination of the effects of revenge. We explore the relationship of these Jewish hideaways with their neighbours in surrounding villages, and with their Russian 'allies'. We have action scenes. The list goes on and on.

What each added subplot and thematic exploration means is that none of them are done well. There simply isn't enough time to handle the issues raised, some of which are incredibly serious, with enough depth. The film does a lot of things, but none of them particularly well. It makes for an unfulfilling viewing experience.

GRADE: C-

Details: Directed by Edward Zwick. Written by Clayton Frohman, Edward Zwick & Nechama Tec. Running time: 137 minutes. Rated R for violence and language.

Gran Torino (Clint Eastwood, 2008)

2009-07-28T09:32:00.018-04:00

I thought writing this review would be easy, but it has turned out to be a real challenge. The problem is that Clint Eastwood's latest offering is so very good that I hesitate to offer my comments. Everything I write will be virtually worthless in comparison with the film itself. Really, rather than reading this you should simply watch/rewatch the movie.

Gran Torino is focused on a single character: Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood). Walt doesn't fit. He is a man out of place, one left behind by the progress of time. His ignorant, knee-jerk racism leaves him isolated in his neighbourhood, his old neighbours having been replaced by Asian immigrants. His immaculately kept and flag-bedecked property looks like it doesn't belong, much like its owner. Walt is also cut off from his family. As the movie begins he is at the funeral of his beloved and lovely wife. He has two sons and some grandchildren, but no relationship with any of them. At the funeral, the priest brings up life and death. Walt Kowalski has lost touch with the living, but knows death very well from his haunting memories of his time in the Korean War.

There are two forces trying to bring Walt back to life. First off, there is the babyfaced Padre, Father Janovich (Christopher Carley), who promised Walt's wife that he would bring Walt back into the confessional, and therefore back into the Spiritual care of the Church. From the beginning, Walt sees him only as an inexperienced fool who knows nothing but promises anything. Secondly, there are Walt's next-door neighbours, a somewhat impoverished family of Hmong immigrants from South Asia. Walt is introduced to the youngest, Thao (Bee Vang), when the young man unsuccessfully tries to steal his prized ‘72 Gran Torino in order to gain entry into a Hmong gang. Gradually Walt gets to know Thao and his family, and realizes that he has a great deal in common with them despite their cultural differences.

Now I'm making it sound like a feel-good film about all of us just getting along, which is definitely inaccurate. This is a harsh film about a harsh reality, with some very nasty characters. Our protagonist is a little bit Dirty Harry. He runs up against gangsters of various kinds who are capable of great unpleasantness. It is not a nice movie, but it is a great one. It reveals something of what true life really means, and does so by examining hatred and love, selfishness and self-sacrifice.

Eastwood is no longer a young man. He must have been 77 or so while making this film, and I think it shows. There is an experienced wisdom and an unhurried pace to the film that is refreshingly against the grain of contemporary, hyper-edited and juvenile cinema. Perhaps the best way I can sum it up is to say that Gran Torino is a graceful picture, and you can take that any way you please.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by Clint Eastwood. Written by Nick Schenk & Dave Johannson. Running time: 116 minutes. Rated R for language throughout, and some violence.

Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1989)

2009-07-21T16:17:00.017-04:00

Do the Right Thing, Spike Lee's most acclaimed joint, is a story centered around the character Mookie (Spike Lee). However, it isn't really a movie about Mookie. He has the most screen time, and for the most part the camera follows him around, but the main character, I would say, isn't Mookie but rather the neighbourhood in which the plot unfolds. This is an ensemble piece, with a large cast of diverse characters, but at the very core of everything we see, every life we peek into, is the neighbourhood itself. The setting, and its impact on its inhabitants, drives the plot forward. At the end of the film we may not have seen the heart and soul of each human player, but we have seen the very depths of the neighbourhood and how it works.

For the most part, Lee's depiction of life in a poor New York neighborhood on a sweltering summer day is a dark one despite the oppressive sunlight. To be fair, many of the characters we meet seem to be good people. There are exceptions, like the racist and overbearing Pino (John Turturro), and there are plenty of flaws to go around, from alcoholism to violence, but one can identify and even admire most of the people we meet. They are capable of kindness and bravery, of sharing wisdom and humour. So it is not the people themselves that make Do the Right Thing a difficult film to watch at times, not who they are, but rather what they become, what they are driven to.

Lee sets up a dichotomy that Radio Raheem (Bill Nunn) illustrates. On his left hand he wears a set of knuckles that spell out "HATE" and on his right the word "LOVE". Commenting on his jewelry, Rahim tells Mookie that "The story of life is this: Static. One hand is always fighting the other hand". This, coupled with his ever present boombox constantly exhorting everyone within earshot to fight the powers that be, give us a sense of the world Lee creates (or re-creates) on the screen. It is a world in which average people in most every situation are presented with a choice between doing the loving thing or exercising hatred. Unfortunately, for reasons both internal and external, they are always pushed towards the latter. Due to our imperfections, and due to the sorrows, discomforts and injustices inherent in this broken world, it is much too easy to succumb to the power of hatred. In this neighbourhood, hate often takes the form of racism and violence.

Watching the film I was affected by the message. I wanted a happy ending badly. I wanted some sage character to dispense some wisdom and wanted everybody to listen. Unsurprisingly, I wanted love to trounce hatred every time. I am an optimist at heart, and I want to believe that good people will do the right thing no matter what the circumstance. Lee, I believe, is more of a realist. There are no easy solutions to the problems this film brings up: surface problems like unemployment and poverty and substance abuse, but also the deep issues of systems and the human heart. It was interesting, if somewhat depressing, to have watched this film a little while after seeing a BBC documentary in which Louis Theroux visited a Philadelphia neighbourhood notorious for dangerous crime. There too he encountered the poverty, mistrust and hatred that traps these neighbourhoods in their misery. I may not like to admit it, but there is a truth to Lee's portrayal of life.

I say the film is realistic, but not stylistically. Although it is a portrayal of real life, it is difficult to miss the fact that what we are witnessing is a movie. The characters, in many instances, are very broad, even archetypes. If I may put it this way: they are characters rather than people. Generally, I find this approach to be lacking in emotional power. There is something cold and impersonal about onscreen stereotypes, but not in this case. Lee is not presenting a slice-of-life bit of drama, but rather a thesis about the world and its operations. This does mean the film can feel a little bit preachy, but it does not take away from the power and the significance of the message. Lee ends the film with two quotations, the first of which I thought best:

Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys a community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers (Martin Luther King, Jr.).

GRADE: A-

Details: Directed by Spike Lee. Written by Spike Lee. Running time: 120 minutes. Rated 18A.

The Gleaners & I (Agnès Varda, 2000)

2009-07-20T19:06:00.014-04:00

"And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, nor shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 23:22, ESV).

The Gleaners & I, a documentary by experienced French filmmaker Agnès Varda, is a study on the concept of this ancient practice of gleaning and its place in contemporary French society. It is, to an extent, an educational introduction to the process itself, its legality and how it works, as well as to the practitioners themselves. In this way we are exposed to different variants of harvesting leftovers.

We meet unemployed men and families who can't afford much and therefore out of necessity must glean unsellable crops like misshapen potatoes in order to fill their stomachs. We meet a decorated young chef who gathers herbs on the hillsides in order to prepare his menu, both to save costs and, more importantly, because he enjoys it. Similarly, there are groups of people who glean castaway crops or along the edges of mussel farms in order to cheaply add a bit of variety to their dinner. We also meet those on the other side, the farmers and landowners whose relationship with the gleaners seems, for the most part, grudgingly accepting. Many of these characters are very interesting, and the film provides a fascinating glimpse into their lives.

But Varda is interested in more than the gleaning of crops. In the modern world gleaning has a much wider connotation, concerning the gathering of bits of anything from garbage to ideas. She meets a number of artists, both amateur and professional, who works only with materials that other people have thrown out. And even beyond these gleaners who produce trash art, Varda sees every filmmaker as a bit of a gleaner. You gather ideas in order to formulate plot and theme. Even once the film is shot, the editing process can involve collecting bits and leftovers and making them coherent and beautiful as demonstrated in this film by the use of a mistaken shot of a dangling camera lens cap.

But there is, I believe, a more basic question underlying Varda's exploration of gleaning here and that is the question of perspective and its relation to reality. At certain moments, Varda focuses the camera on her aging, wrinkled and spotted hands. At these moments there is a recognition of weakness, of age and of human mortality. And yet this reality of the passage of time can evoke different responses from different perspectives: pessimism will breed bitterness, optimism will breed thankfulness, etc. It is much the same issue that gleaning highlights. Two different people look at the very same thing, whether that be an oddly-shaped potato or a broken television set, but they see in the opposites. The first sees unusable trash fit only for the junk pile. The second sees tomorrow night's dinner or a few dollars worth of copper. Which one is right, or both, or neither? It is this interesting question that is at the core of The Gleaners & I, and it is one that deserves contemplation.

GRADE: B+

Details: Directed by Agnès Varda. Written by Agnès Varda. Running time: 82 minutes.

Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (Ashutosh Gowariker, 2001)

2009-07-14T14:07:00.024-04:00

If I were ever responsible for writing a dictionary definition of the word "movie" I think I might simply include a synopsis of Ashutosh Gowariker's Bollywood epic Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (hereafter Lagaan). It may be the perfect example of what the word movie evokes in my mind. It has an attractive, pure and noble hero in a struggle against a dastardly villain. It has true love and a romantic triangle. It has drama and intrigue, alongside humour and lighter fare. It tells an engaging story of plucky underdogs taking on massive odds and, by no surprise, winning! This is a sprawling film of almost 4 hours, but it never overstays its welcome.

The story takes place in a beleaguered village in 19th-century India. Because of drought the inhabitants of Champaner cannot afford to pay the lagaan, a tax the British colonial rulers demand in return for maintaining the peace in India. But rather than mercifully delaying collection of this tax, James Russell (Paul Blackthorne), the bored young British captain in charge of the region, demands double lagaan! All seems lost for the poor villagers until handsome young dreamer Bhuvan (Aamir Khan) makes a dangerous decision to offer hope to his family and friends. He witnesses the British officers playing a game of cricket and insults the game as a bit of silly child's play. So, Captain Russell declares a challenge which Bhuvan accepts: if the villagers of Champaner can beat the British at cricket then there will be no tax in the entire province for three years but if the British win the lagaan will be tripled! It is this game, and the preparation and training leading up to it, that provide us with the plot of the film.

But this is definitely not a simple sports movie. There is much, much more going on. There is romance: Bhuvan is loved by village girl Gauri (Gracy Singh) as well as by Elizabeth Russell (Rachel Shelley), the sympathetic sister of Captain Russell who attempts to give the Champaner team a chance at victory by explaining the rules of cricket to them. Of course, this being a Bollywood film, it is also a musical. Emotions and perspectives are communicated in vibrant song and dance numbers. This is also a film with a social message: as Bhuvan builds this cricket team, he tears down the barriers between people and rights social wrongs. Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs play side-by-side, and the injustices of the discriminatory caste system are critiqued when a crippled untouchable is allowed to join the team.

As you may have gathered, there is no attempt made to present a gritty realistic slice of life. Lagaan is pure movie magic, presenting the sort of brightly coloured fairytale world in which good always prevails, even if there are barriers for the heroes to overcome. Indeed, the universe of Lagaan is one in which almost any dream can be made a reality with a healthy dose of plucky perseverance and hope. However simplistic this may be, you can't help but be swept up in the joyous optimism epitomized by Bhuvan. Gowariker's film is a bit of escapism, but that is to a large extent what cinema is for.

Of course, being an Indian film for Indian audiences it assumes the truth and validity of Hinduism. Characters turn to their gods in prayer and supplication when times are tough. The Christian viewer will disagree with some of the religious content of Lagaan, but this is certainly no reason to avoid the film outright. On the contrary, it offers some helpful insight into the religious makeup of India and into the place of Hindu deities in the lives and thoughts of their devotees. Whether you watch this film to learn a bit about India, or about the complicated sport that is cricket, or if you are simply looking for some light entertainment Lagaan will not disappoint.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by Ashutosh Gowariker. Written by Kumar Dave, Sanjay Dayma, Ashutosh Gowariker & K.P. Saxena. Running time: 224 minutes. Rated PG for language and some violence.

United 93 (Paul Greengrass, 2006)

2009-07-10T12:13:00.017-04:00

I think it may be true that the general public is increasingly turning to film as a source of stimulation and enlightenment. Movies allow us to share experiences, answer questions, and deal with events. They present the stories through which we understand ourselves and the world in which we live. For this reason, it was inevitable that after a suitable amount of time the events of September 11, 2001 would be brought to the screen. In this young century, there is no more significant or transformative bit of history than the terrorist attacks on American soil.

United 93, from filmmaker Paul Greengrass, is a film focused on the one hijacked airliner that did not make it to its destination. Instead, the crew and passengers attempted to seize control of the cockpit but ended up crashing in a Pennsylvania field. There were no survivors, but the passengers managed to speak to their loved ones on cell phones before falling from the sky so we do know a little bit about what they experienced.

Greengrass, who has some documentary background, shot the film in a realistic style. There are no famous faces in the cast. In fact, the roles of characters like air traffic controllers and flight attendants were filled by actual air traffic controllers and flight attendants. The movie is, for the most part, filmed in real-time. The camera is handheld virtually throughout, giving it a documentary feel. Although I'm not a huge fan of handheld shaky cam, I will say that it was at least the perfect choice for the disorienting last few minutes of the film as the passengers and crew attack their hijackers. All this realism was well-chosen, making it an immersive and powerful film, as it is easy to forget that what you are watching is not real.

Although the focus is on the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93, about half the film shows the response of those on the ground as they gradually come to understand their situation. We meet some of the air traffic controllers and members of the FAA as they scramble to figure out what's going on and then figure out what to do about it. We see the military as they attempt to respond. To be honest, although interesting the amount of time spent behind the scenes does take away somewhat from the more visceral story of United 93 itself. The heart of the story is the experience of those passengers; the rest seems a sidebar that takes up far too much attention.

But beyond this limited flaw, United 93 is a well-made and affecting movie. It tells a rousing but tragic story in a matter-of-fact style which only heightens the emotional impact. It, surprisingly, doesn't editorialize or even demonize the hijackers. On the contrary, they are just as human as their victims. It makes no overt political statement. It does something just as significant by simply telling a story.

GRADE: B-

Details: Directed by Paul Greengrass. Written by Paul Greengrass. Running time: 111 minutes. Rated R for language, and some intense sequences of terror and violence (appeal planned).

Cabiria (Giovanni Pastrone, 1914)

2009-07-09T14:22:00.015-04:00

Cabiria, an epic film set in the known world about 200 years before Christ, was produced in Italy in 1914. Flush with some overblown colonial conquests, at this time Italy dreamt of reviving the former glories of the Roman Empire and Italian cinema spoke of this dream. There were quite a few Italian epics produced in the early 20th century, and from what I understand Cabiria is the most significant one.

The plot is centered around the title character (played by Carolina Catena as a child, and Lidia Quaranta as an adult) who at the outset is a young Roman girl. Her idyllic life is interrupted when Mount Etna, near her parents estate, erupts. Although her parents presume her dead, she escapes with her nursemaid and some other servants but is then kidnapped by pirates and sold as a slave. She falls into the hands of Carthaginian priests of Moloch who plan to pass her through the fire, but is rescued by Fulvius (Umberto Mozzato), a Roman spy in Carthage, and his muscly slave Maciste (Bartolomeo Pagano). In their escape, the child is separated from her countrymen and the rest of the film shows how, through persistence and happenstance, she is eventually rescued for good and returned to her homeland.

The story does offer a fair bit of propaganda, with the noble Romans overcoming their corrupt and decadent North Africans, but it is certainly engaging. My little plot summary doesn't really do it justice. There are many asides that offer glimpses of the historical moment within which the film exists, including Hannibal's trek over the Alps and demonstrations of Archimedes' mythical military brilliance. It is, perhaps, a little bit too complex as a lot of these sidebars, though interesting, don't really add a lot to the film or move the plot forward.

This is certainly a film that has aged well. The Kino restoration is good, if rather grainy. But the film itself has lost very little. The performances range from good to brilliant. Most notable, in my mind, is Italia Almirante-Manzini as Sophronisba, the seductive Carthaginian princess. She portrays a sort of jaded otherworldliness that suits the character perfectly. I must say that I really like silent acting, with its dramatic posturing and body language communication.

The set design and overall look is very good. The Temple of Moloch, it's entranceway a gaping mouth leading to the fiery, devouring idol, is incredibly well done. Indeed, it is the depictions of excess, temples and palaces, that are the most compelling but all of it is well put together. Personally, I also found it refreshing to think that everything I saw, from the sets to the set pieces, was real rather than computer-generated. It adds a level of suspense and interest when you know you're looking at people rather than pixels.

But beyond acting and design, perhaps the most important thing about Cabiria is the way it uses the camera. This may seem rather ordinary, but the great contribution of this film is that the camera moves! I don't think I've seen any films from the years before 1914, but in the early decades of cinema the camera was a stationary observer. The innovation Cabiria offered was the dolly-track, in which the camera is placed on a cart on tracks and can therefore move smoothly along with the action. Dolly shots are standard now, but in 1914 the idea was revolutionary.

You needn't see Cabiria because of its place in movie history. Rather, if you have the chance, see this film because it is a good bit of epic entertainment.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by Giovanni Pastrone. Written by Gabriele D'Annunzio, Titus Livus, Giovanni Pastrone & Emilio Salgari. Running time: 123 minutes.

Project Grizzly (Peter Lynch, 1996)

2009-06-28T18:11:00.012-04:00

Hamiltonion inventor Troy Hurtubise had an encounter with a grizzly bear when trekking through the wilds of British Columbia as a young man. He was charged down, knocked over, but, for some reason, left alive and unharmed. For the average person, such a terrifying attack would leave an enduring fear of bears and the wild. Troy Hurtubise is not the average person. Instead, that day saw the start of a fascination with the grizzly that led to his lifelong pursuit to develop a bear- proof suit so he could study them up close.

Project Grizzly, from filmmaker Peter Lynch, as a documentary is less about the project itself and more about the man behind the project. Sure, the film shows some of the construction of the suit. It shows some of the history and development of prototypes. Indeed, its most entertaining scene runs through the different versions of the grizzly suit and shows without any tricks the incredible amount of punishment it can take. (You can check it out yourself, without the original audio, here.) But more time is spent focused on Hurtubise than on his creation. He is definitely an interesting man, and one driven by his passions to accomplish the incredible. He and his team are united by a sort of controlled recklessness in which they, very carefully, put themselves in the midst of danger and risk. Having said that, however, the film does feel longer than its brief 72 minute run-time. Some of the anecdotes and background do seem to highlight the same things. They can also feel a bit random, without a strong central thesis to organize them.

Really, though, the one major flaw in this film is its ending. Hurtubise has developed a suit that has proven capable of surviving the worst that any grizzly can do. They airlift it to the barrens of Canada's North in order to test it against an actual wild grizzly. Expectations are high, but there are immediate problems. For various reasons the grizzly and the suit never even come close. After an entire hour spent focused on the making and maker of a bear-proof suit, it seems a letdown to it never actually see it being bear-proof. I suppose this is simply a reality of the creative process, of being an inventor. After all, one never knows what will happen to equipment once it is in the field. And no properly done experiment is a failure: it always produces helpful information. But as a bit of filmmaking, it doesn't make for a rousing conclusion.

GRADE: C+

Details: Directed by Peter Lynch. Running time: 72 minutes. Rated 14A.

Au Hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson, 1966)

2009-06-25T22:18:00.019-04:00

We inhabit a very broken world. We know that what was meant to be good, even very good, has been twisted and corrupted. As a result, there are both internal and external factors that bring brokenness into every life. Some lack the material necessities and comforts. Others lack positive emotional, social or psychological stability. Still others are afflicted with physical torments and disabilities. Life has its joys, but in the present they are always tempered by the reality of suffering, sorrow and sin. Anybody who doesn't acknowledge this fact is blind to reality.

Because of this, part of living as a human being is responding to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. This lies at the heart of Robert Bresson's Au Hasard Balthazar. This is the story of a donkey and assorted people who are a part of his life. Not one of them has it easy. Some suffer due to their own pride and rebellion and greed. Some suffer because of addictions and discontent. Some suffer due to foolishness and harmful relationships. Balthazar the donkey suffers because others suffer. He too quickly becomes a whipping boy on whom to vent the frustrations and disappointments of life. He is an easy victim.

Different characters respond to their personal sorrows in different ways. Some are embittered against life and against their fellows. Some react in despairing rage and violence. Some are simply overwhelmed with their sadness and broken by it. Balthazar the donkey simply keeps on living. He takes what others give, whether good or bad, and just bears up and keeps on. He is called a saint, and there is definitely something saintly about Balthazar. He has a humble solidity that others around him are missing. Baptized into the church, Balthazar seems to know that there is something beyond this vale of tears.

Or, perhaps not. He is, after all, just a donkey. He has no speech, not even a special ability to communicate with humans. The camera does turn to Balthazar for his reaction to what he sees or feels, but he is mute and his eyes say nothing. Sure, when surprised by fireworks he jumps and when hit he moves, but there is nothing beyond the physical reaction to the physical stimulus. As a result, he becomes a bit of a mirror within which the audience can see its own reactions. But even so, when in his last moments Balthazar lays down amongst the sheep, I cannot help but think in ecclesiastical terms that he has found peace within the flock of his brothers and sisters. Because he truly knows his place, he can survive the burdens of life.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by Robert Bresson. Written by Robert Bresson. Running time: 95 minutes.

Cat People (Jacques Tourneur, 1942)

2009-06-25T19:36:00.023-04:00

One of my first reviews here was Paul Schrader's Cat People (Wednesday, February 11, 2009). This film shares the same title, and was the inspiration for Schrader's remake, but the two differ a great deal.

Jacques Tourneur's 1942 offering, the first film produced by the legendary Val Lewton, was a supposed B-movie. The budget had to stay below $150,000, and the film could not be longer than 75 minutes. As you can imagine, these were not easy restrictions within which to craft a quality film. But the talents of Lewton and Tourneur are enough to handle the budgetary limitations. They craft a story with only four real characters, but ensure that they are interesting and nuanced. They use about as many sets as you have fingers on your left hand, but they use them well. They craft a story that can be capably told without too much reliance on expensive setups and special effects. And they rely on the imagination of the audience to fill in some of the gaps.

At the center of this film is Irena (Simone Simon), a beautiful but lonely Serbian immigrant now living in the States. While she is sketching a panther at the zoo, another patron by the name of Oliver Reed (Kent Smith) takes a shine to to her. They hit it off well, and the Irena invites her beau to tea at her apartment, but there are signs that there is something strange about her. She seems to have deliberately isolated herself from significant human contact. She is somewhat obsessed with the dark history of her Serbian ancestors who turned to evil when under the rule of the Turks. Despite professing her love for Oliver, she refuses to kiss him for fear that somethin terrible might happen.

As the story progresses it becomes increasingly complicated by romantic triangles, by love and hatred, and by remnants of ancient history. It is decently engaging material, but what really elevates it is the artful direction and production. There are a few standout scenes in which the film ratchets up the suspense. It does so not by showing anything frightening, but simply by implying that something might happen at any moment. The mood is heightened by excellent use of audio cues and shadow and light. Throughout, the use of lighting adds a great deal to the film. It backs up the theory that, due to the power of imagination, shadows and the unseen can be more frightening and affecting than any visible effect (especially when the budget is small).

This is not a perfect film. Perhaps not even a great one. The acting ranges from good to ham-fisted. There is some arrogant psychological technobabble which I find really annoying. But based on the budgetary and time constraints, Cat People is a great success story. It is proof that talent and skill can overcome almost any limitation.

GRADE: B

Details: Directed by Jacques Tourneur. Written by DeWitt Bodeen. Running time: 73 minutes. Rated PG.

WALL·E (Andrew Stanton, 2008)

2009-06-22T19:44:00.015-04:00

In the modern age of film, I don't think there is a success story to rival that of Pixar. Granted, it has a very brief history so far: 10 movies over 14 years. But the magnificent truth is that every one of their movies has been good, and a few of them have been great. Every single Pixar film seems to set a new standard on computer-generated imagery. They also have mastered the art of making good children's entertainment: accessible to kids, entertaining for adults. They avoid the all too-common-assumption that children are stupid and will be entertained by anything, no matter how moronic. They also don't resort to the crutch of over-the-head pop-culture references and innuendo in order to keep the moms and dads from falling asleep. They realize that the same things will entertain everybody, no matter how young or old: interesting characters, a well-told story, dynamic visuals and audio, etc. They also have the talent and resources to develop these things.

As you have gathered, I am an admirer of Pixar. I can't imagine that anybody would disagree. So, my expectations before viewing Wall-E were quite high. I was not disappointed. The film takes place a few centuries in the future. Because of unchecked consumption, the world has turned into an endless garbage dump. To escape the trash, humanity has fled to a giant cruiseship in space where each lives the life of luxury, every need and desire being met by an army of robotic servants. Back on Earth, Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class (WALL-E) robots have been left behind in order to clean up the mess. As the film begins it seems that only one is still functioning: the titular WALL-E (voiced by Ben Burtt).

His simple life of trash compacting is disturbed when a spaceship lands on Earth and out pops EVE (voiced by Elissa Knight), a sleek and speedy (if somewhat touchy) new robot who immediately begins scanning the earth for what turns out to be proof of new life. WALL-E is smitten. The rest of the film follows WALL-E and EVE as they return to the cruiseship, encounter humanity, and attempts to assist them to return to Earth again some strong opposition.

As always, there are a great number of things Pixar has done right here. The film is a superb mix of the comic and the serious, with a nice warm eco-friendly message. The visuals are superb, with some real standout sequences in space. The robot main characters are very engaging and lovable, and the humans aren't so bad either. The story is also quite captivating. One cannot help but care about what happens to our protagonists. But the most impressive aspect of WALL-E is the fact that much of the storytelling is accomplished without dialogue.

Both WALL-E and EVE are more or less incapable of speech. I've given them "voiced by" credits, but the truth is that they can only speak in beeps and a few select words. Indeed, the first half an hour or so of WALL-E are essentially dialogue free. If memory serves, only four words are spoken: WALL-E, EVE, directive and classified. Nevertheless, by means of body language and sound effects every emotion and thought is communicated with absolute clarity. It is a beautiful bit of work. These two characters, despite barely saying a word, are easy to identify with and impossible not to care about.

I really hope Pixar's bulletproof streak lasts forever, even though I know it won't. They can't keep on meeting and exceeding expectations. If they keep on making movies, eventually they're going to make one that is substandard. But I hope that day is still far off. And I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing their latest.

GRADE: B+

Details: Directed by Andrew Stanton. Written by Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter & Jim Reardon. Running time: 98 minutes. Rated G.

Infernal Affairs (Wai-keung Lau & Siu Fai Mak, 2002)

2009-06-22T19:27:00.023-04:00

Infernal Affairs, the 2002 cop thriller from directors Wai-keung Lau & Siu Fai Mak, has an absolutely delicious premise. Mob boss Hon Sam (Eric Tsang) is a forward thinking gangster. He has a group of his young followers with clean records train to be police, so that once their careers take off he will have eyes and ears inside the department. Similarly, SP Wong of the police force (Anthony Wong) has talented cadets drummed out of the force in a faked display of discipline in order that they may infiltrate Sam's gang. As a result, a few years later Lau Kin Ming(Andy Lau) is a high placed mole in the police force and Chen Wing Yan (Tony Leung) is an officer under deep cover among the thugs. As it so happens, the two come into direct conflict.

Early on in the film, Wong's police team is tasked with catching Sam red-handed in a drug deal with some visiting Thais. It soon becomes obvious that both sides are leaking information, and they both set out to find the one in their midst whose loyalties lie elsewhere. Thus begins a tense cat and mouse game between Chen and Lau as each tries to maintain their cover while at the same time exposing their doppelgänger.

This is an artfully made film. The camera is energetic, it is well paced and edited, and the score is especially good: never obvious, but nevertheless adding to the power of the visuals, especially in suspenseful scenes. And this film does suspense quite well. An early scene, in which Sam's gang is moving drugs into Hong Kong as Wong and his department seek to catch them in the act, is one of my favorites. The tension builds and builds as plans change and change again as both Chen and Lau secretly communicate with their superiors. Plans change and change again as both sides realize they've been infiltrated, and both secret agents survive close calls due to their ingenuity.

The details of the setting are also well sketched out. Especially interesting is the fact that, in this age of information, the most powerful weapon of police and thug is not the guns they carry but rather the cell phone. It is obvious that the filmmakers have spent time thinking through the script and plot.

Like the best that cinema has to offer, Infernal Affairs both entertains and instructs. The central issue it raises is that of identity and behavior. Chen is a good guy, so to speak, who must do dirty deeds in order to maintain a false image. Lau is a bad guy, so to speak, who must act clean and pure in order to fool his coworkers. At one level, the film highlights the anguish of living a lie. But I believe there is a deeper issue of behavior equaling identity. For example, Christians believe that true identity is revealed in one's actions: "for the tree is known by its fruit" (Matt 12:33, ESV). Similarly in this film it is the actions of both characters that reveal who they really are, not the images they project.

GRADE: A-

Details: Directed by Wai-keung Lau & Siu Fai Mak. Written by Siu Fai Mak & Felix Chong. Running time: 101 minutes. Rated R for violence.

Shadow of the Vampire (E. Elias Merhige, 2000)

2009-06-07T19:51:00.012-04:00

In 1922 F.W. Murnau filmed Nosferatu. It is, according to my admittedly limited expertise, the greatest vampire film and possibly the greatest horror film Ever made. His vision of the vampire is very different from what cinematic vampires came to be. There is no seductive elegance. Murnau's vampire is inspired by the rats that carried the black plague across Europe. He is repulsive, bizarre and captivating. Murnau's film is aided by a terrifyingly creepy performance by Max Schreck as Count Orlock (read: Dracula; Murnau meant to film an adaptation of Stoker's novel but could not get permission). Schreck is so convincing as the vampire that his performance has become legendary. Some have speculated, half-joking I'm sure, that the reason Schreck is so good is because he actually is a vampire himself. (Interestingly enough, this would make him one of the most extreme examples of method acting!)

That speculation is that the base of E. Elias Merhige's Shadow of the Vampire. Without, I think, spoiling too much I can tell you that the premise is the revisionist idea that Murnau actually tracked down a vampire for his film, and made a deal with the devil, so to speak, to get his cooperation. On a deeper level, the film is about making sacrifices for the sake of art, and about how far one can go before the sacrifice is too much. It is an interesting, if somewhat pretentious, bit of work.

The cast is very professional. Malkovich is excellent as the single-minded visionary Murnau. But highest plaudits must go to Willem Dafoe who takes on the challenging role of the titular vampire. He must re-create the style and performance of Schreck, but add to the mystique behind the scenes. His vampire is unique and repellently captivating. He is a man with distant memories of power and glory, forced to debasing contact with humans in order to feed his aging hunger. Despite all of the makeup, a lot of nuance comes through. Much like Jean Marais of Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast (reviewed here Tuesday, June 2, 2009), Dafoe is one of those rare actors whose emotions are not hidden when they wear a mask.

For anybody who has seen Murnau's Nosferatu, or Herzog's remake, Merhige's Shadow of the Vampire will make for some very interesting viewing. Even if you unfortunately haven't seen those films, you may still enjoy this one. For someone interested in questions of the importance of art, or someone simply interested in the filmmaking process, Shadow of the Vampire has something to offer.

GRADE: B

Details: Directed by E. Elias Merhige. Written by Steven Katz. Running time: 93 minutes. Rated 14A.

Beauty and the Beast (Jean Cocteau, 1946)

2009-06-02T21:15:00.015-04:00

Narrative has a special power, a magic of a sort. There is something about a good story that, if you let it, can transport you to a different world and make you a different person, if only for a time. This is the effect a great story can have on a receptive child, or anyone open to being filled with wonder. It is this type of inspiring story that Jean Cocteau set out to tell with his 1946 adaptation of the traditional Beauty and the Beast. He wanted to film a fairytale for adults, full of strange sights and happenings, of fear and awe. Re-creating these simple emotional responses is no easy task when facing an audience of jaded grown-ups, and the degree to which he succeeds is a testament to Cocteau's vision and skill.

The story, at least in broad strokes, is familiar to most. Belle (Josette Day) is the gorgeous and dutiful daughter of a cash-strapped merchant. Returning home from a visit to the city, her father (Marcel André) picks a rose for his lovely daughter but by so doing commits a grave blunder. The rose he picks is the prize possession of the Beast (Jean Marais), ruler of a magical estate hidden in the forest, and the father's theft carries a sentence of death. His only escape is if one of his daughters takes his place. The lovely Belle volunteers, and so begins her relationship with the Beast who, as it turns out, is as noble as he is terrible.

These characters at the center of the film may sound incredibly flat. We've seen them before countless times. We have the beautiful, pure and long-suffering heroine whose virtue is ironclad. And we have the villain with a heart of gold, a type of noble savage. And yet both are brought to life with carefully shaded performances from Josette Day and Jean Marais (who capably handles three separate roles). Although Belle is a bit of a doormat, one cannot help but fall in love with her beauty and unspoiled kindness and openness. It is the Beast, however, who is the most interesting character. Keep in mind that Marais underwent five hours in the makeup chair each day of filming in order to be transformed into the Beast. He is covered in animal hair, his face is unrecognizable, his costume somewhat ungainly. And yet, through it all, the thoughts and the emotions of the Beast are powerfully communicated. He fills the Beast with sorrowful longing, with love that he thinks will never be returned due to his ghastliness.

Beyond the performances, the most notable and wonderful aspect of the film is the set design of the Beast's home. It is filled with surreal features: living and watchful statues, candelabras held up by living arms, etc. These touches are pure genius, shocking at the outset but inviting when properly understood. They, too, reveal something of the Beast's true nature.

Thematically, there is a great deal going on as well. At base, of course, this is a love story and a testament to the transformative power of loving and being loved. In subplots I haven't touched upon there are also treatments of selfishness and folly, and their results. This is a memorable and powerful piece of filmmaking, and one that overcomes the limitations of filming in postwar France to create an inspiring fairytale for adults.

GRADE: B+

Details: Directed by Jean Cocteau. Written by Jean Cocteau & Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont. Running time: 93 minutes.

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (F.W. Murnau, 1927)

2009-06-01T20:40:00.019-04:00

Films have been made for well over 100 years now. In the 19th century, when the technology was brand-new, the offerings were fairly crude and very brief. Yet, despite what people may think, the art of moviemaking reached some real high points in its infancy. The problem is that these films from the early 20th century are quite different from those of the 21st century due to the technological limitation of silent filmmaking. As I've written elsewhere, "the language of silent film is different in ...from that of contemporary movies. ...[B]ecause dialogue cannot be used to define a character or performance the acting must be broader, more exaggerated than in talkies. Through intense facial expression and overt body language emotions and thoughts are communicated without words." Aside from the text of dialogue cards, all communication must be accomplished by means of images, images of the actors, their bodies and faces, and images of the sets.

F.W. Murnau was one of the great directors of the silent era. He created what is according to my very limited expertise one of the best horror films ever made, 1922's Nosferatu, and later came to Hollywood and made this film, Sunrise. Although financially unsuccessful, the movie was critically acclaimed and received awards including three Oscars. The American Film Institute has it listed right between Spartacus and Titanic at #82 on their all-time top 100 list. Sunrise was also a technological breakthrough for Fox Studios, its first film with a recorded score. Using new technology that allowed sound to be recorded on a film by means of a separate optical strip, audio cues could be perfectly synchronized with the filmed images. At this time, the technology was not used for dialogue but it does allow for a much improved unity between score and film.

The narrative of the film is presented in the most universal terms as a story of the everyman and everywoman. There are three main characters: The Man (George O'Brien), The Woman (Janet Gaynor), and The Woman from the City (Margaret Livingston). The Man and Woman are a rural husband and wife. They were very happily married until a holidaymaker from the city visited their village and took a shining to the Man. With her feminine wiles and the glamour of her big city background she seduces the Man and drives him away from the Woman. Eventually the temptress plants an idea in the Man's head: if only his wife were dead, drowned perhaps, he could make a new and exciting life for himself in the hustle and bustle of the city. The Man is repulsed by the idea, but so weak and confused that he gives in.

Although somewhat dark at the outset, this truly is a story of redemption. It is a bit of a melodrama, exploring the depths the Man will sink to and the saving power of a loving relationship, specifically the love that is at the foundation of true marriage. It is a good story well told. The performances are excellent. Those who are unaccustomed to silent film will no doubt note the exaggerated style of performance. Acting in the 20s had a lot to do with communicating your emotions and thoughts by means of stylized body language and embellished facial expressions. It may seem overdone, but I cannot help but marvel at the ease with which these performers get their messages across without resorting to words. There is a nuanced power to such acting.

Visually, Murnau's film is a definite success. He brings a somewhat surreal quality to set design that creates some striking tableaux. He also makes use of in-camera special effects (especially double-exposure superimpositions) to show the thoughts of the characters and to add visual flair to the goings-on. Even the dialogue cards are given artistic panache! There is a reason that Murnau is so well-respected as a director. Although this is not the greatest film of the silent era, it is most definitely a great film. If you are looking to introduce yourself to films of the 20s this might be a good place to start.

GRADE: A-

Details: Directed by F.W. Murnau. Written by Hermann Sudermann, Carl Mayer, Katherine Hilliker & H.H. Caldwell. Running time: 95 minutes.

Ripley's Game (Liliana Cavani, 2002)

2009-05-29T16:31:00.014-04:00

Tom Ripley (John Malkovich) is a character that can carry an entire film. By his dress and mode of living he appears to be an effete, a cultured foreigner living the good life of tasteful excess. He seems irrelevant. But when he speaks he reveals himself: calculating, assured, even menacing. He is a man of the resource and intellect, in control of himself and therefore in control of every situation. He accomplishes everything he wants to. Another man blessed with the same riches and abilities would be content; Tom Ripley is, I think, bored. And so, there begins Ripley's Game.

He looks for something that can surprise him, and what is more surprising than the human heart and soul. What begins with a "friend's" need for a man to do a job, along with a poorly timed offhand insult, ends with murder and mayhem and novelty. Ripley is surrounded by art and artists. He is an artist himself, but his medium is people. I'll leave you to discover his masterstroke. The details of the plot are secondary, of interest only because they shed light on the enigma that is Tom Ripley. His character, his abilities, and his motivations are what captivates the audience.

As Ripley, Malkovich is brilliant. The task is not easy. I don't usually think of John Malkovich as an intimidating presence yet he makes it easy to believe that every word Ripley speaks is dangerously significant. Every promise he will keep, every threat he will make good on, and we know it. Malkovich brings an intense air of tried-and-tested confidence to this performance, and it works brilliantly to realize what might be a somewhat unbelievable character. Although overshadowed, the rest of the cast are also very good. Most notably, Ray Winstone is also superb (if a bit predictable) as a bravado British tough.

Even beyond script, plot and performance this is a top-notch bit of filmmaking. One of my favorite filmmakers, Werner Herzog, emphasizes the importance of location in adding to the atmosphere and depth of a film. The European setting lends Ripley's Game a potent sense of worldliness and ennui. The set design also sheds light on the characters that fill them. Ripley's mansion, for instance, is filled with the most beautiful things and yet is still echoingly empty. Even the music adds to this. Due to Ripley's girlfriend being a concert performer, the harpsichord provides us with some musical cues. In a sense, the somewhat hollow sound and technical precision of the music of the harpsichord gives us a glimpse into the soul and mind of Ripley.

There are a lot of reasons to see this film. The most important is simply to witness Malkovich's performance. This is, as you may know, a distant sequel to the Matt Damon vehicle The Talented Mr. Ripley. I may have to see how Damon's Ripley measures up.

GRADE: B+

Details: Directed by Liliana Cavani. Written by Liliana Cavani, Patricia Highsmith & Charles McKeown. Running time: 110 minutes. Rated R for strong violence and language, some sexuality.

The Blue Kite (Zhuangzhuang Tian, 1993)

2009-05-27T18:41:00.014-04:00

Chairman Mao's revolution was described as a unique step forward in history, something never seen before. It certainly had unique elements, but I think it is true that there is nothing new under the sun, and as such the socialist revolution in China is not all that different from other revolutions in history. Zhuangzhuang Tian's The Blue Kite is a film set in Beijing in the time of Mao's rule, and as I was watching I was struck by certain similarities between it and Persepolis, a film set in the Iranian revolution. Both revolutions begin with hope and promise; both deliver ever-increasing heavy-handed repression.

The Blue Kite is centered around a child named Tietou, but is really about the experiences of his family members. The film is broken up into three chapters, each of which deals with a father or stepfather of Tietou. Alongside the title characters of each chapter is a large cast of family and family friends. To describe all of the major and minor characters would take too long, but I think I can summarize by saying that Tian wants to present us with a variety of people who have very different perspectives on this time of revolution. There are characters who truly believe in Mao and in China's future, and others who are cynical and resentful of their government. There are characters who are involved in the government and celebrated by the military, and others who are more on the sidelines. There are characters who are well connected, and others who aren't. They are all united by kinship or friendship, but by little else.

One would imagine that given this diverse cast of individuals, certain characters would thrive in a time of revolution, and others would be weeded out. But the truth of the socialist revolution is that nobody is safe. At least, that is the world Tian depicts. Every character is ruined in some way. No one is safe. No one remains unscathed by revolutionary fervour. Intellectual orthodoxy is no refuge when the driving ideas change. Friendship isn't enough to withstand a culture in which there is pressure to root out treason in the workplace. In such an environment a mistimed bathroom break can be enough to single you out for punishment.

As you might assume, Tian's The Blue Kite is a fairly bleak film. It is not devoid of happy moments. It shows a recognition of the power of human kindness and empathy. It depicts truly loving family relationships. However, none of these are able to withstand the external forces of the revolution. In fact, Tian's vision of Mao's leadership was so negative that his film was banned in China and it was nine years before he made another. This is an honest film about a dark period in human history, and one that is well worth watching.

GRADE: B+

Details: Directed by Zhuangzhuang Tian. Written by Xiao Mao. Running time: 138 minutes.

Taken (Pierre Morel, 2008)

2009-05-22T23:14:00.008-04:00

Pierre Morel's Taken accomplishes a great deal of plot in a brief running time. At the outset we are introduced to our key players. We have Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson), ex-government agent who has recently retired in order to grow closer to his teenage daughter Kim (Maggie Grace). We meet Kim's standoffish mother Lenore (Famke Janssen) and indulgent stepfather Stuart (Xander Berkeley). The first section of the movie introduces the happy family memories, and the attempts to rebuild strained relationships. Of course, this is all just set up so that when the bad guys arrive we care a little bit about what's happening to whom.

The film really starts moving when, while on holiday in Paris, Kim is kidnapped by men who run a European white slave trade. All you really need to know about this movie is summed up in a brief conversation between Mills and his daughter's abductors: "I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you." The response: "Good luck."

The rest of the film is pretty much what you would expect. Mills uses his expertise and connections to track these men down, stopping at absolutely nothing in order to rescue his daughter. It is a fairly standard revenge tale, with not much to recommend it other than Liam Neeson, the fact that stuff gets blowed up real good, and bad guys get dispatched in surprising ways. As mindless entertainment on a Friday evening, you could do much worse, but there is nothing more to it than that.

Perhaps the only thing worthy of mention is the fact that Mills is not your typical white knight. He is a fairly amoral hero, capable of torturing bad guys to death and even hurting innocents if it gets the job done. There seems to be a shift in our 21st-century mindset regarding the lines that our protagonists are allowed to cross. But really, this film is not designed to explore morality or even to provide food for thought. It is a fast-moving spectacle with enough happening on screen to keep one entertained. Nothing less, but nothing more.

GRADE: C-

Details: Directed by Pierre Morel. Written by Luc Besson & Robert Mark Kamen. Running time: 91 minutes. Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence, disturbing thematic material, sexual content, some drug references and language.

Dark City (Alex Proyas, 1998)

2009-05-18T10:35:00.010-04:00

Alex Proyas's Dark City is critically hailed as one of the best the science fiction genre has to offer, and is one of Roger Ebert's Great Movies. Watching it for the first time a few evenings ago, my expectations were high. I'm not sure I would put this film in the genre's top five but it is most definitely one of the better offerings, bringing together the atmosphere of film noir with an intriguing central concept.

It will be impossible to review this film without giving away some plot details and twists, so be warned that spoilers lie ahead. Dark City begins with a man waking up in a seedy motel room in the bathtub. He has no memories of who he is. There is a murdered woman in the room with him. He receives a phone call telling him to run, and just manages to escape being found out. He ends up being chased and menaced by some spookily pale men with superhuman powers of control over their surroundings, and comes to find that he has these powers as well.

What it comes down to, in the end, is a giant experiment. In order to get at the core of humanity, what it really means to be human, the titular Dark City is re-created every night while its inhabitants sleep. The citizens themselves have lifetimes of false memories implanted to fit with their place in the new landscape. So, for example, the down-on-his-luck blue-collar worker might wake up one day as the type of wealthy industrialist he once despised.

There is an attempt, here, to plumb some psychological depths. One of the questions that fascinates me and has been discussed in many contexts is that of nature versus nurture. Are human personalities and reactions innate, or are they simply the product of external stimuli? What the "strangers" are trying to do is to determine to what extent nature remains when nurture has changed. It is an interesting concept, and one that the science fiction genre is perfectly designed to explore.

But a movie is more than a concept. In terms of the communication of that concept, Dark City is a qualified success. Initially I was a bit thrown off by the lackluster quality of the special effects. Given that this is a 1998 film, the modern viewer in 2009 is used to much more convincing and impressive CGI. However, the more I think about the more the somewhat fake cityscapes are fitting in this story of a fake city. The performances run from very good (Jennifer Connelly) to good (Rufus Sewell) to somewhat offputting (Kiefer Sutherland). The atmosphere of the film is a highlight. There is a 1940s noir type of feel that one gets from the buildings, cars and clothes. It is successfully done, with enough anachronisms to make things a bit unsettling, but it had been done before and it had been done better.

I think it's safe to say that Proyas's Dark City is one of the better science fiction films on offer. It's not quite on the same level as the true greats (Blade Runner, Metropolis, 2001: A Space Odyssey, etc.), but it's not too far off. And that is a compliment.

GRADE: B+

Details: Directed by Alex Proyas. Written by Alex Proyas, Lem Dobbs & David S. Goyer. Running time: 100 minutes; 111 minutes (director's cut). Rated R for violent images and some sexuality.

Star Trek (J.J. Abrams, 2009)

2009-05-17T13:57:00.014-04:00

Perhaps I should begin with some brief autobiography. I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation when I was a young boy. I watched Deep Space Nine and Voyager from start to finish. I watched Enterprise. I've seen all the movies and own most of them. I have been a fan of Roddenberry's creation for what must be close to 20 years now. I haven't gone so far as to organize my life around the principles of the Federation, but I think I have the nerd credentials to be called a Trekkie (not that I'm overly proud of that fact). And yet, Star Trek and I had parted ways. I skipped out on the end of Enterprise. I watched the last few movies, but even through the rose-tinted lens of fandom I knew that they weren't all that good. As such, I am thankful that the series is getting a reboot, a fresh start. And a good one at that.

Lost creator J.J. Abrams' Star Trek is a prequel to The Original Series. It tells the story of how the crew members of the USS Enterprise got their start. The focus is on the relationship between James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, who come into conflict at the Academy but are eventually forced to work together on the Enterprise. On the one hand we have the headstrong and intuitive human, and the other the Vulcan who struggles to live by the rules of logic. What drives the story is the threat from a ship of Romulans with a weapon powerful enough to destroy whole planets.

There are a lot of things that work in favor of Abrams' picture. In the first place, it looks great. This is a big budget picture, and you can see the money on the screen. The special effects look great. There is an epic feel to the goings-on, and some very impressive visuals. There is a real spectacle about some of the action set pieces. Also, the performances are excellent. Chris Pine is especially good as Kirk, convincing as a natural leader with real magnetism. Zachery Quinto is also quite good as Spock, in a meaty role with lots of internal conflict between his human emotional side and his Vulcan rational side.

However, there are some elements that one could take issue with. In the first place, the plot doesn't make a great deal of sense. It relies on some astronomical coincidences that stretch even the most forgiving suspension of disbelief. Thankfully, the film moves at a rapid pace that doesn't give you time to pick out the problems until afterwards. Secondly, because we have to be introduced to all the major characters, the plot has to do some contortions to shoehorn them all in. Finally, Abrams' Star Trek is definitely a departure from Roddenberry's vision. This may only be a problem for long-term fans, but initially Star Trek began as a bit of idealism. It used the science fiction genre to explore mythology, psychology, philosophy, and the biggest questions of morality and existence. Star Trek 2009 is all style and very little substance. There is some psychological depth of character, but in terms of focusing on ISSUES, this is a lightweight bit of entertainment. However, as lightweight entertainment it works brilliantly.

Star Trek is most certainly a departure from what has gone before. This is a daring move, given that there exists a ravenous fan base of nitpickers with encyclopedic knowledge of what ought to be in the United Federation of Planets. However, surprisingly it has been well received both by novices to the franchise as well as those who are fluent in Klingon. As the credits rolled I was already eager for more of the same, so they must have done something very right.

GRADE: B

Details: Directed by J.J. Abrams. Written by Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman. Running time: 127 minutes. Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content.

Passchendaele (Paul Gross, 2008)

2009-05-14T17:20:00.013-04:00

This film obviously meant a great deal to Paul Gross, who directed, wrote and co-produced it and took the starring role. It is based on Gross's recollections of his grandfather, a World War I veteran who was haunted by his experiences until his dying day. Although the Great War has to be one of the more tragic episodes from a fairly bleak 20th-century, it is a formative moment for the young country of Canada. With all this weight of significance behind the film, and the best of intentions from all those involved, one would hope Passchendaele to be a powerful acknowledgment of the horrors of war and the sacrifices of young Canadian soldiers who battled enormous odds and won unexpected victories. At least, that's what I was expecting. Unfortunately, what I got was something quite different.

I didn't know a great deal about the film before watching. Based on the title and box art (which has a bit of a homage to...okay, a ripoff of the box art of Band of Brothers) I was expecting a Canadian version of Saving Private Ryan with a romantic subplot. I thought the focus of the story would be on the battle from which it gets its title. However, I came to realize that the film is not focused on Passchendaele the World War I battle, it is called Passchendaele because it is about passion. It is an exploration of passion of two kinds: the passion of romantic love on the one hand and passion in its original sense of suffering and atonement.

As such, the majority of the two-hour running time of this picture takes place in Alberta where decorated soldier Michael Dunne (Paul Gross) works in Army recruitment after being sent home from the front. He is not physically injured, but his emotional and psychological scars resulting from the killing of a young German soldier have left him unfit for duty. He falls in love with his nurse, Sarah Mann (Caroline Dhavernas), who has her own hidden hurts and scars. It is this blossoming relationship between the smitten soldier and the reluctant nurse that is the core of the film. Sarah has a younger brother David (Joe Dinicol) who ends up enlisting to prove his worth despite suffering from severe asthma. In order to protect David, Dunne heads back to the trenches and ends up in Passchendaele.

As you may have already gathered, there is not a lot of originality to be found here. The love story is especially cliché, and elements of the plot in general are borrowed from various other (and often better) movies. What this means is that it is difficult to really get interested and involved in what is happening.

A further problem I found was with the lead performance. As mentioned, this was obviously a labour of love for Paul Gross. He clearly put his heart and soul into this story. However, he was not overly believable as the war weary, psychologically tortured Michael Dunne. Maybe I still see him as the squeaky clean Mountie he used to portray on television, but I never really got a sense of the angst and anguish that his tormented character was suffering. He ought to have been a man on the edge, but ended up being fairly vanilla.

As a director his work here is solid, if somewhat uninspired. It is a shame, really. There is a good movie hidden in here, somewhere. The battlefront scenes are well done, if somewhat too reliant on handheld shaky cam and quick editing. It is when our attention is on the cheesy romance, or when Gross tries to shoehorn in some heavy-handed symbolism, that the picture stumbles. And so, the great Canadian World War I movie is yet to be made.

GRADE: C+

Details: Directed by Paul Gross. Written by Paul Gross. Running time: 114 minutes. Rated 14A.

Primer (Shane Carruth, 2004)

2009-05-12T16:18:00.014-04:00

Shane Carruth's Primer is a great success for this first time director. Actually, Primer was also Carruth's first acting job, and his first writing credit, and his first time producing a movie, scoring it, casting it, etc. In every area, this is Carruth's baby. It must have been a labor of love, shot on a minuscule budget of $7,000 (most of that being spent on filmstock). 80 minutes of footage were shot, 77 minutes made it into the final picture. That the end product is professional and looks great is both a testament to Carruth himself and to the technological advances that make filmmaking cheaper and more accessible than ever.

The film is centered around two young men, Abe (David Sullivan) and Aaron (Shane Carruth). They are engineers who spend their time inventing new gadgets and technology in Aaron's garage. Things get interesting when the two are working on some sort of antigravity device. As it turns out, they stumble upon a functioning time machine. "The box" has limitations. To travel back in time you enter it in the present and emerge from a box in the past. This means that the two can only travel back in time up to the moment they made their first device. Also, the box brings you into the past but your past self will also exist. So every instance of time travel increases the number of travelers inhabiting the universe.

As you might expect, the complications of this time travel are extremely intricate. This is the film's Achilles heel. It is a confusing viewing experience, to the extent that I had to read an essay after I was done to figure out exactly what had happened. One could unravel the plot with multiple viewings, but it would not be a simple task. Like Donnie Darko, another celebrated indie pic, Primer is simply overcomplicated. The filming style is also incredibly elliptical, and the audience is forced to fill in gaps in the plot based on veiled references in conversations between the protagonists.

This is an almost impenetrable movie, but yet it still deserves some recommendation. In the first place, its four digit budget and handful of cast and crew means that one can appreciate even the simple professionalism of Carruth's film. It is confusing, undoubtedly, but as you watch you can't help but be intrigued by the twists and turns of the plot. And this is certainly not an idiot film: it's too smart for its own good, but it is smart. Perhaps the best thing to say is that it leaves one looking forward to Carruth's next effort.

GRADE: B+

Details: Directed by Shane Carruth. Written by Shane Carruth. Running time: 77 minutes. Rated PG-13 for brief language.

The Manchurian Candidate (John Frankenheimer, 1962)

2009-05-12T15:42:00.010-04:00

John Frankenheimer's original adaptation of The Manchurian Candidate is a fine example of a thriller. The story begins with a group of American GIs on patrol in Korea. They are betrayed by their guide, captured by the Communists and thoroughly brainwashed for unstated nefarious purposes. Although the science may be a bit suspect, the story itself is captivating as we follow an unwitting assassin doing the bidding of his evil overlords.

As a thriller Frankenheimer's film has aged well. It still maintains a high level of suspense, a good number of unforeseen twists and shocks, and enough tension to keep the audience riveted. Frankenheimer's direction is also very good. He uses the tricks of the trade such as Dutch angles to communicate the characters' confusion, and creates a number of striking visuals. The cast is also quite good, with Angela Lansbury perhaps stealing the show as an overbearing and controlling mother. Coming from a time when there were a great number of quality thrillers being filmed, The Manchurian Candidate holds its own. Its perspective on politics and power is also quite honest, I thought. This is not a basic tale of democracy winning out over the dastardly schemes of those conniving Commies. There is a fair bit of nuance involved.

However, its portrayal of romantic relationships has not aged quite so well. In fact, the interactions between certain couples is incredibly bizarre. I guess Frank Sinatra had a certain magnetism, but the fact that Janet Leigh's character Rose ditches her fiancé after having a brief and cryptic conversation with Sinatra's Major Marco left me stupefied. Even more so when, at their next meeting, she is pleased as punch to bail Marco out of jail after he was arrested for beating up his friend's Asian butler. Yes, there are brainwashed, unknowing and unwitting super assassins, but this relationship was by far the most bizarre thing in the movie.

GRADE: B

Details: Directed by John Frankenheimer. Written by Richard Condon & George Axelrod. Running time: 126 minutes. Rated PG-13.

Happy-Go-Lucky (Mike Leigh, 2008)

2009-04-18T10:37:00.012-04:00

Happy-Go-Lucky is the latest film from British director Mike Leigh. Much like Secrets & Lies (reviewed here March 11, 09) it is a deep character study rather than a plot-driven film. At its center is kindergarten teacher Poppy (Sally Hawkins), a brightly coloured optimist for whom the glass is always half full. In almost any situation, if she isn't smiling she's laughing.

The central dynamic of this film is Poppy's relationship with Scott (Eddie Marsan), her driving instructor. Scott is an odd and humourless loner, a man who has no love for society at large or the people around him.

These characters may sound incredibly simplistic and one-dimensional. Poppy, especially, in a lesser film would have been aggressively annoying. And yet, with the expertise of Leigh at the helm and the superb cast he assembled, characters that could be stereotypical and as flat as a cardboard cut-out become real people in a real world. Yes, Poppy is an eternal optimist but she is not blind to the brokenness of the world around her. On the contrary she strongly empathizes with a troubled student and a homeless man.

At its core, I believe, the film is truly about the pursuit of happiness. Poppy lives a life that is open to every kind of joy and happiness. She seeks it out, and finds it easy to uncover. Scott's life is the opposite. He wants happiness, but only sees bitterness and hatred around him. For whatever reason he has lost the opportunity for happiness. Even though both Scott and Poppy live in the same city, and share similar experiences in the grand scheme of things, they see the world very differently: Poppy through rose tinted glasses and Scott in shades of gray. To an extent this is a choice, and to an extent this choice is made by the individual and by those around.

GRADE: B+

Details: Directed by Mike Leigh. Written by Mike Leigh. Running time: 118 minutes. Rated R for language.

Ran (Akira Kurosawa, 1985)

2009-04-09T17:43:00.020-04:00

An interesting element of great works of art is the way they combine specificity and universality. The story will be about certain individuals in a specific historical setting, but these details only serve to highlight common elements of the human condition that anyone can appreciate, no matter where they are from. And no one specific artist highlights this universal truth of great art better than William Shakespeare. Each of his plays has a very precise historical/cultural setting, and yet each of them go beyond such limitations to address the universals of the human experience. As such, when adapting Shakespeare the cultural setting can be transformed without jettisoning the thematic heart of the piece. This loose adaptation has, of course, been done many times. Akira Kurosawa's Ran, set in feudal Japan, is just one example, albeit a particularly good one.

The film begins with the four members of the Ichimonji clan on hunt. Hidetora (Tatsuya Nakadai) is the father and head of the family, a ruthless warlord who seized control of the region but who is now getting old. Taro (Akira Terao) and Jiro (Jinpachi Nezu) are the eldest sons, whose words express their flattering admiration and respect for their father. Finally, Saburo (Daisuke Ryu) is the youngest Ichimonji son. He seems a bit rough around the edges when compared with his sycophantic brothers, more free to speak his mind no matter what the consequences might be. Because of his advanced age, Hidetora decides to give the rule of his kingdom over to his sons. He will retain ceremonial headship of the clan, with all the respect that entails, but Taro will occupy the main castle and be responsible for the territory. The other sons will lend their support to Taro from their own lesser strongholds.

The eldest sons, as expected, happily give in to their father's wishes, but Saburo is not convinced. It is not that he is envious that Taro gets to be in charge, rather he thinks his father's ideas foolish. After conquering and ruling the land with a heavy fist, Hidetora is hoping for an idyllic retirement in which he will be devoid of real power, having given up command of his armies, but loved and supported by his doting offspring. As much as Hidetora, Taro and Jiro seem to believe that family ties are strong Saburo can only see one outcome: a new struggle for control of the region. Depending on what you think of him, Saburo is either a cynic or a realist. The rest of the film shows whether he is right or wrong.

There is a great deal that could be said about this film (and probably has been said), but the first thing that strikes the viewer is its visual beauty. Kurosawa is one of the great directors in the history of film-making, arguably Japan's best, and his expertise with the camera is everywhere evident. He has a painter's eye, and every shot is beautifully composed. There are also few better than Kurosawa at filming large-scale battle sequences that are exciting to watch but easy to follow. In Ran the battle scenes are especially striking due to Kurosawa's use of colour, with each army kitted out in a primary hue.

The performances, as is somewhat typical of Kurosawa's work, are very big almost to the point of being overstated. However, they suit the epic scope and themes of the film perfectly. It is a highly moral film, but not simplistically so. Drawing on the Buddhist conception of karma, which is not too far off from Christian principles, in the universe of Ran foolish choices and actions lead to suffering. I was reminded, too, as I watched of Christ's words in Matthew 26:52 that "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (NIV). However, this does not mean that the wise and virtuous are free from harm. On the contrary, they often pay for the foolishness of others.

A great deal of the film explores issues of foolishness and wisdom, highlighting the fact that it is not always easy to tell the one from the other. There are certain characters, especially Hidetora's jester Kyoami (Peter), whose foolish words speak great wisdom. In fact, often in the film wise-sounding words turn out to be utter foolishness and those that sound ridiculous end up being pearls of great price. Whatever you take away from this film, it is one that will leave you thinking.

This is not to say, however, that there is nothing but philosophy to be gained from a viewing of Ran. Even if you take away every layer of subtext, the story itself is gripping and well told and the scenes engaging. Like the greatest films, Ran is both entertaining and stimulating. It feeds the cinematic gut, if you will, as well as the brain.

GRADE: A

Details: Directed by Akira Kurosawa. Written by Akira Kurosawa, Hideo Oguni, Masato Ide & William Shakespeare. Running time: 160 minutes.