Originally published in the 10/19/08 edition of the Advisor/Source Newspapers.
Movie Doesn't Misunderestimate W.
By Chris Williams
“Rarely is the question asked 'Is our children learning?’”-President George W. Bush
Love him or hate him, he’s always interesting.
I could, of course, be talking about President George W. Bush, the 43rd Commander In Chief of the United States of America. Possibly the most polarizing president in current history, Bush came to office following a controversial 2000 election and, in the days after the 9/11 terror attacks, saw his approval rating soar as high as 80 percent. These days, as the war in Iraq continues to rage and the economy suffers its greatest challenge since the Great Depression, his approval rating is less than 30 percent.
I could also be talking about Oliver Stone, who has been Hollywood’s most controversial director since the 1980s, when he won Best Director for his Vietnam masterpiece “Platoon.” Stone has notoriously ruffled feathers with his flashy, hyper-realized commentaries on war, politics, conspiracies and America. He has directed the masterpieces “Wall Street,” “JFK,” “Talk Radio” and “Natural Born Killers,” and also had his share of disasters, including the abysmal “Alexander.”
The ultra-conservative Bush and left-wing Stone meet in “W.,” possibly the first biopic of a sitting U.S. President. As the final days of Bush’s administration loom, Stone examines how a C-average frat boy from an American dynasty wound up following in his father’s footsteps and continuing a war he was angered was never properly finished.
And for those who think that Stone will deliver a liberal smear campaign with nothing more than “Saturday Night Live”-quality shtick and “Fahrenheit 9/11” cheap shots, prepare to be surprised, as Stone delivers a thoughtful and even-handed look at a man who is fascinating and likable but possibly in way over his head.
Josh Brolin, so solid in “No Country for Old Men,” returns to Texas as Bush, who we first see in session in the White House coining the phrase “Axis of Evil” with cronies Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss), Karl Rove (Toby Jones), Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) and Condoleezza Rice (Thandie Newton). We then flash back to see him as a college party boy and functioning alcoholic in Texas, helped out by his father George H.W. Bush (James Cromwell) who voices his disappointment in his son’s lack of direction. We see him fail at a career as an oil man, fume as his father grooms brother Jeb for political success and fall in love with future wife, Laura (Elizabeth Banks).
Brolin, stepson of famously outspoken liberal Barbara Streisand, would not seem to be the first choice to step into the W’s shoes. His politics are not in line with the Republican and his looks are tougher than the President’s. Yet the actor will likely land a deserved Academy Award nomination for his work here, in which he inhabits Bush’s folksy Texas dialect, his cowboy charm and swagger, and the stubborn streak that has defined the majority of his career.
Many would expect this role to be a joke, and indeed I expected Brolin and Stone to turn Bush into a caricature. Yet Brolin creates a true character and performance here, empathizing with the future President as he tries to earn his father’s love, searches for direction and then finds religion. Brolin’s Bush may be a poor speaker, as is referenced in several real-life gaffes, but he’s also ambitious, likable and a strong fighter. The question Stone’s asking here is not “How dumb is Bush,” which would be a cheap and unfair shot, but “How did an average student and party boy claim the world’s highest office?” It’s a fair question and, watching the film, we sense that Stone may actually like Bush the person, even if he feels that his family ties, daddy issues and obstinate streak ultimately put a man in office who had neither the depth nor patience for the job. Those who think Bush is a monster may be disappointed to leave the film, since Stone doesn’t eviscerate him onscreen.
Stone began holding back his visual pyrotechnics with 2005’s “World Trade Center” and he continues to rein in his style here. There are no quick cuts or stylish editing on display, and the tone of the film has less to do with the angry polemic of “JFK” and more in common with the thoughtful tone of “Nixon,” albeit with more humor. “W.” is at times a dark comedy, but often its humor is derived simply from watching Bush interact in the political realm; at times it’s the ultimate fish-out-of-water tale, and one wonders if we’d admire the man if he had stayed out of politics and stayed in baseball, where his true passions lied.
There’s a surreal feeling in watching current events played out on the big screen and sometimes “W.” seems to hiccup as we watch news of the last few years come to life. I suspect that phrases like “The Decider” and “misunderestimated,” as well as the infamous pretzel-choking incident will play more natural as more distance exists between the film and the real events; it’s not a fault of the movie if it sometimes seems to jolt us out of the story, rather it’s the oddity of seeing current events played out on a screen where we normally see entertainment.
Just as Bush’s cabinet and advisors have had tremendous impact, for better or for worse, on his presidency, the cast of characters surrounding Brolin ultimately elevates the film into something better than an average biopic. Cheney and Rove come off as the real bad guys in the administration, manipulating the President for their own agenda, while Powell provided the voice of reason. Dreyfuss, Jones and Wright could all be looking at Supporting Actor nods come Oscar time, as could Cromwell, who looks and sounds nothing like the elder Bush but provides a strong emotional core to the film. Banks is fine but underutilized as Laura Bush and Newton affects Rice’s mannerisms perfectly but oftentimes seems to be going more for shtick than character, which jabs at the film’s tone.
The question will be asked whether or not it is prudent to release a film about a president currently in office. Ethically and politically, I think that a sitting president, especially one who has been at the helm in such a fragile time as this, is fair game for a film. Artistically, however, I feel that current politics and concerns may prohibit some from enjoying the film on its own merits. People will avoid it or go into it based on their own agendas, looking for or speaking out against what they perceive to be a political attack. This is a shame since “W.” is more about a man than his agendas and even those who despise Bush’s presidency may find themselves fascinated by his story.
I suspect that in 20 years “W.” will be revisited and hailed as one of the great portraits of a president. It’s a “warts-and-all” biography, no more scathing than “Ray” or “Walk the Line,” and delivered with more skill, energy and even heart than those projects. For a director like Stone to deliver a film so even-handed and uncontroversial, conducted with so much empathy is commendable. “W.” is one of the year’s best films. Grade: A-
Chris Williams is a Source Staff writer and member of the Detroit Film Critics’ Society. He can be reached at Chris.Williams@advisorsource.com
Friday, October 17, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
A chat with "Ember's" citizens
Okay, here's a little treat for you. I did not have the opportunity to attend a screening of "City of Ember" before it opened--it's out today and I hope to catch it this weekend. But over the summer I did have an opportunity to chat with the film's star, Saoirse Ronan, and director Gil Kenan. The review was finally published this week in the 10/12/08 edition of the Advisor and Source Newspapers, so I thought I'd share it here.
Citizens of "City of Ember"
by Chris Williams
In the new film adventure "City of Ember," an underground city is facing disaster and only two kids can save the day.
A big budget adaptation of the popular young adult novel by Jeanne DuPrau, the film features performances by Oscar winner Tim Robbins and Oscar-nominated funnyman Bill Murray as the adults who can help or hinder protagonists Lina Mayfleet and Doon Hallow. Twentieth Century Fox is hoping the film will join the ranks of "Harry Potter," "The Spiderwick Chronicles" and "Kung Fu Panda" as a new family classic.
The studio's hopes are pinned on young director Gil Kenan, who last helmed the horror-comedy "Monster House," and actress Saoirse Ronan, last seen opposite Kiera Knightley in the Oscar-nominated "Atonement." Over the summer Kenan and Ronan both talked with the Source about the highly-anticipated film, which will be released in theaters Oct. 10.
'Atonement' and adaptations
On a beautiful day when most children her age were enjoying the last days of summer, 14-year-old Saoirse (pronounced 'SIR-sha') Ronan was indoors in Los Angeles concluding a day of interviews with reporters from across the country.
"I'm not mad about staying inside and doing interviews," said Ronan. "Obviously you're going to want to go out and have fun, but you have to promote the movie. I don't mind doing it because then I can go home and enjoy that."
Home for Ronan is her native Ireland, where she lives with her parents and recently started her second year of high school. She said her parents are supportive and her father helps her pick the right scripts sent to her, but she also realizes that life as a high school student is probably about to make a big change. For one, she said she most-likely won't be getting involved in drama club, because she wants to be able to live a bit normally and give others their chance in the spotlight.
Besides, it might not be fair for others to have to audition against a teenage Oscar nominee. Ronan received that honor last year, when she was nominated for Best Supporting Actress for her work as Briony Tallis in the critically-acclaimed "Atonement" alongside Knightley and James McAvoy. She will next be seen in the adaptation of the popular novel "The Lovely Jones," where she plays murdered child Susie Salmon alongside actors Mark Wahlberg, Susan Sarandon and Rachel Weisz. The film is directed by Peter Jackson, the Oscar-winning helmer of "King Kong" and "The Lord of the Rings."
Not a bad clique to be around in your high school years.
"I think there's a few good people that I've got to work with and hopefully that will continue," said Ronan.
The included both Robbins and Murray, whose work as the Mayor of Ember brought a levity and charm to the set, Ronan said.
"It was brilliant," she said. "He was so much fun and he brought so much to the set."
"Ember" is yet another adaptation to add to Ronan's resume alongside "Atonement" and "Lovely Bones." Yet where those films dealt with solemn, serious issues, the new movie features gigantic set pieces and mind-bending mysteries all delivered with a sense of humor and adventure.
"Everything up to 'City of Ember' wasn't really a big film, they were kind of quiet and smaller and more serious," Ronan said. "But I didn't really mind it. It was great."
As heroine Lina, Ronan is involved in the chase to save Ember. Lina finds a box in her apartment that houses instructions to save the city that have been discarded by a corrupt mayor. As the new mayor (Murray) tracks her down, she must do whatever she can to solve Ember's hidden mysteries.
Ronan said it was a great deal of fun to step of the film's massive set and be part of an adventure film designed to appeal to her peers.
"It was great to do and lots of fun. There's lots of stuff that happens and it's just so much fun," said Ronan. "The same thing that people liked about the book, they're going to like about the movie. It's just very exciting."
As Ronan moves forward into her teenage years, she knows that the opportunity to cash in on her fame by taking roles in crude comedies and slasher films could be a temptation. Yet she said she wants to stick to more respectable work and has a word of advice for young actors getting formulaic scripts.
"Just don't do them. Some of them are actually very good, but there are always some bad ones and that's for any movie," she said. "I don't think I'd like to do a horror movie, though. I suppose I just have to see what comes her way."
There is one genre, however, she said she may like to dance her way into.
"I think it would be fun to be in a musical," she said. "The singing and dancing just seem like it would be a lot of fun."
From a "House" to a "City"
Gil Kenan's feature debut, the 2006 family horror-comedy "Monster House," was a computer-animated adventure that required no sets or costumes. In making the film, Kenan dressed his actors up in special suits that captured their movements and facial reactions. The sets and special effects were all added later by animators.
For "City of Ember," Kenan could have easily gone the same route or, similar to the films "300" and "Sin City," filmed his actors and animated the settings. But Kenan felt it was necessary to build a large set that housed Ember, the place his actors would call home for several months.
"We went the practical route because I really wanted to give the actors a tangible experience with this," he said. "In some ways, this is actually a bit easier because everything is right there. You're not asking them to react to a ball on a stick or pretend something's there when it's not."
Born in the United Kingdom, Kenan was a film student who caught a self-described "lucky break" when one of his short films played in a festival and caught the eye of Hollywood agents. Shortly after that, Kenan received a call to meet with some of Hollywood's biggest players.
"At that point, I was struggling and I was basically living hand-to-mouth," he said. "Literally within a few months of that call I was having meetings with Robert Zemeckis and Steven Spielberg."
It was with those two that Kenan would eventually collaborate on "Monster House," a film about two young boys who battle a house that literally comes to life and begins eating neighborhood residents. Raised on films like "E.T.," "Poltergeist" and "The Goonies," Kenan made the film a sort of homage back to the family films of the 1980s that dared to actually mix real scares in between the laughs.
"I feel like the reason I liked the movies I did when I was growing up was that they didn't pacify the experience. There was a danger and an excitement to them," he said. "That drove me in a big way to 'Monster House,' and I feel like when I watch that that it captures that same sort of tone."
Before taking on the "House," however, Kenan was attracted to an adaptation of Jeanne DuPrau's young adult novel about a 200-year-old underground city that's running out of time. Although complications required "Monster House" to come first, Kenan still felt his home was with "City of Ember," which he liked because of the science fiction elements of the story.
"One of the things that was really interesting was the interplay between the characters and their environment, in this city that is underground with these lamps lighting it that are about to go out," he said. "With 'Ember' I really loved the idea that this place we call home is about to disappear and needs to be saved."
Constructing the elaborate city took the work of hundreds of craftsman and construction workers. For the city's look, Kenan turned to other famous dystopias, including the first such film, Fritz Lang's 1926 silent masterpiece "Metropolis."
"I was really inspired by looking at 'Metropolis'. You're looking to construct something that's visually interesting, but also functional, and when you look at these dystopian periods, they kind of all boil down to the same design," he said. "All of them were sort of born from that same look."
With the city ready to go, Kenan said the film would rest on the shoulders of "Ember's" citizens. He said Murray, with his dry wit, was a natural choice for the Mayor of Ember and that Robbins' cache lent credibility to his role. For the casting of Lina Mayfleet, however, he turned to Ronan, then an unknown.
"It was just crystal-clear that she was the right girl for this role," Kenan said. "Obviously 'Atonement' proved that she had the chops, but she was just wonderful in her audition."
Citizens of "City of Ember"
by Chris Williams
In the new film adventure "City of Ember," an underground city is facing disaster and only two kids can save the day.
A big budget adaptation of the popular young adult novel by Jeanne DuPrau, the film features performances by Oscar winner Tim Robbins and Oscar-nominated funnyman Bill Murray as the adults who can help or hinder protagonists Lina Mayfleet and Doon Hallow. Twentieth Century Fox is hoping the film will join the ranks of "Harry Potter," "The Spiderwick Chronicles" and "Kung Fu Panda" as a new family classic.
The studio's hopes are pinned on young director Gil Kenan, who last helmed the horror-comedy "Monster House," and actress Saoirse Ronan, last seen opposite Kiera Knightley in the Oscar-nominated "Atonement." Over the summer Kenan and Ronan both talked with the Source about the highly-anticipated film, which will be released in theaters Oct. 10.
'Atonement' and adaptations
On a beautiful day when most children her age were enjoying the last days of summer, 14-year-old Saoirse (pronounced 'SIR-sha') Ronan was indoors in Los Angeles concluding a day of interviews with reporters from across the country.
"I'm not mad about staying inside and doing interviews," said Ronan. "Obviously you're going to want to go out and have fun, but you have to promote the movie. I don't mind doing it because then I can go home and enjoy that."
Home for Ronan is her native Ireland, where she lives with her parents and recently started her second year of high school. She said her parents are supportive and her father helps her pick the right scripts sent to her, but she also realizes that life as a high school student is probably about to make a big change. For one, she said she most-likely won't be getting involved in drama club, because she wants to be able to live a bit normally and give others their chance in the spotlight.
Besides, it might not be fair for others to have to audition against a teenage Oscar nominee. Ronan received that honor last year, when she was nominated for Best Supporting Actress for her work as Briony Tallis in the critically-acclaimed "Atonement" alongside Knightley and James McAvoy. She will next be seen in the adaptation of the popular novel "The Lovely Jones," where she plays murdered child Susie Salmon alongside actors Mark Wahlberg, Susan Sarandon and Rachel Weisz. The film is directed by Peter Jackson, the Oscar-winning helmer of "King Kong" and "The Lord of the Rings."
Not a bad clique to be around in your high school years.
"I think there's a few good people that I've got to work with and hopefully that will continue," said Ronan.
The included both Robbins and Murray, whose work as the Mayor of Ember brought a levity and charm to the set, Ronan said.
"It was brilliant," she said. "He was so much fun and he brought so much to the set."
"Ember" is yet another adaptation to add to Ronan's resume alongside "Atonement" and "Lovely Bones." Yet where those films dealt with solemn, serious issues, the new movie features gigantic set pieces and mind-bending mysteries all delivered with a sense of humor and adventure.
"Everything up to 'City of Ember' wasn't really a big film, they were kind of quiet and smaller and more serious," Ronan said. "But I didn't really mind it. It was great."
As heroine Lina, Ronan is involved in the chase to save Ember. Lina finds a box in her apartment that houses instructions to save the city that have been discarded by a corrupt mayor. As the new mayor (Murray) tracks her down, she must do whatever she can to solve Ember's hidden mysteries.
Ronan said it was a great deal of fun to step of the film's massive set and be part of an adventure film designed to appeal to her peers.
"It was great to do and lots of fun. There's lots of stuff that happens and it's just so much fun," said Ronan. "The same thing that people liked about the book, they're going to like about the movie. It's just very exciting."
As Ronan moves forward into her teenage years, she knows that the opportunity to cash in on her fame by taking roles in crude comedies and slasher films could be a temptation. Yet she said she wants to stick to more respectable work and has a word of advice for young actors getting formulaic scripts.
"Just don't do them. Some of them are actually very good, but there are always some bad ones and that's for any movie," she said. "I don't think I'd like to do a horror movie, though. I suppose I just have to see what comes her way."
There is one genre, however, she said she may like to dance her way into.
"I think it would be fun to be in a musical," she said. "The singing and dancing just seem like it would be a lot of fun."
From a "House" to a "City"
Gil Kenan's feature debut, the 2006 family horror-comedy "Monster House," was a computer-animated adventure that required no sets or costumes. In making the film, Kenan dressed his actors up in special suits that captured their movements and facial reactions. The sets and special effects were all added later by animators.
For "City of Ember," Kenan could have easily gone the same route or, similar to the films "300" and "Sin City," filmed his actors and animated the settings. But Kenan felt it was necessary to build a large set that housed Ember, the place his actors would call home for several months.
"We went the practical route because I really wanted to give the actors a tangible experience with this," he said. "In some ways, this is actually a bit easier because everything is right there. You're not asking them to react to a ball on a stick or pretend something's there when it's not."
Born in the United Kingdom, Kenan was a film student who caught a self-described "lucky break" when one of his short films played in a festival and caught the eye of Hollywood agents. Shortly after that, Kenan received a call to meet with some of Hollywood's biggest players.
"At that point, I was struggling and I was basically living hand-to-mouth," he said. "Literally within a few months of that call I was having meetings with Robert Zemeckis and Steven Spielberg."
It was with those two that Kenan would eventually collaborate on "Monster House," a film about two young boys who battle a house that literally comes to life and begins eating neighborhood residents. Raised on films like "E.T.," "Poltergeist" and "The Goonies," Kenan made the film a sort of homage back to the family films of the 1980s that dared to actually mix real scares in between the laughs.
"I feel like the reason I liked the movies I did when I was growing up was that they didn't pacify the experience. There was a danger and an excitement to them," he said. "That drove me in a big way to 'Monster House,' and I feel like when I watch that that it captures that same sort of tone."
Before taking on the "House," however, Kenan was attracted to an adaptation of Jeanne DuPrau's young adult novel about a 200-year-old underground city that's running out of time. Although complications required "Monster House" to come first, Kenan still felt his home was with "City of Ember," which he liked because of the science fiction elements of the story.
"One of the things that was really interesting was the interplay between the characters and their environment, in this city that is underground with these lamps lighting it that are about to go out," he said. "With 'Ember' I really loved the idea that this place we call home is about to disappear and needs to be saved."
Constructing the elaborate city took the work of hundreds of craftsman and construction workers. For the city's look, Kenan turned to other famous dystopias, including the first such film, Fritz Lang's 1926 silent masterpiece "Metropolis."
"I was really inspired by looking at 'Metropolis'. You're looking to construct something that's visually interesting, but also functional, and when you look at these dystopian periods, they kind of all boil down to the same design," he said. "All of them were sort of born from that same look."
With the city ready to go, Kenan said the film would rest on the shoulders of "Ember's" citizens. He said Murray, with his dry wit, was a natural choice for the Mayor of Ember and that Robbins' cache lent credibility to his role. For the casting of Lina Mayfleet, however, he turned to Ronan, then an unknown.
"It was just crystal-clear that she was the right girl for this role," Kenan said. "Obviously 'Atonement' proved that she had the chops, but she was just wonderful in her audition."
Movie Review: "Religulous"
It’s dangerous enough to make a film about religion, let alone a comedy. From “Life of Brian” to “Dogma,” films dealing with religion in jest have faced boycotts, scrutiny and harsh criticism from the devout.
So I’m shocked that more noise has not been made about “Religulous,” the new comedy-documentary from comedian Bill Maher and director Larry Charles (“Borat”). Here is a film that posits that religion is not just silly, but dangerous and should be stricken from the face of the Earth. Yet there seems to be more concern over David Zucker’s spoof “An American Carol” and Oliver Stone’s upcoming George W. Bush satire than of this film, which starts off funny, and then turns into an angry screed of doubt and cynicism.
Of course, it could just be that people see Maher involved in a movie about religion and know exactly what to expect. For more than 30 years, the comedian and former host of “Politically Incorrect” has praised drugs, bashed marriage and said whatever is on his mind, no matter how shocking or callous. But he’s always saved the majority of his venom for religion, especially Christianity.
Maher is not an atheist, mind you. He’s an out-and-proud agnostic who says he doesn’t know if there is anyone out there watching us and that it’s arrogant to think you know something for certain. His goal with the film, he says, is to find out why religion is such an attractive choice for people around the world and he sets out interviewing several representatives of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Representatives may actually be too strong of a word. Maher, an intelligent and very witty comedian, knows what leads to comic gold. So he spends most of the film talking with people on the fringes of the religion - a Muslim imam at the controversial Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, an Israeli physician with an elaborate system of machines set up so he can avoid any work on the Sabbath and the actor who plays Jesus at The Holy Land Experience amusement park in Orlando.
As Charles proved with the much-better “Borat,” catching people dumbfounded, awkward and off-guard can be hilarious, and there’s no shortage of idiocy on parade in “Religulous.” Peppering in clips from religious television programs, evangelistic outreach ministries and even a few adult films, Maher and Charles provide a smart-aleck counterpoint to even the most earnest followers. They also make sure to interview the most ludicrous televangelists, a few gay Muslims and a Mexican man who claims to be the second coming of Christ; his name is even, conveniently, Jesus.
The film is very funny, I will admit. And I would expect no less coming from such an intelligent comedian as Maher and a director like Larry Charles, who cut his teeth on “Seinfeld” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” Maher is a smart and likable interviewer who laughs and jokes with his subjects before going in for a well-timed kill, whether its getting a senator to admit “you don’t need an IQ test to serve in the senate” or trapping a health-and-prosperity evangelist by stating that Jesus actually saved some of his harshest words for the rich and the powerful. Maher leads the subjects into the joke and Charles, using smart editing and invasive camera work, lends a visual punch line. As a comedy that examines how human beings often make a mess of religion and faith, “Religulous” succeeds from time to time.
The problem is that “Religulous” is not just a comedy. It’s a documentary and, on that level, it is extremely problematic.
I don’t believe that Maher and Charles ever set out to make a serious examination of faith, yet that’s what he claims to be setting out to do at the beginning. Yet by interviewing people on the fringe, Maher loses any sight of real debate and discussion. If he was convinced that faith is truly a fraud, then it may have behooved him to talk with theologians, Bible scholars, archeologists and scientists, rather than actors and televangelists. He does sit with a Vatican priest who is a believer in evolution and a scientist who is one of the few deists in the Human Genome project. But those interviews are not necessarily funny and he cuts to his next wacky subject after a few brief sentences, just when it appears the debate could get interesting. It’s the same misguided editing used by Ben Stein when he went after anti-theist Richard Dawkins in this year’s woeful “Expelled.”
Maher also stoops to Michael Moore shock “facts” to get his point across. Rather than try and explain his lack of faith rationally, he pulls out some statements that sound good but are ultimately pointless. His use of quotes by the Founding Fathers to show their distaste of religion is misleading, as a quote by John Adams is taken extremely out of context and his examination of Thomas Jefferson, who compiled a New Testament with all references to Christ’s miracles and divinity expunged, fails to note that Jefferson did admire Christ as a moral teacher. The parallels he cites between the Gospel story and the Egyptian legend of Horus are extremely problematical, as most have been proven to be the basis of historical urban legends. By the time he delivers an angry polemic at Megiddo, the site where Christians believe the world will end, Maher has not earned his anger or proven that there is any credence to his belief that religion will destroy the world.
There’s an interesting moment halfway through the film in which Maher challenges someone on the doctrine of the Trinity. The subject actually gives a smart reply, using the three states of water as an example. Maher is genuinely stopped in his tracks for a second and confesses later that he didn’t know what to say. “But two minutes later, you realize it’s all BS,” he says.
That’s funny. I felt that way quite a bit during “Religulous.” Grade: C-
Chris Williams is a Source staff writer and member of the Detroit Film Critics Society. He can be reached at Chris.Williams@advisorsource.com
This review was originally published in the 10/12/08 edition of the Advisor and Source Newspapers.
So I’m shocked that more noise has not been made about “Religulous,” the new comedy-documentary from comedian Bill Maher and director Larry Charles (“Borat”). Here is a film that posits that religion is not just silly, but dangerous and should be stricken from the face of the Earth. Yet there seems to be more concern over David Zucker’s spoof “An American Carol” and Oliver Stone’s upcoming George W. Bush satire than of this film, which starts off funny, and then turns into an angry screed of doubt and cynicism.
Of course, it could just be that people see Maher involved in a movie about religion and know exactly what to expect. For more than 30 years, the comedian and former host of “Politically Incorrect” has praised drugs, bashed marriage and said whatever is on his mind, no matter how shocking or callous. But he’s always saved the majority of his venom for religion, especially Christianity.
Maher is not an atheist, mind you. He’s an out-and-proud agnostic who says he doesn’t know if there is anyone out there watching us and that it’s arrogant to think you know something for certain. His goal with the film, he says, is to find out why religion is such an attractive choice for people around the world and he sets out interviewing several representatives of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Representatives may actually be too strong of a word. Maher, an intelligent and very witty comedian, knows what leads to comic gold. So he spends most of the film talking with people on the fringes of the religion - a Muslim imam at the controversial Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, an Israeli physician with an elaborate system of machines set up so he can avoid any work on the Sabbath and the actor who plays Jesus at The Holy Land Experience amusement park in Orlando.
As Charles proved with the much-better “Borat,” catching people dumbfounded, awkward and off-guard can be hilarious, and there’s no shortage of idiocy on parade in “Religulous.” Peppering in clips from religious television programs, evangelistic outreach ministries and even a few adult films, Maher and Charles provide a smart-aleck counterpoint to even the most earnest followers. They also make sure to interview the most ludicrous televangelists, a few gay Muslims and a Mexican man who claims to be the second coming of Christ; his name is even, conveniently, Jesus.
The film is very funny, I will admit. And I would expect no less coming from such an intelligent comedian as Maher and a director like Larry Charles, who cut his teeth on “Seinfeld” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” Maher is a smart and likable interviewer who laughs and jokes with his subjects before going in for a well-timed kill, whether its getting a senator to admit “you don’t need an IQ test to serve in the senate” or trapping a health-and-prosperity evangelist by stating that Jesus actually saved some of his harshest words for the rich and the powerful. Maher leads the subjects into the joke and Charles, using smart editing and invasive camera work, lends a visual punch line. As a comedy that examines how human beings often make a mess of religion and faith, “Religulous” succeeds from time to time.
The problem is that “Religulous” is not just a comedy. It’s a documentary and, on that level, it is extremely problematic.
I don’t believe that Maher and Charles ever set out to make a serious examination of faith, yet that’s what he claims to be setting out to do at the beginning. Yet by interviewing people on the fringe, Maher loses any sight of real debate and discussion. If he was convinced that faith is truly a fraud, then it may have behooved him to talk with theologians, Bible scholars, archeologists and scientists, rather than actors and televangelists. He does sit with a Vatican priest who is a believer in evolution and a scientist who is one of the few deists in the Human Genome project. But those interviews are not necessarily funny and he cuts to his next wacky subject after a few brief sentences, just when it appears the debate could get interesting. It’s the same misguided editing used by Ben Stein when he went after anti-theist Richard Dawkins in this year’s woeful “Expelled.”
Maher also stoops to Michael Moore shock “facts” to get his point across. Rather than try and explain his lack of faith rationally, he pulls out some statements that sound good but are ultimately pointless. His use of quotes by the Founding Fathers to show their distaste of religion is misleading, as a quote by John Adams is taken extremely out of context and his examination of Thomas Jefferson, who compiled a New Testament with all references to Christ’s miracles and divinity expunged, fails to note that Jefferson did admire Christ as a moral teacher. The parallels he cites between the Gospel story and the Egyptian legend of Horus are extremely problematical, as most have been proven to be the basis of historical urban legends. By the time he delivers an angry polemic at Megiddo, the site where Christians believe the world will end, Maher has not earned his anger or proven that there is any credence to his belief that religion will destroy the world.
There’s an interesting moment halfway through the film in which Maher challenges someone on the doctrine of the Trinity. The subject actually gives a smart reply, using the three states of water as an example. Maher is genuinely stopped in his tracks for a second and confesses later that he didn’t know what to say. “But two minutes later, you realize it’s all BS,” he says.
That’s funny. I felt that way quite a bit during “Religulous.” Grade: C-
Chris Williams is a Source staff writer and member of the Detroit Film Critics Society. He can be reached at Chris.Williams@advisorsource.com
This review was originally published in the 10/12/08 edition of the Advisor and Source Newspapers.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Movie Review: Blindness
Make no mistake about it: despite the pedigree of Oscar-winning director Fernando Mierelles, and actors Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo, “Blindness” is not a pleasant, beautiful movie.
The film, based on a novel by Jose Saramango, has elements of drama, political allegory and science fiction. But at heart, “Blindness” is a horror story about the thin line between civilization and chaos, the darkest depths of the human heart and what happens when we ignore society’s most vulnerable.
Set in an unidentified city in the near future, “Blindness” depicts a world in which a new epidemic causes people to be afflicted by “the white sickness,” a disease that robs people of their sight. A doctor (Ruffalo) is stricken with the disease after treating a patient and when government officials come to quarantine him, his wife (Moore) stays by his side, hiding the fact that she can see.
As the sickness spreads, more people are brought into the quarantine compound, where they are left on their own, and supplied only with basic food and necessities. Civilization outside the camp breaks down and factions break out within the quarantined wards, leading to the rise of a warlord of sorts (Gael Garcia Bernal), who hordes the food and makes sickening demands in order to give it away. All the while, the doctor’s wife watches in silence and we wonder if it would be better to be blind than to see the horror of what’s going on.
Government neglect, human degradation, starvation, humiliation and gang rape do not necessarily make for an enjoyable time at the movies, and “Blindness” is about as bleak as films come. Mierelles drains the film stock of nearly all color, giving even the most subtle moments an air of dread about them. He films some of the most horrifying moments in near darkness and does not spare the audience the most painful sights. “Blindness” is definitely not a date movie or escapist fare.
But a depressing film is not necessarily a bad one and there are moments of near-brilliance in Mierelles’ tale. While not as thrilling as his classic debut “City of God” or as emotionally resonant and suspenseful as “The Constant Gardner,” the director is not reveling in human misery or exploiting calamity. With its unnamed character, unidentified city and unspecified time period, “Blindness” serves not as simple fiction, but as an allegory that prompts us to consider compassion by showing us its absence.
How do we treat the world’s most afflicted and vulnerable? Do we show them compassion or move them out of sight, comforting ourselves by throwing them a dollar or giving them a sandwich? What are the ramifications of our actions toward people in need and are we damning ourselves by ignoring problems that don’t immediately affect us? “Blindness” can be seen for a metaphor, albeit heavy-handed at times, for these questions and it’s a none-too-subtle allegory for situations that have developed in areas like Darfur and Rwanda, where the world’s governments have ignored the need for so long that chaos has erupted.
Moore, in a strong performance, could be seen as the nations or individuals that can see their problem. Her character arc, as she moves from taking care of her husband to becoming a surrogate mother for all in her ward, speaks of the responsibility of those who have sight to care for the problem and get involved. Ruffalo earns sympathy as the husband who formerly supported his family and now has to depend on others for the most menial tasks.
Those who don’t like being preached to will likely bristle at “Blindness’s” message and others may find it simply too grim to endure. The allegorical structure doesn’t allow for much character development and Mierelles does go a bit overboard with his stylistic tics, which sometimes overpower the story’s narrative. The film lacks the warmth and humanity of his other films, and even the ending, which aims for hope, still feels dark.
But for those willing to endure the grim spectacle of “Blindness,” they will find a movie that speaks to important issues and, if the film restores the sight of governments to the plight of the needy, it will be worth it. Grade: B
Originally published in the Oct. 5 edition of The Source newspaper. Written by Chris Williams.
The film, based on a novel by Jose Saramango, has elements of drama, political allegory and science fiction. But at heart, “Blindness” is a horror story about the thin line between civilization and chaos, the darkest depths of the human heart and what happens when we ignore society’s most vulnerable.
Set in an unidentified city in the near future, “Blindness” depicts a world in which a new epidemic causes people to be afflicted by “the white sickness,” a disease that robs people of their sight. A doctor (Ruffalo) is stricken with the disease after treating a patient and when government officials come to quarantine him, his wife (Moore) stays by his side, hiding the fact that she can see.
As the sickness spreads, more people are brought into the quarantine compound, where they are left on their own, and supplied only with basic food and necessities. Civilization outside the camp breaks down and factions break out within the quarantined wards, leading to the rise of a warlord of sorts (Gael Garcia Bernal), who hordes the food and makes sickening demands in order to give it away. All the while, the doctor’s wife watches in silence and we wonder if it would be better to be blind than to see the horror of what’s going on.
Government neglect, human degradation, starvation, humiliation and gang rape do not necessarily make for an enjoyable time at the movies, and “Blindness” is about as bleak as films come. Mierelles drains the film stock of nearly all color, giving even the most subtle moments an air of dread about them. He films some of the most horrifying moments in near darkness and does not spare the audience the most painful sights. “Blindness” is definitely not a date movie or escapist fare.
But a depressing film is not necessarily a bad one and there are moments of near-brilliance in Mierelles’ tale. While not as thrilling as his classic debut “City of God” or as emotionally resonant and suspenseful as “The Constant Gardner,” the director is not reveling in human misery or exploiting calamity. With its unnamed character, unidentified city and unspecified time period, “Blindness” serves not as simple fiction, but as an allegory that prompts us to consider compassion by showing us its absence.
How do we treat the world’s most afflicted and vulnerable? Do we show them compassion or move them out of sight, comforting ourselves by throwing them a dollar or giving them a sandwich? What are the ramifications of our actions toward people in need and are we damning ourselves by ignoring problems that don’t immediately affect us? “Blindness” can be seen for a metaphor, albeit heavy-handed at times, for these questions and it’s a none-too-subtle allegory for situations that have developed in areas like Darfur and Rwanda, where the world’s governments have ignored the need for so long that chaos has erupted.
Moore, in a strong performance, could be seen as the nations or individuals that can see their problem. Her character arc, as she moves from taking care of her husband to becoming a surrogate mother for all in her ward, speaks of the responsibility of those who have sight to care for the problem and get involved. Ruffalo earns sympathy as the husband who formerly supported his family and now has to depend on others for the most menial tasks.
Those who don’t like being preached to will likely bristle at “Blindness’s” message and others may find it simply too grim to endure. The allegorical structure doesn’t allow for much character development and Mierelles does go a bit overboard with his stylistic tics, which sometimes overpower the story’s narrative. The film lacks the warmth and humanity of his other films, and even the ending, which aims for hope, still feels dark.
But for those willing to endure the grim spectacle of “Blindness,” they will find a movie that speaks to important issues and, if the film restores the sight of governments to the plight of the needy, it will be worth it. Grade: B
Originally published in the Oct. 5 edition of The Source newspaper. Written by Chris Williams.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Review: Burn After Reading
Sorry I'm a bit late with this one. Saw it before it opened, but just got around to posting it here from the paper. Later on this week I'll have thoughts on a plethora of new and old movies.
Burn After Reading (originally publiched in The Source newspaper, 9/21/08)
Conventional wisdom would say that after dominating last year’s Academy Awards with “No Country for Old Men,” directors Joel and Ethan Coen would take the high road, trading in their quirky, bizarre comedies for prestigious mainstream projects.
But the Coens have always followed a different path. Their debut noir “Blood Simple” was followed by the quirky “Raising Arizona,” the somber “Miller’s Crossing” begat “Barton Fink” and “The Hudsucker Proxy,” and the magnificently deadpan “Fargo” was immediately trailed by The Dude in “The Big Lebowski.” So it’s not too much of a surprise that after delivering a film as bleak and devastating as “No Country” that the writer-directors would decide to recruit some of their favorite players for a goofy black comedy about sex, politics, fitness and Internet dating in “Burn After Reading.”
The film takes place in Washington, D.C., and opens as CIA analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is told he is being demoted from “The Balkans desk” because of a drinking problem. Cox, in all the profane glory Malkovich can muster, instead decides to quit and tells his wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) that he’s going to write a tell-all memoir about his time with the agency. The fact that this elicits a mean-spirited cackle from Katie tells us both about the marital discord going on and just how expendable Cox is to the CIA.
A disc containing Cox’s story notes falls into the hand of two employees at Hardbodies Fitness Center, the plastic-surgery obsessed Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) and Chad (Brad Pitt), a brainless fitness guru who guzzles bottled water and is constantly dancing to a tune on his iPod. Chad surmises that the disc has government secrets on it, and he and Linda, to the consternation of their boss (Richard Jenkins), decide to blackmail Osborne. In a (seemingly) unrelated subplot, Linda begins dating serial Internet dater and paranoid hypochondriac Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), who also happens to be dating Katie Cox on the side behind his wife’s back. The Russians also get involved, although no one is really sure why.
If the plot seems a little too convoluted to keep up with, don’t worry: That’s part of the joke. For all the labyrinthine developments and constantly intertwining relationships, the truth is that nothing really happens of any consequence, although it winds up leaving half the characters dead by the end. The Coens are in on the joke, filming it in the same style as a big-budget spy epic complete with zooming lenses and shaky frames and employing a loud, bombastic soundtrack to underscore the most mundane moments (listen closely when Linda looks through a lover’s wallet and finds ... a shopping list!).
While their serious fare is normally excellent, the Coens have always been hit-and-miss when it comes to comedies. Few would dispute the merits of “Raising Arizona,” and although it took me awhile, I’ve come to embrace the slacker brilliance of “Lebowski.” In the recent films “The Ladykillers” and “Intolerable Cruelty,” they’ve stumbled, creating comedies that land with a thud.
Thankfully, “Burn After Reading” is more “Lebowski” than “Ladykillers.” I wouldn’t be surprised if after the somberness of “No Country,” they simply wanted to blow off some steam and have some fun, and it shows in nearly every frame. The plot weaves in and out, never really gelling but simply letting the absurd characters careen off each other, almost like “Crash” meets “Looney Tunes,” with a serving of black humor and shocking violence. When it becomes apparent the plot is simply going around in circles, it’s best to just enjoy the ride and see where it ends up - and it’s well-worth it for the final scene, a gut-busting punch line to the whole big joke, delivered perfectly by JK Simmons.
The Coens have said they wrote the film based around the performers they wanted for each character, and each actor gets to do some of their best work here as they lampoon themselves. McDormand’s Linda is like a vainer version of “Fargo’s” Marge Gunderson and she still has that wonderfully naive optimism about her. Malkovich is wonderfully obscene as the alcoholic analyst who starts the whole thing off, but I particularly loved his character’s idiotic pretension; I giggled quite a bit at the way he pronounced “memoir.”
Clooney gets the most out of his work here, tweaking his ladies’ man image to make Harry both a cad and a total idiot, paranoid that he’s always being followed and proud of the fact that although he’s a federal marshal he’s never had to fire his gun once. He’s wonderfully sleazy and vain, always wondering if he can fit in a run after sex. And wait until you see what he’s building in the basement.
Pitt has a smaller role, but he gives the film the biggest comedic jolt as airheaded Chad, especially in the scene where he and Linda call Osborne to blackmail him. I have always considered Pitt to be a very diverse and intelligent actor, but here he somehow manages to erase all traces of intelligence from his eyes as Chad bops along on a treadmill. Something as simple as Chad drinking from a water bottle had me in stitches.
I doubt the Coens will see a return trip to the Oscars this year; “Burn After Reading” is a throwaway film that manages some good laughs and the actors are having a ball, but it’s really weightless entertainment with no real point to it ... which may be the point. After all, how many films do we analyze over and over for meaning only to find they have none? At least the Coens are well aware of the vapidity of their characters and the plot they find themselves in. Grade: B+
Burn After Reading (originally publiched in The Source newspaper, 9/21/08)
Conventional wisdom would say that after dominating last year’s Academy Awards with “No Country for Old Men,” directors Joel and Ethan Coen would take the high road, trading in their quirky, bizarre comedies for prestigious mainstream projects.
But the Coens have always followed a different path. Their debut noir “Blood Simple” was followed by the quirky “Raising Arizona,” the somber “Miller’s Crossing” begat “Barton Fink” and “The Hudsucker Proxy,” and the magnificently deadpan “Fargo” was immediately trailed by The Dude in “The Big Lebowski.” So it’s not too much of a surprise that after delivering a film as bleak and devastating as “No Country” that the writer-directors would decide to recruit some of their favorite players for a goofy black comedy about sex, politics, fitness and Internet dating in “Burn After Reading.”
The film takes place in Washington, D.C., and opens as CIA analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is told he is being demoted from “The Balkans desk” because of a drinking problem. Cox, in all the profane glory Malkovich can muster, instead decides to quit and tells his wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) that he’s going to write a tell-all memoir about his time with the agency. The fact that this elicits a mean-spirited cackle from Katie tells us both about the marital discord going on and just how expendable Cox is to the CIA.
A disc containing Cox’s story notes falls into the hand of two employees at Hardbodies Fitness Center, the plastic-surgery obsessed Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) and Chad (Brad Pitt), a brainless fitness guru who guzzles bottled water and is constantly dancing to a tune on his iPod. Chad surmises that the disc has government secrets on it, and he and Linda, to the consternation of their boss (Richard Jenkins), decide to blackmail Osborne. In a (seemingly) unrelated subplot, Linda begins dating serial Internet dater and paranoid hypochondriac Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney), who also happens to be dating Katie Cox on the side behind his wife’s back. The Russians also get involved, although no one is really sure why.
If the plot seems a little too convoluted to keep up with, don’t worry: That’s part of the joke. For all the labyrinthine developments and constantly intertwining relationships, the truth is that nothing really happens of any consequence, although it winds up leaving half the characters dead by the end. The Coens are in on the joke, filming it in the same style as a big-budget spy epic complete with zooming lenses and shaky frames and employing a loud, bombastic soundtrack to underscore the most mundane moments (listen closely when Linda looks through a lover’s wallet and finds ... a shopping list!).
While their serious fare is normally excellent, the Coens have always been hit-and-miss when it comes to comedies. Few would dispute the merits of “Raising Arizona,” and although it took me awhile, I’ve come to embrace the slacker brilliance of “Lebowski.” In the recent films “The Ladykillers” and “Intolerable Cruelty,” they’ve stumbled, creating comedies that land with a thud.
Thankfully, “Burn After Reading” is more “Lebowski” than “Ladykillers.” I wouldn’t be surprised if after the somberness of “No Country,” they simply wanted to blow off some steam and have some fun, and it shows in nearly every frame. The plot weaves in and out, never really gelling but simply letting the absurd characters careen off each other, almost like “Crash” meets “Looney Tunes,” with a serving of black humor and shocking violence. When it becomes apparent the plot is simply going around in circles, it’s best to just enjoy the ride and see where it ends up - and it’s well-worth it for the final scene, a gut-busting punch line to the whole big joke, delivered perfectly by JK Simmons.
The Coens have said they wrote the film based around the performers they wanted for each character, and each actor gets to do some of their best work here as they lampoon themselves. McDormand’s Linda is like a vainer version of “Fargo’s” Marge Gunderson and she still has that wonderfully naive optimism about her. Malkovich is wonderfully obscene as the alcoholic analyst who starts the whole thing off, but I particularly loved his character’s idiotic pretension; I giggled quite a bit at the way he pronounced “memoir.”
Clooney gets the most out of his work here, tweaking his ladies’ man image to make Harry both a cad and a total idiot, paranoid that he’s always being followed and proud of the fact that although he’s a federal marshal he’s never had to fire his gun once. He’s wonderfully sleazy and vain, always wondering if he can fit in a run after sex. And wait until you see what he’s building in the basement.
Pitt has a smaller role, but he gives the film the biggest comedic jolt as airheaded Chad, especially in the scene where he and Linda call Osborne to blackmail him. I have always considered Pitt to be a very diverse and intelligent actor, but here he somehow manages to erase all traces of intelligence from his eyes as Chad bops along on a treadmill. Something as simple as Chad drinking from a water bottle had me in stitches.
I doubt the Coens will see a return trip to the Oscars this year; “Burn After Reading” is a throwaway film that manages some good laughs and the actors are having a ball, but it’s really weightless entertainment with no real point to it ... which may be the point. After all, how many films do we analyze over and over for meaning only to find they have none? At least the Coens are well aware of the vapidity of their characters and the plot they find themselves in. Grade: B+
Friday, August 22, 2008
Muggles get their robes in a twist over "Harry Potter" delay
Wow, this may be the first negative thing I've ever had to say about the "Harry Potter" series.
I've defended the uber-popular fantasy book and film series for years against many of my ultra-fundamentalist friends who think it's evil and a gateway to Wicca because it centers on a wizard hero (and yet, "The Wizard of Oz" is their favorite movie in many cases). I've defended my enjoyment of the series against people who don't understand why adults read a "children's" book--albeit an 800-page children's book. And when I've had customers come up to me at Family Christian Stores, asking if we have any "anti-Harry Potter books," I slyly direct them toward the books we do have, such as "Finding God in Harry Potter," "The Gospel According to Harry Potter" and a few books lumping the series together with Narnia and Lord of the Rings.
But the fan outcry over Warner Bros' decision to move the release date of the film "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" from November of this year to summer 2009 is just purely ridiculous.
Of course, it does get some eyebrows raised. Films are generally delayed when there's a problem with them. Warner reps insist that "Half Blood" is being moved because they didn't have a summer tentpole for next summer (actually, they do have a 4th "Terminator" with Christian Bale) because of the writer's strike. And yes, it does make sense--honestly, I can't believe we haven't seen more delays of major films because of the strike...film fared a lot better than television in the strike fallout. But still, every film in this series has been a smashing financial success and I don't begrudge fans for wondering when the axe will drop and they'll finally get--horrors!--a bad Harry Potter film (actually, they already did; it was called "Chamber of Secrets" Zing!).
And I think Warner Brothers is hiding their true intentions about why they're moving Harry. I don't think it has anything to do with the quality of the film--Warners went ahead and released George Lucas's "Clone Wars" saga, which by all accounts murders the Star Wars legacy. I think it has to do with the financial bottom line and the fact that they actually have too much of a good thing.
Seriously, I think everyone expected that "The Dark Knight" would do well...but did anyone see it being this big? (Actually, I did). A $450+ million behemoth that is now the second-highest grossing film of all time. Couple that with the hundreds of millions that the penultimate "Potter" tale would rake in (well, not really penultimate since "Deathly Hallows" will be split into two films), and Warners is looking at a darn fine financial year...even with the (unfair) bomb of "Speed Racer".
But here's the issue they face. If they truly don't have much lined up for next year (a 4th Terminator film--without Arnold--is far from a sure thing, even with Bale), Warners is going to be looking like it's hurting when they compare 2008 and 2009 receipts. If you figure that they could stand to make more than $1 billion on Batman and Harry Potter this year alone, that puts them looking at a surefire loss when it comes to next year's profits. The solution? Move one of your big films from 2008 to 2009 to level the playing field. Why move it to summer instead of January or February? Well, that would have the inevitable stench of failure to it and movies (especially family movies) make more money in summer.
So it's all about money, I can hear fans asking?
Yep. In Hollywood, it's ALWAYS about money. After all, let's repeat--there's a 4th Terminator movie coming out. Without Arnold.
And I don't have a problem with that. They're not taking Harry Potter away. They're not cutting the movie or changing the story. They're simply moving it from one year to the next. It will be less of a wait between "Half Blood Prince" and the first installment of "Deathly Hallows," which inevitably will be a bonus for fans.
But Harry fans aren't happy and have been communicating via the Internet to sabotage Warners' other big film of 2009, "Watchmen." Which is just stupid, since that is one of the most highly-anticipated films of the decade. They've written angry letters to Warner honcho Allen Horn, who actually drafted a reply saying they would never "do anything to hurt the Harry Potter films." And they've complained, complained complained ("Watchmen" fans have their own inane battle going on with Fox, which is too boring to mention here).
And here's the thing that I want to say to Potterphiles: stop it.
Seriously, it's a movie. It's being moved back, not shelved. It will still be released and when it is it will still rake in hundreds of millions of dollars. This isn't "Lord of the Rings," where we were promised an installment every year. And that gap in November isn't going to restrict your movie options--there are still many great adventure films being released this fall, from "Quantum of Solace" to "Bolt" to "City of Ember." And all you "Twilight" geeks are going to get your vampire on when that film opens the same weekend!
And it's not like we're hanging on the edge to see what happens to Harry Potter. This isn't "The Matrix" or "Star Wars," in which we're learning a new stories and learning deep revelations. We KNOW what happens in "Half Blood Prince." In fact, we know what happens to Harry through the end of the series! If you're seriously jonesing to revisit the story (which is, to be fair, one of the best in the series), you can always re-read the book! So go grab your DVDs, read the book and wait patiently!
Of course, I'm in a bit of a minority here. I loved the Harry Potter books, but the movies have been hit-and-miss. The first two were mediocre. I still haven't seen "Azkaban" (don't yell--it's in my Blockbuster Queue!) and I thought "Goblet of Fire" was a fun movie but a horrid adaptation of the best book in the series (how dare they leave out the Quidditch World Cup!!??). The last film, "Order of the Phoenix" was the best byfar, but nothing still beats the magic of reading Rowlings' prose on a dark summer night.
So cheer up Harry fans. The best way to enjoy the stories ain't going nowhere.
I've defended the uber-popular fantasy book and film series for years against many of my ultra-fundamentalist friends who think it's evil and a gateway to Wicca because it centers on a wizard hero (and yet, "The Wizard of Oz" is their favorite movie in many cases). I've defended my enjoyment of the series against people who don't understand why adults read a "children's" book--albeit an 800-page children's book. And when I've had customers come up to me at Family Christian Stores, asking if we have any "anti-Harry Potter books," I slyly direct them toward the books we do have, such as "Finding God in Harry Potter," "The Gospel According to Harry Potter" and a few books lumping the series together with Narnia and Lord of the Rings.
But the fan outcry over Warner Bros' decision to move the release date of the film "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" from November of this year to summer 2009 is just purely ridiculous.
Of course, it does get some eyebrows raised. Films are generally delayed when there's a problem with them. Warner reps insist that "Half Blood" is being moved because they didn't have a summer tentpole for next summer (actually, they do have a 4th "Terminator" with Christian Bale) because of the writer's strike. And yes, it does make sense--honestly, I can't believe we haven't seen more delays of major films because of the strike...film fared a lot better than television in the strike fallout. But still, every film in this series has been a smashing financial success and I don't begrudge fans for wondering when the axe will drop and they'll finally get--horrors!--a bad Harry Potter film (actually, they already did; it was called "Chamber of Secrets" Zing!).
And I think Warner Brothers is hiding their true intentions about why they're moving Harry. I don't think it has anything to do with the quality of the film--Warners went ahead and released George Lucas's "Clone Wars" saga, which by all accounts murders the Star Wars legacy. I think it has to do with the financial bottom line and the fact that they actually have too much of a good thing.
Seriously, I think everyone expected that "The Dark Knight" would do well...but did anyone see it being this big? (Actually, I did). A $450+ million behemoth that is now the second-highest grossing film of all time. Couple that with the hundreds of millions that the penultimate "Potter" tale would rake in (well, not really penultimate since "Deathly Hallows" will be split into two films), and Warners is looking at a darn fine financial year...even with the (unfair) bomb of "Speed Racer".
But here's the issue they face. If they truly don't have much lined up for next year (a 4th Terminator film--without Arnold--is far from a sure thing, even with Bale), Warners is going to be looking like it's hurting when they compare 2008 and 2009 receipts. If you figure that they could stand to make more than $1 billion on Batman and Harry Potter this year alone, that puts them looking at a surefire loss when it comes to next year's profits. The solution? Move one of your big films from 2008 to 2009 to level the playing field. Why move it to summer instead of January or February? Well, that would have the inevitable stench of failure to it and movies (especially family movies) make more money in summer.
So it's all about money, I can hear fans asking?
Yep. In Hollywood, it's ALWAYS about money. After all, let's repeat--there's a 4th Terminator movie coming out. Without Arnold.
And I don't have a problem with that. They're not taking Harry Potter away. They're not cutting the movie or changing the story. They're simply moving it from one year to the next. It will be less of a wait between "Half Blood Prince" and the first installment of "Deathly Hallows," which inevitably will be a bonus for fans.
But Harry fans aren't happy and have been communicating via the Internet to sabotage Warners' other big film of 2009, "Watchmen." Which is just stupid, since that is one of the most highly-anticipated films of the decade. They've written angry letters to Warner honcho Allen Horn, who actually drafted a reply saying they would never "do anything to hurt the Harry Potter films." And they've complained, complained complained ("Watchmen" fans have their own inane battle going on with Fox, which is too boring to mention here).
And here's the thing that I want to say to Potterphiles: stop it.
Seriously, it's a movie. It's being moved back, not shelved. It will still be released and when it is it will still rake in hundreds of millions of dollars. This isn't "Lord of the Rings," where we were promised an installment every year. And that gap in November isn't going to restrict your movie options--there are still many great adventure films being released this fall, from "Quantum of Solace" to "Bolt" to "City of Ember." And all you "Twilight" geeks are going to get your vampire on when that film opens the same weekend!
And it's not like we're hanging on the edge to see what happens to Harry Potter. This isn't "The Matrix" or "Star Wars," in which we're learning a new stories and learning deep revelations. We KNOW what happens in "Half Blood Prince." In fact, we know what happens to Harry through the end of the series! If you're seriously jonesing to revisit the story (which is, to be fair, one of the best in the series), you can always re-read the book! So go grab your DVDs, read the book and wait patiently!
Of course, I'm in a bit of a minority here. I loved the Harry Potter books, but the movies have been hit-and-miss. The first two were mediocre. I still haven't seen "Azkaban" (don't yell--it's in my Blockbuster Queue!) and I thought "Goblet of Fire" was a fun movie but a horrid adaptation of the best book in the series (how dare they leave out the Quidditch World Cup!!??). The last film, "Order of the Phoenix" was the best byfar, but nothing still beats the magic of reading Rowlings' prose on a dark summer night.
So cheer up Harry fans. The best way to enjoy the stories ain't going nowhere.
MOVIE REVIEW: THE ROCKER
This is my review that runs today in the Advisor and Source newspapers...
THE ROCKER
For those about to rock...look elsewhere.
Casting Rainn Wilson (TV's "The Office") as a heavy metal drummer who joins a teenage garage band is a stroke of inspiration, but director Peter Cattaneo ("The Full Monty") can't figure out what to do with the rest of the film.
Wilson plays Robert "Fish" Fishman, drummer for 80s hair metal band Vesuvius, who is kicked out before the band makes it big. Twenty years later, he's working in customer service until getting the chance to join his cousin's band, which makes it big after an infamous Youtube video in which Fish drums in the altogether. When the band hits the road, Fish is determined to show them how to party like rock stars.
Instead of the raucous and ribald comedy that is lurking inside, Cattaneo settles for a formulaic and safe movie that ignores the opportunities for jokes about metal culture and a 40-something party animal and instead settles for lame pratfalls and groan-worthy mugging. After an inspired opening sequence, in which Fish engages in a "Terminator"-like pursuit after his band members, the film is quickly defanged and we never really know whether or not Fish is an aging party animal or someone trying to shed his rocker image. A scene set at Fish's office is blatantly throwing a bone to fans of Wilson's much better work as Dwight in "The Office," only minus the comedy.
A film like this needs a genuine love and admiration for the music that it's celebrating, much like "School of Rock" had. Instead, Cattaneo and his crew don't even seem to notice that the band Wilson's character joins is nowhere near being rock stars; its simply standard "American Idol"-style pop, led by real-life brooding crooner Teddy Geiger. The climax, when the band opens for Vesuvius, comes across as utterly false, as if The Partridge Family was opening for Metallica.
Wilson tries hard to make his character a livewire of energy, but he's not given anything to push against, something such an off-the-wall character needs in order to be funny and likeable. The cast of teenage musicians he plays with is bland and uninteresting. What's worse is that Cattaneo fills the screen with genuinely funny people-including Jeff Garlin, Jane Lynch, Christina Applegate, Dmetri Martin, Will Arnett and Fred Armisen-but gives them absolutely nothing to do. It's equivalent to handing Eddie Van Halen a guitar and telling him to sit quietly on stage. The only cast member given a chance to shine is Jason Sudeikis as the band's sleazy manager; his inappropriate quips make the film gain energy any time he's on screen.
The film stumbles and weaves its way through the obligatory tour, break-up and reunion before finally wheezing to a close at a finish that is predictable and shockingly unfunny, leaving a strand of unresolved character arcs and wimping out on several chances for some good old-fashioned rock and roll rebellion. We can only hope that there is no encore. Grade: D
THE ROCKER
For those about to rock...look elsewhere.
Casting Rainn Wilson (TV's "The Office") as a heavy metal drummer who joins a teenage garage band is a stroke of inspiration, but director Peter Cattaneo ("The Full Monty") can't figure out what to do with the rest of the film.
Wilson plays Robert "Fish" Fishman, drummer for 80s hair metal band Vesuvius, who is kicked out before the band makes it big. Twenty years later, he's working in customer service until getting the chance to join his cousin's band, which makes it big after an infamous Youtube video in which Fish drums in the altogether. When the band hits the road, Fish is determined to show them how to party like rock stars.
Instead of the raucous and ribald comedy that is lurking inside, Cattaneo settles for a formulaic and safe movie that ignores the opportunities for jokes about metal culture and a 40-something party animal and instead settles for lame pratfalls and groan-worthy mugging. After an inspired opening sequence, in which Fish engages in a "Terminator"-like pursuit after his band members, the film is quickly defanged and we never really know whether or not Fish is an aging party animal or someone trying to shed his rocker image. A scene set at Fish's office is blatantly throwing a bone to fans of Wilson's much better work as Dwight in "The Office," only minus the comedy.
A film like this needs a genuine love and admiration for the music that it's celebrating, much like "School of Rock" had. Instead, Cattaneo and his crew don't even seem to notice that the band Wilson's character joins is nowhere near being rock stars; its simply standard "American Idol"-style pop, led by real-life brooding crooner Teddy Geiger. The climax, when the band opens for Vesuvius, comes across as utterly false, as if The Partridge Family was opening for Metallica.
Wilson tries hard to make his character a livewire of energy, but he's not given anything to push against, something such an off-the-wall character needs in order to be funny and likeable. The cast of teenage musicians he plays with is bland and uninteresting. What's worse is that Cattaneo fills the screen with genuinely funny people-including Jeff Garlin, Jane Lynch, Christina Applegate, Dmetri Martin, Will Arnett and Fred Armisen-but gives them absolutely nothing to do. It's equivalent to handing Eddie Van Halen a guitar and telling him to sit quietly on stage. The only cast member given a chance to shine is Jason Sudeikis as the band's sleazy manager; his inappropriate quips make the film gain energy any time he's on screen.
The film stumbles and weaves its way through the obligatory tour, break-up and reunion before finally wheezing to a close at a finish that is predictable and shockingly unfunny, leaving a strand of unresolved character arcs and wimping out on several chances for some good old-fashioned rock and roll rebellion. We can only hope that there is no encore. Grade: D
Sunday, August 17, 2008
CHRIS'S CLASSICS: "BEFORE SUNRISE" (1995)
I did not see Richard Linklater's ode to teenage love and late nights in Vienna until 2004, the night before I saw his followup "Before Sunset."
Since that time, I have watched "Before Sunrise" at least five times, revisiting it over and again, delighting in the rhythms of its dialogue and spending time with Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) as if they were old friends. It's a film I immediately knew would become part of the fabric of my life. It's influenced the way I approach love and relationships, with the idea that connection, chemistry and depth are far more important than looks, shared interests or a common background. On any given day, this movie is right up there with "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" as one of my absolute favorite movies, especially when paired with its even more affecting follow-up. This movie, along with "Chasing Amy," is one of the great relationship movies and love stories of the 1990s. And, like "Chasing Amy," it's a great love story because it's about so much more than sex and emotion.
The film was not a massive hit, although it has its devotees. It's still, unfortunately, not widely known outside of film circles, Richard Linklater's fans and teenagers who may have wandered into it in 1995 looking for a good date movie and finding so much more. This film's influence can still be seen in any film where two strangers meet up and have a relationship that leads not so much to happily-ever-after as much as healing and strength. These movies usually aren't very plot-driven but instead have lengthy conversations in which the characters bare their souls and find comfort with a person they have never met. These films, which I call "fellowship movies," include the wonderful "Punch Drunk Love," "Lost in Translation" and last year's superb musical "Once," and make up one of my favorite subgenres of film.
The film opens on a train trip across Europe, and the first thing we see is a married couple fighting. It seems like a simple ploy to get Celine out of her seat and nearby Jesse, but I think it's intentional that Linklater chose this particular couple to be two who have presumably been together for a long time. It not only leads into a series of conversations centered around how people change after life together, possibly nullifying each other through selective hearing loss, but it's also part of this film's theme. Do couples who are together for years and know each other's idiosyncraties and habits have a stronger love than those who have met in fleeting moments of passion? Or is love at its most passionate when we are inable to see the flaws of another? What's the difference in love between a couple who has been married 50 years and two impetuous 20-somethings who have only one night to spend with each other?
Jesse and Celine begin talking on the train. She's a student who lives in Paris and is returning from a visit with her grandmother in Budapest. Jesse is a student from the states taking a Eurorail trip before flying home from Vienna. Initially he says he was visiting some friends in Madrid but later in the film we learn that he was visiting his girlfriend, who ended the relationship shortly after he arrived. Rather than face the embarassment of heading home, he's traveled Europe by train, lost in thought and mediation. He's a young college student, full of ideas and sure that he knows everything. He's cocky but also a bit unsure of himself--it's easy sometimes for me to dislike Jesse until I recognize my own attitude in college, where I began to question and challenge everything.
Celine's a bit more reserved. She's a feminist, but there's a loneliness--possibly even a neediness--to her. We sense that she wants to accomplish great things and yet also desires the standard family life. She rejects the majorities of religion but still thinks there's something beautiful in having her fortune told by a gypsy in Vienna. Both of these people are smart and likable, full of deep ideas--which is wonderful, since Linklater spends the majority of the film simply watching their conversation.
The train pulls into Vienna and Jesse makes a proposition: he has no money and is going to spend most of the evening walking around the foreign city by himself. He feels a connection with Celine and asks her to get off the train and spend the evening with him. She hesitates only briefly, so that Jesse can make a rather persuasive argument, and the two disembark. The film then follows them through their night in Vienna as they visit late-night cafes and clubs, spend time in the famous ferris wheel from "The Third Man" and talk, talk, and talk and find something developing between them.
Is it love? The movie avoids any declarations like that and Linklater and his actors wisely show the tentativeness with which they approach it. And refreshingly, the film avoids any silly plot complications or misunderstandings. Linklater is more interested in letting his characters talk and breathe, discussing the weighty questions we begin to wrestle with as we come into our own. Discussions about reincarnation, the meaning of life, men vs. women, the effect of our parents and the nature of time and death fill this movie. To requote the dialogue would be akin to revealing the plot in a thriller. There was apparently a script, but Delpy and Hawke create their roles so real that it feels almost documentary-like and improvised.
It's easy to dismiss this film as a series of inane conversations and certainly it is akin to Linklater's films "Slacker," "Dazed and Confused" and "Waking Life," in which the camera follows characters in conversation, sometimes weighty and sometimes frivolous. But watching the film again, I found that all these conversations were centered around themes of connections, the finite nature of life and time, whether love is truly real and whether couples can stay together for years and still be happy or whether happiness is found in the moment, with the person you're with. It's easy to think that the dialogue is too smart for these 20-somethings, but characters in movies always talk with more intellect than people usually do. Besides, there's an almost poetic nature to it and the film relishes the rhythm of the dialogue almost as much as it does the actual words. Anyone who has stayed up late in deep conversation knows that after awhile, it's not what's being said that matters so much as the actual cadence and soothing sound of another voice. There's a wonderful sequence in the film where Jesse and Celine are in a late-night cafe and Linklater takes a few moments just to showcase the different people talking. Most of them speak in foreign languages and there are no subtitles, so we can't understand what they're saying. But it doesn't matter; Linklater is setting up a wonderfully beautiful din in which we're taken back to all the late nights we've spent with friends and lovers, conversing over coffee and just enjoying conversation with other humans.
Yes, the film is smart, but it also has a wonderful heart beating through it, courtesy of Hawke and Delpy's tremendous acting. Thirteen years later, I am still confounded that they were not given acting nominations for their work here. They occupy every scene and have to be both perfectly natural delivering weighty and in-depth dialogue and also falling in love. They are masters here, with furtive glances, tentaive touches that suddenly explode into passionate embraces and kisses. Early in the film there's a scene where they are on a bus talking and we watch Jesse's hand move to move a lock of hair from Celine's face; he stops short of doing it but then Delpy matches him and moves it herself. Or take one of my favorite shots in all of cinema, in which the two sit in a listening booth at a record store. In one long, unbroken shot, Linklater keeps the camera trained on them as they listen to music and look at each other, moving their eyes so that the other person is unaware they are watching them. It is a perfectly natural scene; it's not played for comedy and there's no editing trickery to make it seem times or faked. It's simply two strangers suddenly feeling an attraction and unsure of how the other person feels. It's one of the most perfectly romantic sequences in film and I'll admit my heart swells at it.
Watching it again and realizing I'm older now and out of the age that Jesse and Celine are in this film, I find an even deeper appreciation for the way it portrays some of the foolhardiness of youth. When Jesse and Celine make the pledge on the boat to just have this night and to say their farewells at that point, there's a bittersweetness to it because we still realize how much it's going to hurt when they really say goodbye. When they plan on meeting six months later at the same train station but refuse to exhange numbers or addresses, we're hopeful of their reunion but also recognizing the foolishness of youth that says these two probably don't have a long future ahead of them.
But the film isn't really about happily-ever-afters or even about a long term relationship as much as it is about connection. One of my favorite lines in the film is when Celine says "if there's any magic in the world, it must be in the attempt of knowing someone, sharing something. . . It's almost impossible but that's not the point. The magic is in the attempt." How many short-lived connections have we shared with others, passionate and in depth relationships that last only a few weeks or months but will linger with us forever? This film is about the magic of humans connecting and in relationship. It's definitely not a movie about religion but I think the faithful will find something strong about the need for relationship and fellowship.
Two beautiful sequences close out the movie, one easily recognizable and the other requiring hindsight. The first is a closing montage in which Linklater takes us back to the places Jesse and Celine visited the night before. In daylight, stripped of our two main characters, they are not very special or magical. An alley, a founain, a park. What made these places special and so ethereal? Was it not the connection shared by these two strangers, whose time together should have never happened? Do our environments affect us or are we changing our environments? The places that hold special places in our hearts--are they because there's a magic to the place, or is it because we held a hand or shared a kiss in those places? There's also a heartbreak in those, as it hammers home the fact that Jesse and Celine are going their separate ways. Apart from their memories, nothing remains as proof of their time together except for an empty wine bottle and two glasses in a park.
The final image just hit me last night, as both Jesse and Celine fall asleep on their respective bus and train. There's a beauty to that, as I think it's pretty clear that they are going to sleep with thoughts of each other in their minds. But for anyone who has seen Richard Linklater's wonderful 2001 film "Waking Life," there's another meaning that might be behind that. In a very short sequence in that movie, which is a compilation of dream sequences, we see Jesse and Celine in bed talking about their night in Vienna. It's just a dream but maybe that's the point...they'll be apart, but they'll always have Vienna.
Do Jesse and Celine meet again in six months? Did they make their return date to Vienna? It's almost perfect if we never know; the answer, as we later find out, depends on whether you're a romantic or a cynic.And I have to admit that if I would have seen the movie before 2004, I would have been adamently against a sequel for fear that it would ruin the power of the original.
But nine years later, Linklater, Hawke and Delpy reunited for a film that handles that question perfectly. I was going to watch "Before Sunset" immediately following "Before Sunrise," but I realized that wouldn't be right. The first film deserves to be savored and the characters need some time apart before revisiting the sequel...which I hope to do next weekend.
Since that time, I have watched "Before Sunrise" at least five times, revisiting it over and again, delighting in the rhythms of its dialogue and spending time with Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) as if they were old friends. It's a film I immediately knew would become part of the fabric of my life. It's influenced the way I approach love and relationships, with the idea that connection, chemistry and depth are far more important than looks, shared interests or a common background. On any given day, this movie is right up there with "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" as one of my absolute favorite movies, especially when paired with its even more affecting follow-up. This movie, along with "Chasing Amy," is one of the great relationship movies and love stories of the 1990s. And, like "Chasing Amy," it's a great love story because it's about so much more than sex and emotion.
The film was not a massive hit, although it has its devotees. It's still, unfortunately, not widely known outside of film circles, Richard Linklater's fans and teenagers who may have wandered into it in 1995 looking for a good date movie and finding so much more. This film's influence can still be seen in any film where two strangers meet up and have a relationship that leads not so much to happily-ever-after as much as healing and strength. These movies usually aren't very plot-driven but instead have lengthy conversations in which the characters bare their souls and find comfort with a person they have never met. These films, which I call "fellowship movies," include the wonderful "Punch Drunk Love," "Lost in Translation" and last year's superb musical "Once," and make up one of my favorite subgenres of film.
The film opens on a train trip across Europe, and the first thing we see is a married couple fighting. It seems like a simple ploy to get Celine out of her seat and nearby Jesse, but I think it's intentional that Linklater chose this particular couple to be two who have presumably been together for a long time. It not only leads into a series of conversations centered around how people change after life together, possibly nullifying each other through selective hearing loss, but it's also part of this film's theme. Do couples who are together for years and know each other's idiosyncraties and habits have a stronger love than those who have met in fleeting moments of passion? Or is love at its most passionate when we are inable to see the flaws of another? What's the difference in love between a couple who has been married 50 years and two impetuous 20-somethings who have only one night to spend with each other?
Jesse and Celine begin talking on the train. She's a student who lives in Paris and is returning from a visit with her grandmother in Budapest. Jesse is a student from the states taking a Eurorail trip before flying home from Vienna. Initially he says he was visiting some friends in Madrid but later in the film we learn that he was visiting his girlfriend, who ended the relationship shortly after he arrived. Rather than face the embarassment of heading home, he's traveled Europe by train, lost in thought and mediation. He's a young college student, full of ideas and sure that he knows everything. He's cocky but also a bit unsure of himself--it's easy sometimes for me to dislike Jesse until I recognize my own attitude in college, where I began to question and challenge everything.
Celine's a bit more reserved. She's a feminist, but there's a loneliness--possibly even a neediness--to her. We sense that she wants to accomplish great things and yet also desires the standard family life. She rejects the majorities of religion but still thinks there's something beautiful in having her fortune told by a gypsy in Vienna. Both of these people are smart and likable, full of deep ideas--which is wonderful, since Linklater spends the majority of the film simply watching their conversation.
The train pulls into Vienna and Jesse makes a proposition: he has no money and is going to spend most of the evening walking around the foreign city by himself. He feels a connection with Celine and asks her to get off the train and spend the evening with him. She hesitates only briefly, so that Jesse can make a rather persuasive argument, and the two disembark. The film then follows them through their night in Vienna as they visit late-night cafes and clubs, spend time in the famous ferris wheel from "The Third Man" and talk, talk, and talk and find something developing between them.
Is it love? The movie avoids any declarations like that and Linklater and his actors wisely show the tentativeness with which they approach it. And refreshingly, the film avoids any silly plot complications or misunderstandings. Linklater is more interested in letting his characters talk and breathe, discussing the weighty questions we begin to wrestle with as we come into our own. Discussions about reincarnation, the meaning of life, men vs. women, the effect of our parents and the nature of time and death fill this movie. To requote the dialogue would be akin to revealing the plot in a thriller. There was apparently a script, but Delpy and Hawke create their roles so real that it feels almost documentary-like and improvised.
It's easy to dismiss this film as a series of inane conversations and certainly it is akin to Linklater's films "Slacker," "Dazed and Confused" and "Waking Life," in which the camera follows characters in conversation, sometimes weighty and sometimes frivolous. But watching the film again, I found that all these conversations were centered around themes of connections, the finite nature of life and time, whether love is truly real and whether couples can stay together for years and still be happy or whether happiness is found in the moment, with the person you're with. It's easy to think that the dialogue is too smart for these 20-somethings, but characters in movies always talk with more intellect than people usually do. Besides, there's an almost poetic nature to it and the film relishes the rhythm of the dialogue almost as much as it does the actual words. Anyone who has stayed up late in deep conversation knows that after awhile, it's not what's being said that matters so much as the actual cadence and soothing sound of another voice. There's a wonderful sequence in the film where Jesse and Celine are in a late-night cafe and Linklater takes a few moments just to showcase the different people talking. Most of them speak in foreign languages and there are no subtitles, so we can't understand what they're saying. But it doesn't matter; Linklater is setting up a wonderfully beautiful din in which we're taken back to all the late nights we've spent with friends and lovers, conversing over coffee and just enjoying conversation with other humans.
Yes, the film is smart, but it also has a wonderful heart beating through it, courtesy of Hawke and Delpy's tremendous acting. Thirteen years later, I am still confounded that they were not given acting nominations for their work here. They occupy every scene and have to be both perfectly natural delivering weighty and in-depth dialogue and also falling in love. They are masters here, with furtive glances, tentaive touches that suddenly explode into passionate embraces and kisses. Early in the film there's a scene where they are on a bus talking and we watch Jesse's hand move to move a lock of hair from Celine's face; he stops short of doing it but then Delpy matches him and moves it herself. Or take one of my favorite shots in all of cinema, in which the two sit in a listening booth at a record store. In one long, unbroken shot, Linklater keeps the camera trained on them as they listen to music and look at each other, moving their eyes so that the other person is unaware they are watching them. It is a perfectly natural scene; it's not played for comedy and there's no editing trickery to make it seem times or faked. It's simply two strangers suddenly feeling an attraction and unsure of how the other person feels. It's one of the most perfectly romantic sequences in film and I'll admit my heart swells at it.
Watching it again and realizing I'm older now and out of the age that Jesse and Celine are in this film, I find an even deeper appreciation for the way it portrays some of the foolhardiness of youth. When Jesse and Celine make the pledge on the boat to just have this night and to say their farewells at that point, there's a bittersweetness to it because we still realize how much it's going to hurt when they really say goodbye. When they plan on meeting six months later at the same train station but refuse to exhange numbers or addresses, we're hopeful of their reunion but also recognizing the foolishness of youth that says these two probably don't have a long future ahead of them.
But the film isn't really about happily-ever-afters or even about a long term relationship as much as it is about connection. One of my favorite lines in the film is when Celine says "if there's any magic in the world, it must be in the attempt of knowing someone, sharing something. . . It's almost impossible but that's not the point. The magic is in the attempt." How many short-lived connections have we shared with others, passionate and in depth relationships that last only a few weeks or months but will linger with us forever? This film is about the magic of humans connecting and in relationship. It's definitely not a movie about religion but I think the faithful will find something strong about the need for relationship and fellowship.
Two beautiful sequences close out the movie, one easily recognizable and the other requiring hindsight. The first is a closing montage in which Linklater takes us back to the places Jesse and Celine visited the night before. In daylight, stripped of our two main characters, they are not very special or magical. An alley, a founain, a park. What made these places special and so ethereal? Was it not the connection shared by these two strangers, whose time together should have never happened? Do our environments affect us or are we changing our environments? The places that hold special places in our hearts--are they because there's a magic to the place, or is it because we held a hand or shared a kiss in those places? There's also a heartbreak in those, as it hammers home the fact that Jesse and Celine are going their separate ways. Apart from their memories, nothing remains as proof of their time together except for an empty wine bottle and two glasses in a park.
The final image just hit me last night, as both Jesse and Celine fall asleep on their respective bus and train. There's a beauty to that, as I think it's pretty clear that they are going to sleep with thoughts of each other in their minds. But for anyone who has seen Richard Linklater's wonderful 2001 film "Waking Life," there's another meaning that might be behind that. In a very short sequence in that movie, which is a compilation of dream sequences, we see Jesse and Celine in bed talking about their night in Vienna. It's just a dream but maybe that's the point...they'll be apart, but they'll always have Vienna.
Do Jesse and Celine meet again in six months? Did they make their return date to Vienna? It's almost perfect if we never know; the answer, as we later find out, depends on whether you're a romantic or a cynic.And I have to admit that if I would have seen the movie before 2004, I would have been adamently against a sequel for fear that it would ruin the power of the original.
But nine years later, Linklater, Hawke and Delpy reunited for a film that handles that question perfectly. I was going to watch "Before Sunset" immediately following "Before Sunrise," but I realized that wouldn't be right. The first film deserves to be savored and the characters need some time apart before revisiting the sequel...which I hope to do next weekend.
"Tropic Thunder" and "Henry Poole is Here"
The 'Tropic Thunder' review was originally published in The Source newspaper's 8/17/08 edition and written by myself, Chris Williams.
TROPIC THUNDER
Robert Downey Jr., is in the midst of a wonderful career comeback.
He’s given consistently fantastic performances in “Good Night and Good Luck,” “Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang” and “Zodiac” and, earlier this summer, starred in the megahit action film “Iron Man.” After years of being a punch line for his drug and alcohol abuse, it finally looks like Downey is getting the roles a man of his talent deserves.
So why, one can be forgiven for asking, is he risking career suicide in a racially charged role in the new movie “Tropic Thunder”?
Downey plays Kirk Lazarus, an Oscar-winning Method actor from Australia cast as the black platoon sergeant in the most expensive war movie ever made. Lazarus so immerses himself in the role that he undergoes medical treatment to have his skin dyed black. Because he doesn’t step out of character “until the DVD commentary is done,” Lazarus spends the entire movie talking in an over-the-top Southern accent, offering to “collar up some of them greens” and getting offended when anyone mentions “you people.”
A major movie star in a major comedy dressing up as a black man and talking in Ebonics? It’s a role that could dance perilously close to disaster and would be a career killer if there was even the slightest whiff of racism to it.
But Downey, who has always had a wonderful wit to him, pulls off the role with wonderful aplomb, turning what could have been tasteless and offensive into a hilarious joke at pretentious Method actors who go to absurd lengths for a role. I would not bet against Downey receiving a Best Supporting Actor nomination come award time if the Academy puts aside its bias against comedic roles.
Downey is so good, in fact, that he almost becomes the center of attention, taking the focus away from the fact that he is just one member of a hilarious ensemble in one of this year’s most original and outrageous comedies.
Lazarus has been enrolled alongside action star Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) and comedian Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) to star in the war epic “Tropic Thunder,” which a novice director (Steve Coogan) is shooting in Vietnam. The project is over budget and the cast is not coming together; Speedman, who is recovering from a movie considered “the worst film ever made,” can’t even cry in a crucial scene. The director, under advice from a clearly insane technical advisor (Nick Nolte), drops his principal cast members in the jungle and intends to film them with hidden cameras. What the cast doesn’t know, however, is that Vietnamese drug runners have spotted them and are intent on killing them all. They don’t even know something’s amiss when their director steps on a landmine, leading to a sight gag that is both gruesome and hilarious.
It’s an R-rated, action-heavy take on a plot that was formerly used in “Three Amigos” and “A Bug’s Life.” But a clever and merciless script by Stiller, and screenwriters Ethan Coen and Justin Theroux ensure that “Tropic Thunder” is never boring, even though not every joke hits its mark.
Alongside his co-writing and acting duties, Stiller also takes on the role of director for this film, and shows that his skills have improved since “The Cable Guy” and “Zoolander.” Stiller gives every actor several funny lines of dialogue and he’s able to keep the satire razor sharp in most places, especially when the action cuts to Hollywood, where Speedman’s agent (Matthew McConaughey) endures his own desperate battle to get his client a TiVo, and an obscene, vulgar producer (a famous Hollywood superstar whose identity I wouldn’t dare dream of revealing) threatens to shut down the production.
At times, Stiller gets overzealous with the action sequences and the noise threatens to drown out the wonderful character work going on. Downey, as I mentioned, is utterly hilarious and is complemented by newcomer (and Detroit native) Brandon T. Jackson as a rapper who is utterly offended to see an Australian taking on the role of a black man.
Black seems to be relishing his chance to shed his family-friendly image in this R-rated comedy. His character at first is a riff on actors like Black or Eddie Murphy who make big bucks for jokes about flatulence and obesity. But Portnoy also has a drug addiction that turns wonderfully bizarre in the jungle, after a bat flies away with his package of “jelly beans.” I wouldn’t dare dream of revealing what happens when Portnoy is tied to a tree late in the film (nor could I print it in a family newspaper), but it’s one of the highlights of Black’s career.
Stiller actually gets the easy job in that, unlike Black and Downey, he is not poking fun at himself, but at action heroes who try to find critical acclaim. I would have preferred to see an actual action star in this role and think that surely Dwayne Johnson or Mel Gibson could be effective. But then again, I don’t know that they could handle the pure awfulness of “Simple Jack,” Speedman’s pet project, with the same mixture of hilarity and offensiveness with which Stiller does.
“Tropic Thunder” is the latest of the big three comedies of this summer, following “Step Brothers” and “The Pineapple Express.” While I still think “Pineapple Express” delivers more consistent laughs, “Tropic Thunder” is close behind it in terms of quality and hilarity. It’s a film so effective in skewering the studio system that made it, you have to wonder if maybe the producers were influenced by a little Pineapple Express of their own when they green-lighted it.
Grade: B+
HENRY POOLE IS HERE
I struggle with my thoughts on "Henry Poole is Here," a sincere and gentle film about faith from director Mark Pellington ("U23D").
On the one hand, I'm so sick and tired of poor "Christian" films that feature abysmal acting, poor writing and shoddy production values. I'm also sick and tired of Christians complaining that Hollywood never takes their faith seriously and develops films about belief in God.
It's those people who I would encourage to go see "Henry Poole is Here," which features Luke Wilson as a depressed alcoholic who retreats his old neighborhood in California when he finds out he only has a short time left to live. Wilson, an actor who is usually hit-or-miss for me, gives a wonderful restrained and internalized role as a man described as "sad and angry," and has abandoned all of his faith in anything.
Of course, he's none too happy when his eclectic neighbor, Esperanza (Adriana Barrazza) sees a stain on his stucco that she believes looks like the face of Christ. And he's even more upset when a local priest (George Lopez) shows up, not officially declaring it a miracle but curious about further insight. He's a little bit more happy, of course, to find that his attractive single neighbor and her mute daughter have taken an interest in him.
People tired of the R-rated shenanigans and loud action movies currently filling theaters will likely enjoy this PG-rated drama (although for a movie about religion, I was surprised how often they used God's name in vain). The already-converted will find a movie that supports their beliefs and declares that faith is worth having, redemption is powerful and salvation is offered even to those who don't deserve it. The fact that the production values and the acting are steps ahead of most religious films is also a bonus, and a hope that more films taking faith seriously will be approved.
But as a lover of film, I have reservations about "Henry Poole." Pellington has obviously developed a fable that he feels strongly about and I'm glad he found a project so personal to him. But subtlety is not his strong suit and the film, instead of taking time to play both sides of the faith argument, hammers home that THIS IS REALLY HAPPENING. Seriously, when Henry's wall starts bleeding and (SPOILER) the check-out clerk with thick glasses can see again, I was actually disappointed--I think faith is stronger when we can't necessarilly see outside results and what we see here is a God who basically wants Henry to see and believe, when faith doesn't necessarilly require sight. I'm also curious about the type of faith Pellington is rewarding here, because the people who believe in the stain on the wall all want something for themselves. It's another "God as genie" subtext that I wasn't too thrilled about. And Pellington trots out every cliche in the book for this movie--from the man dying of a mysterious disease to the mute kid who hasn't talked since her father left (want to guess whether she starts talking again or not? And would you be surprised if she started talking and turned from a mysterious and cute character to just another annoying kid?). I've told others that I felt that the film bludgeoned me with a feather; it's light and gentle and sweet, but it's also a continous assault.
So I'm torn. 'Henry Poole" is not a horrible movie and I suspect it will find a strong audience on DVD, especially if stores like Family Christian Stores pick it up. And that's not a bad thing--if there were a Christian Oscars, this film would probably win, simply because it's better than most choices that Christian audiences have. And hopefully it will spur people towards movies that discuss faith with a bit more substance and style--I'd love to see Christian audiences discover films like "Babette's Feast," "Wings of Desire" and "Dead Man Walking." Heck, I'd be thrilled if Christians decided to actually look at "Monty Python's Life of Brian" in an objective light.
But as a film lover, the movie comes across as cliche and manipulative. Grade: C
TROPIC THUNDER
Robert Downey Jr., is in the midst of a wonderful career comeback.
He’s given consistently fantastic performances in “Good Night and Good Luck,” “Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang” and “Zodiac” and, earlier this summer, starred in the megahit action film “Iron Man.” After years of being a punch line for his drug and alcohol abuse, it finally looks like Downey is getting the roles a man of his talent deserves.
So why, one can be forgiven for asking, is he risking career suicide in a racially charged role in the new movie “Tropic Thunder”?
Downey plays Kirk Lazarus, an Oscar-winning Method actor from Australia cast as the black platoon sergeant in the most expensive war movie ever made. Lazarus so immerses himself in the role that he undergoes medical treatment to have his skin dyed black. Because he doesn’t step out of character “until the DVD commentary is done,” Lazarus spends the entire movie talking in an over-the-top Southern accent, offering to “collar up some of them greens” and getting offended when anyone mentions “you people.”
A major movie star in a major comedy dressing up as a black man and talking in Ebonics? It’s a role that could dance perilously close to disaster and would be a career killer if there was even the slightest whiff of racism to it.
But Downey, who has always had a wonderful wit to him, pulls off the role with wonderful aplomb, turning what could have been tasteless and offensive into a hilarious joke at pretentious Method actors who go to absurd lengths for a role. I would not bet against Downey receiving a Best Supporting Actor nomination come award time if the Academy puts aside its bias against comedic roles.
Downey is so good, in fact, that he almost becomes the center of attention, taking the focus away from the fact that he is just one member of a hilarious ensemble in one of this year’s most original and outrageous comedies.
Lazarus has been enrolled alongside action star Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) and comedian Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) to star in the war epic “Tropic Thunder,” which a novice director (Steve Coogan) is shooting in Vietnam. The project is over budget and the cast is not coming together; Speedman, who is recovering from a movie considered “the worst film ever made,” can’t even cry in a crucial scene. The director, under advice from a clearly insane technical advisor (Nick Nolte), drops his principal cast members in the jungle and intends to film them with hidden cameras. What the cast doesn’t know, however, is that Vietnamese drug runners have spotted them and are intent on killing them all. They don’t even know something’s amiss when their director steps on a landmine, leading to a sight gag that is both gruesome and hilarious.
It’s an R-rated, action-heavy take on a plot that was formerly used in “Three Amigos” and “A Bug’s Life.” But a clever and merciless script by Stiller, and screenwriters Ethan Coen and Justin Theroux ensure that “Tropic Thunder” is never boring, even though not every joke hits its mark.
Alongside his co-writing and acting duties, Stiller also takes on the role of director for this film, and shows that his skills have improved since “The Cable Guy” and “Zoolander.” Stiller gives every actor several funny lines of dialogue and he’s able to keep the satire razor sharp in most places, especially when the action cuts to Hollywood, where Speedman’s agent (Matthew McConaughey) endures his own desperate battle to get his client a TiVo, and an obscene, vulgar producer (a famous Hollywood superstar whose identity I wouldn’t dare dream of revealing) threatens to shut down the production.
At times, Stiller gets overzealous with the action sequences and the noise threatens to drown out the wonderful character work going on. Downey, as I mentioned, is utterly hilarious and is complemented by newcomer (and Detroit native) Brandon T. Jackson as a rapper who is utterly offended to see an Australian taking on the role of a black man.
Black seems to be relishing his chance to shed his family-friendly image in this R-rated comedy. His character at first is a riff on actors like Black or Eddie Murphy who make big bucks for jokes about flatulence and obesity. But Portnoy also has a drug addiction that turns wonderfully bizarre in the jungle, after a bat flies away with his package of “jelly beans.” I wouldn’t dare dream of revealing what happens when Portnoy is tied to a tree late in the film (nor could I print it in a family newspaper), but it’s one of the highlights of Black’s career.
Stiller actually gets the easy job in that, unlike Black and Downey, he is not poking fun at himself, but at action heroes who try to find critical acclaim. I would have preferred to see an actual action star in this role and think that surely Dwayne Johnson or Mel Gibson could be effective. But then again, I don’t know that they could handle the pure awfulness of “Simple Jack,” Speedman’s pet project, with the same mixture of hilarity and offensiveness with which Stiller does.
“Tropic Thunder” is the latest of the big three comedies of this summer, following “Step Brothers” and “The Pineapple Express.” While I still think “Pineapple Express” delivers more consistent laughs, “Tropic Thunder” is close behind it in terms of quality and hilarity. It’s a film so effective in skewering the studio system that made it, you have to wonder if maybe the producers were influenced by a little Pineapple Express of their own when they green-lighted it.
Grade: B+
HENRY POOLE IS HERE
I struggle with my thoughts on "Henry Poole is Here," a sincere and gentle film about faith from director Mark Pellington ("U23D").
On the one hand, I'm so sick and tired of poor "Christian" films that feature abysmal acting, poor writing and shoddy production values. I'm also sick and tired of Christians complaining that Hollywood never takes their faith seriously and develops films about belief in God.
It's those people who I would encourage to go see "Henry Poole is Here," which features Luke Wilson as a depressed alcoholic who retreats his old neighborhood in California when he finds out he only has a short time left to live. Wilson, an actor who is usually hit-or-miss for me, gives a wonderful restrained and internalized role as a man described as "sad and angry," and has abandoned all of his faith in anything.
Of course, he's none too happy when his eclectic neighbor, Esperanza (Adriana Barrazza) sees a stain on his stucco that she believes looks like the face of Christ. And he's even more upset when a local priest (George Lopez) shows up, not officially declaring it a miracle but curious about further insight. He's a little bit more happy, of course, to find that his attractive single neighbor and her mute daughter have taken an interest in him.
People tired of the R-rated shenanigans and loud action movies currently filling theaters will likely enjoy this PG-rated drama (although for a movie about religion, I was surprised how often they used God's name in vain). The already-converted will find a movie that supports their beliefs and declares that faith is worth having, redemption is powerful and salvation is offered even to those who don't deserve it. The fact that the production values and the acting are steps ahead of most religious films is also a bonus, and a hope that more films taking faith seriously will be approved.
But as a lover of film, I have reservations about "Henry Poole." Pellington has obviously developed a fable that he feels strongly about and I'm glad he found a project so personal to him. But subtlety is not his strong suit and the film, instead of taking time to play both sides of the faith argument, hammers home that THIS IS REALLY HAPPENING. Seriously, when Henry's wall starts bleeding and (SPOILER) the check-out clerk with thick glasses can see again, I was actually disappointed--I think faith is stronger when we can't necessarilly see outside results and what we see here is a God who basically wants Henry to see and believe, when faith doesn't necessarilly require sight. I'm also curious about the type of faith Pellington is rewarding here, because the people who believe in the stain on the wall all want something for themselves. It's another "God as genie" subtext that I wasn't too thrilled about. And Pellington trots out every cliche in the book for this movie--from the man dying of a mysterious disease to the mute kid who hasn't talked since her father left (want to guess whether she starts talking again or not? And would you be surprised if she started talking and turned from a mysterious and cute character to just another annoying kid?). I've told others that I felt that the film bludgeoned me with a feather; it's light and gentle and sweet, but it's also a continous assault.
So I'm torn. 'Henry Poole" is not a horrible movie and I suspect it will find a strong audience on DVD, especially if stores like Family Christian Stores pick it up. And that's not a bad thing--if there were a Christian Oscars, this film would probably win, simply because it's better than most choices that Christian audiences have. And hopefully it will spur people towards movies that discuss faith with a bit more substance and style--I'd love to see Christian audiences discover films like "Babette's Feast," "Wings of Desire" and "Dead Man Walking." Heck, I'd be thrilled if Christians decided to actually look at "Monty Python's Life of Brian" in an objective light.
But as a film lover, the movie comes across as cliche and manipulative. Grade: C
Friday, July 25, 2008
"Step Brothers"
First off, yes, I'm back reviewing on this site and hope to keep it updated with much more regularity so we can discuss great films.
Unfortunately, my first review back is "Step Brothers."
STEP BROTHERS (Dir. Adam McKay, R)
Will Ferrell has often been accused of creating characters who are perpetual adolescents, be it the seductively stupid Ron Burgundy or NASCAR driver Ricky Bobby, who prays to a baby Jesus in golden fleece diapers.
In their new film "Step Brothers," Ferrell and his "Talladega Nights" cohort John C. Reilly openly embrace their inner juvenile. The two play Dale (Reilly) and Brennan (Ferrell), two 40-year-olds who still live at home and find their lives disrupted when their parents get married to each other.
Brennan is a momma's boy who allegedly possesses a beautiful singing voice that he's too afraid to showcase ("I've been called the songbird of my generation," he brags to Dale). Dale walks around the house in his underwear and believes that his father's impending marriage will ruin their lifestyle of going to the bathroom with the door open, talking vulgarly about women and partying hard ("We've literally never done one of those things," his father reminds him).
When the parents merge, Dale and Brennan initially hate each other with a passion. Dale threatens to smother Brennan in his sleep. Brennan does something extremely vulgar with Dale's drum set that reminds us that no matter how much we like Ferrell, there are some parts of him we never want to see. Dale's father issues an ultimatum that the two must find jobs within a month or they will be out on the street. Future job-seekers should take a hint from this movie that you never interview "as a team" or tell an interviewer that they "sound stupid."
If Brennan and Dale's hatred of each other is bad news, it's nothing compared to the anarchy on display when they become best friends. The two embrace the brother they've never hadby performing karate in the garage, making a vulgar rap video and building the most haphazard set of bunk beds I've ever seen. If you've ever tried to sleep while two 10-year-old boys run around the house blowing stuff up, that probably best describes the feeling of watching this movie.
The material would seem to suit Ferrell and Reilly like a glove, and director Adam McKay ("Talladega Nights") knows enough to just set his camera down and let the actors riff. A movie with this plot would be amusing if the characters were 20-year-olds who had never left home; with two middle-aged men, it achieves a surreal nature that is sometimes hilarious, but more often than not, unsettling.
Both comedians are some of the best character actors in film and their fan base should be satisfied that they don't intend to class it up with anything resembling wit or intelligence. It's impossible not to laugh at Dale's terror of a neighborhood bully or when Brennan finally breaks into song. As Brennan's smarmy younger brighter, Scott steals every scene he's in by acting just as boyish, but far crueler, than the two main characters. Underneath it all, however, is the feeling that it's actually a bit creepy to watch two grown men act like prepubescent boys. As a "Saturday Night Live Skit," it might have been interesting; at nearly two hours it grows annoying fairly quickly.
But the laughs are shallow and easy. They're plentiful, but they don't resonate past the closing credits. McKay, who directed Ferrell's most memorable works, fails to employ the cohesion shone in "Anchorman" and "Talladega," in which every line of dialogue and every supporting actor provided a goldmine of humor. Here, the movie revolves around Dale and Brennan while everyone else struggles to catch up. Even Jenkins, who is a potential Oscar nominee for his turn in this year's "The Visitor," seems adrift trying to match wits with Ferrell and Reilly. There is a wealth of humor to be mined from the current situation of older men who still live at home and don't want to give up their days of Playstation, drums and dinosaurs. There are moments when "Step Brothers" seems to be on the verge of wicked satire about the situation, but then devolves into crude shock humor and vulgarity instead of character-based comedy that wrings genuine belly laughs. "Step Brothers," like its main characters, would be much more memorable if it just grew up. Grade: C-
Unfortunately, my first review back is "Step Brothers."
STEP BROTHERS (Dir. Adam McKay, R)
Will Ferrell has often been accused of creating characters who are perpetual adolescents, be it the seductively stupid Ron Burgundy or NASCAR driver Ricky Bobby, who prays to a baby Jesus in golden fleece diapers.
In their new film "Step Brothers," Ferrell and his "Talladega Nights" cohort John C. Reilly openly embrace their inner juvenile. The two play Dale (Reilly) and Brennan (Ferrell), two 40-year-olds who still live at home and find their lives disrupted when their parents get married to each other.
Brennan is a momma's boy who allegedly possesses a beautiful singing voice that he's too afraid to showcase ("I've been called the songbird of my generation," he brags to Dale). Dale walks around the house in his underwear and believes that his father's impending marriage will ruin their lifestyle of going to the bathroom with the door open, talking vulgarly about women and partying hard ("We've literally never done one of those things," his father reminds him).
When the parents merge, Dale and Brennan initially hate each other with a passion. Dale threatens to smother Brennan in his sleep. Brennan does something extremely vulgar with Dale's drum set that reminds us that no matter how much we like Ferrell, there are some parts of him we never want to see. Dale's father issues an ultimatum that the two must find jobs within a month or they will be out on the street. Future job-seekers should take a hint from this movie that you never interview "as a team" or tell an interviewer that they "sound stupid."
If Brennan and Dale's hatred of each other is bad news, it's nothing compared to the anarchy on display when they become best friends. The two embrace the brother they've never hadby performing karate in the garage, making a vulgar rap video and building the most haphazard set of bunk beds I've ever seen. If you've ever tried to sleep while two 10-year-old boys run around the house blowing stuff up, that probably best describes the feeling of watching this movie.
The material would seem to suit Ferrell and Reilly like a glove, and director Adam McKay ("Talladega Nights") knows enough to just set his camera down and let the actors riff. A movie with this plot would be amusing if the characters were 20-year-olds who had never left home; with two middle-aged men, it achieves a surreal nature that is sometimes hilarious, but more often than not, unsettling.
Both comedians are some of the best character actors in film and their fan base should be satisfied that they don't intend to class it up with anything resembling wit or intelligence. It's impossible not to laugh at Dale's terror of a neighborhood bully or when Brennan finally breaks into song. As Brennan's smarmy younger brighter, Scott steals every scene he's in by acting just as boyish, but far crueler, than the two main characters. Underneath it all, however, is the feeling that it's actually a bit creepy to watch two grown men act like prepubescent boys. As a "Saturday Night Live Skit," it might have been interesting; at nearly two hours it grows annoying fairly quickly.
But the laughs are shallow and easy. They're plentiful, but they don't resonate past the closing credits. McKay, who directed Ferrell's most memorable works, fails to employ the cohesion shone in "Anchorman" and "Talladega," in which every line of dialogue and every supporting actor provided a goldmine of humor. Here, the movie revolves around Dale and Brennan while everyone else struggles to catch up. Even Jenkins, who is a potential Oscar nominee for his turn in this year's "The Visitor," seems adrift trying to match wits with Ferrell and Reilly. There is a wealth of humor to be mined from the current situation of older men who still live at home and don't want to give up their days of Playstation, drums and dinosaurs. There are moments when "Step Brothers" seems to be on the verge of wicked satire about the situation, but then devolves into crude shock humor and vulgarity instead of character-based comedy that wrings genuine belly laughs. "Step Brothers," like its main characters, would be much more memorable if it just grew up. Grade: C-
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
"21" and "Run, Fat Boy, Run" Reviews
21
Set amidst Las Vegas’ glitzy, sordid nightlife, the last thing you would expect from “21” is blandness.
Yet this new release, based on the astounding true story of college kids who beat Sin City casinos at their own games, quickly goes bust under the weight of predictable and unnecessary formula cliches.
Based on the best-selling true story “Bringing Down the House,” the film follows Jim Campbell (Jim Sturgess), an MIT student hoping to receive a scholarship into Harvard’s medical school. Jim seems like a nice enough guy, but it’s obvious he’s lacking some fun. His best friends are two nerds with whom he’s entered a robotics competition and he has a knack for solving impossible equations in class. As he prepares a scholarship essay, he laments that he has no special life experiences and pines after lovely Jill (Kate Bosworth).
Campbell soon meets Mickey Rosa (Kevin Spacey), a math professor who runs a card-counting operation by night. Rosa has instructed a group of students how to develop a system to beat the casinos at blackjack on the weekends. The method is apparently complex enough to only work among MIT math whizzes, although from what I gathered it simply involves making hand signals, thinking up funny names and memorizing code words. We did much the same thing when I was a kid playing war with my neighbors; if 10-year-olds are ever allowed into casinos, I fear
Las Vegas is done for. But I digress ...
By now I’ve given you all the plot information you need. If you’ve already guessed that Vegas will totally change Jim into a money-loving jerk who ignores his friends, shirks his responsibilities, falls in love with Jill and goes head-to-head with his one-time mentor, pat yourself on the back. There is not a single formula that “21” doesn’t exploit and no cliche is left unused.
Director Rob Luketic has hit the jackpot at the box office before with the inoffensive, predictable romantic comedies “Legally Blonde” and “Win a Date With Tad Hamilton.” He tries a new direction here with an inoffensive, predictable drama fueled by an inoffensive, predictable script by Peter Steinfeld and Allan Loeb. Rather than take a smart and gripping true story and fill it with edge and grit, they transform it into a by-the-numbers drama with unmemorable characters, cheap attempts at suspense and a third act twist that is not so much unbelievable as underwhelming.
Luketic is not solely to blame here; the cast cannot even be enlivened by the prospect of filming in Vegas. Spacey appears and disappears as the plot requires, making a few quips before trying to turn tough in the end. He brings no nuance or originality to the character and one guesses that he came onboard simply for the prospect of hitting the slots between takes. Sturgess, who proved he could render Beatles’ tunes emotionless in last year’s “Across the Universe,” makes
Las Vegas seem dull as the lead, who seems to gain enough money through blackjack to go to Harvard and yet can’t purchase the charisma he so badly needs. The supporting cast is paper-thin and unmemorable, particularly Bosworth, who does nothing with Jill other than show up and look pretty. For a film about Vegas high-rollers, no one ever appears to be having much fun. Only Laurence Fishburne, playing the security guard who brings down the group, shows any spark of originality. His character has a back story that may have been intriguing and made for a good film, and Fishburne seems to enjoy playing the heavy.
Luketic’s a competent, if unremarkable, director. I’ve enjoyed his other films and I cannot say that his work here is horrible, although his attempts at comic relief are delivered so poorly that I had to stifle a groan. The film’s third act finally shows some energy and humor, but the rest just seems lazy, pedestrian and dull.
Maybe what’s filmed in Vegas should stay in Vegas. Grade: D
Run, Fat Boy, Run
I will probably get some nasty letters for this. After all, I just trashed “21” for being predictable and formulaic, and now I’m going to praise the new romantic comedy “Run, Fat Boy, Run,” which works in spite of being predictable and formulaic.
The difference is that “21” also had the misfortune of being bland and dull while “Fat Boy” is surprisingly sweet and charming, and features a likable cast of characters. I can handle knowing where the story is headed as long as I’m allowed to enjoy the ride.
The fat boy in question is Dennis, a security guard at a London department store who is not so much fat as he is unfit, a differentiation he makes early in the film. Dennis is also a bit of a loser, having run out on his fiance Libby (Thandie Newton) at the altar when she was pregnant.
That wouldn’t seem to be much of a protagonist, but thankfully Dennis is played by Simon Pegg, the star of the brilliant comedies “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz.” Pegg is a likable loser, and able to endear Dennis with an amount of heart, regret and immaturity that makes the audience able to root for his redemption.
The opportunity for that comes when Dennis learns that Libby, who he still pines for, is dating Whit (Hank Azaria), a businessman from the United States. Whit is the anti-Dennis; he’s smart, successful, kind and disciplined. He is also a marathon runner planning to run a race in London in the coming weeks; you can probably guess from the title that Dennis decides to run too, in an effort to prove himself to Libby.
The screenplay, originally written by Michael Ian Black and then polished by Pegg, is the definition of predictability, as most romantic comedies are. Are we really in much suspense over whether Dennis will run the marathon and whether or not he will gain Libby’s affections?
But David Schwimmer, of “Friends” fame, proves in his directorial debut that it’s possible to know where something’s going and still be invested in it, provided you have the right mixture of heart and humor. As I said before, Pegg’s self-deprecating humor and quirky characterizations make him endearing, and he’s able to manage clever line delivery and pratfalls ably.
The best scenes in the film involve Pegg’s banter with Dylan Moran, who plays Dennis’s best friend and Libby’s cousin. The two have a wonderful chemistry between them and the biggest laughs come from watching these two man-children try to act like grownups; it’s not easy when Moran plays a character who has a penchant for not wearing any pants. Azaria plays Whit as a genuinely nice guy for most of the film and he’s always been one of the most capable supporting comedians working. There are also some big laughs generated by Harish Patel, who plays Dennis’s landlord and assistant manager.
What is most surprising, however, is the amount of heart shown in this film. Trailers promise an immature and irreverent comedy, and yet don’t hint at the sweet side shown as Dennis struggles to overcome his immaturity and take those first steps toward growing up. Pegg has a wonderful chemistry with Newton, and Schwimmer is able to capably shift between raucous comedy and tender romantic moments. Don’t be surprised if you find yourself rooting for Dennis in the end; Pegg so endears the character to the audience that the climactic marathon actually delivers some stirring drama mixed in with the humor.
As comedies go, “Run, Fat Boy Run” isn’t perfect. The humor sometimes goes for stupid slapstick laughs instead of trusting the actors to deliver something truer. And there’s an unnecessary twist involving Whit that reeks of contrivance and turns the character from a worthy foil for Dennis into a cardboard villain. I’m not sure Schwimmer is confident enough as a director yet, although his work here is by no means bad; I just wish he would trust his characters a bit more. Grade: B
Set amidst Las Vegas’ glitzy, sordid nightlife, the last thing you would expect from “21” is blandness.
Yet this new release, based on the astounding true story of college kids who beat Sin City casinos at their own games, quickly goes bust under the weight of predictable and unnecessary formula cliches.
Based on the best-selling true story “Bringing Down the House,” the film follows Jim Campbell (Jim Sturgess), an MIT student hoping to receive a scholarship into Harvard’s medical school. Jim seems like a nice enough guy, but it’s obvious he’s lacking some fun. His best friends are two nerds with whom he’s entered a robotics competition and he has a knack for solving impossible equations in class. As he prepares a scholarship essay, he laments that he has no special life experiences and pines after lovely Jill (Kate Bosworth).
Campbell soon meets Mickey Rosa (Kevin Spacey), a math professor who runs a card-counting operation by night. Rosa has instructed a group of students how to develop a system to beat the casinos at blackjack on the weekends. The method is apparently complex enough to only work among MIT math whizzes, although from what I gathered it simply involves making hand signals, thinking up funny names and memorizing code words. We did much the same thing when I was a kid playing war with my neighbors; if 10-year-olds are ever allowed into casinos, I fear
Las Vegas is done for. But I digress ...
By now I’ve given you all the plot information you need. If you’ve already guessed that Vegas will totally change Jim into a money-loving jerk who ignores his friends, shirks his responsibilities, falls in love with Jill and goes head-to-head with his one-time mentor, pat yourself on the back. There is not a single formula that “21” doesn’t exploit and no cliche is left unused.
Director Rob Luketic has hit the jackpot at the box office before with the inoffensive, predictable romantic comedies “Legally Blonde” and “Win a Date With Tad Hamilton.” He tries a new direction here with an inoffensive, predictable drama fueled by an inoffensive, predictable script by Peter Steinfeld and Allan Loeb. Rather than take a smart and gripping true story and fill it with edge and grit, they transform it into a by-the-numbers drama with unmemorable characters, cheap attempts at suspense and a third act twist that is not so much unbelievable as underwhelming.
Luketic is not solely to blame here; the cast cannot even be enlivened by the prospect of filming in Vegas. Spacey appears and disappears as the plot requires, making a few quips before trying to turn tough in the end. He brings no nuance or originality to the character and one guesses that he came onboard simply for the prospect of hitting the slots between takes. Sturgess, who proved he could render Beatles’ tunes emotionless in last year’s “Across the Universe,” makes
Las Vegas seem dull as the lead, who seems to gain enough money through blackjack to go to Harvard and yet can’t purchase the charisma he so badly needs. The supporting cast is paper-thin and unmemorable, particularly Bosworth, who does nothing with Jill other than show up and look pretty. For a film about Vegas high-rollers, no one ever appears to be having much fun. Only Laurence Fishburne, playing the security guard who brings down the group, shows any spark of originality. His character has a back story that may have been intriguing and made for a good film, and Fishburne seems to enjoy playing the heavy.
Luketic’s a competent, if unremarkable, director. I’ve enjoyed his other films and I cannot say that his work here is horrible, although his attempts at comic relief are delivered so poorly that I had to stifle a groan. The film’s third act finally shows some energy and humor, but the rest just seems lazy, pedestrian and dull.
Maybe what’s filmed in Vegas should stay in Vegas. Grade: D
Run, Fat Boy, Run
I will probably get some nasty letters for this. After all, I just trashed “21” for being predictable and formulaic, and now I’m going to praise the new romantic comedy “Run, Fat Boy, Run,” which works in spite of being predictable and formulaic.
The difference is that “21” also had the misfortune of being bland and dull while “Fat Boy” is surprisingly sweet and charming, and features a likable cast of characters. I can handle knowing where the story is headed as long as I’m allowed to enjoy the ride.
The fat boy in question is Dennis, a security guard at a London department store who is not so much fat as he is unfit, a differentiation he makes early in the film. Dennis is also a bit of a loser, having run out on his fiance Libby (Thandie Newton) at the altar when she was pregnant.
That wouldn’t seem to be much of a protagonist, but thankfully Dennis is played by Simon Pegg, the star of the brilliant comedies “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz.” Pegg is a likable loser, and able to endear Dennis with an amount of heart, regret and immaturity that makes the audience able to root for his redemption.
The opportunity for that comes when Dennis learns that Libby, who he still pines for, is dating Whit (Hank Azaria), a businessman from the United States. Whit is the anti-Dennis; he’s smart, successful, kind and disciplined. He is also a marathon runner planning to run a race in London in the coming weeks; you can probably guess from the title that Dennis decides to run too, in an effort to prove himself to Libby.
The screenplay, originally written by Michael Ian Black and then polished by Pegg, is the definition of predictability, as most romantic comedies are. Are we really in much suspense over whether Dennis will run the marathon and whether or not he will gain Libby’s affections?
But David Schwimmer, of “Friends” fame, proves in his directorial debut that it’s possible to know where something’s going and still be invested in it, provided you have the right mixture of heart and humor. As I said before, Pegg’s self-deprecating humor and quirky characterizations make him endearing, and he’s able to manage clever line delivery and pratfalls ably.
The best scenes in the film involve Pegg’s banter with Dylan Moran, who plays Dennis’s best friend and Libby’s cousin. The two have a wonderful chemistry between them and the biggest laughs come from watching these two man-children try to act like grownups; it’s not easy when Moran plays a character who has a penchant for not wearing any pants. Azaria plays Whit as a genuinely nice guy for most of the film and he’s always been one of the most capable supporting comedians working. There are also some big laughs generated by Harish Patel, who plays Dennis’s landlord and assistant manager.
What is most surprising, however, is the amount of heart shown in this film. Trailers promise an immature and irreverent comedy, and yet don’t hint at the sweet side shown as Dennis struggles to overcome his immaturity and take those first steps toward growing up. Pegg has a wonderful chemistry with Newton, and Schwimmer is able to capably shift between raucous comedy and tender romantic moments. Don’t be surprised if you find yourself rooting for Dennis in the end; Pegg so endears the character to the audience that the climactic marathon actually delivers some stirring drama mixed in with the humor.
As comedies go, “Run, Fat Boy Run” isn’t perfect. The humor sometimes goes for stupid slapstick laughs instead of trusting the actors to deliver something truer. And there’s an unnecessary twist involving Whit that reeks of contrivance and turns the character from a worthy foil for Dennis into a cardboard villain. I’m not sure Schwimmer is confident enough as a director yet, although his work here is by no means bad; I just wish he would trust his characters a bit more. Grade: B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
