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.
Friday, August 22, 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
