133 posts tagged “movie review”
Released: November 21, 2007
Director: Kevin Lima
*****
Every once in a while, a movie comes along which flips convention on its head. It takes what we know, contorts it into something else and gives us a fresh experience. Just at a time when Disney films had become cliche, Enchanted came along, made fun of every tradition and allowed us to believe again, if only for a couple of hours. Princess-to-be Giselle (Amy Adams) is transported to modern day New York courtesy of her evil step-mother-to-be, Narissa (Susan Sarandon). There, she meets lawyer Robert (Patrick Dempsey), a man who has all but given up on the things Giselle believes in: true love forever and ever. When Prince Edward (James Marsden) braves the mean New York streets to find his beloved, a new world awaits him. And possibly a new love.
What Enchanted does so well is blend tried and true Disney ideas-lavish production numbers, animals flocking to a princess, hopelessly naive characters, an evil queen-and makes fun of them without actually making fun of them. First and foremost is Amy Adams as Giselle, quite possibly the best bit of acting from a lead actress in 2007. She is completely believable at every turn, from not knowing what a date is to taking matters into her own hands at the end. There is a naivety in everything she does, yet she isn't a stupid character. Marsden, in another of his broad and pompous characters, overacts, sometimes quite outrageously so. But we believe his personae based on what Adams brings to the table beforehand.
If there is a weak link, it is Robert, his daughter Morgan and girlfriend Nancy. They are plot contrivances and feel like afterthoughts in most scenes. Morgan especially is thrown in for apparently no good reason. She has no critical part in the narrative nor does she appear on screen in the climactic finale. Nancy, for her part, isn't given anything of substance to do, though her eventual fate jives nearly perfectly with what we know of her.
The finale, featuring Susan Sarandon in full diva mode, rings just a bit hollow and sped up, as if a certain running time had to be met instead of a naturally flowing story. It's not enough to derail Enchanted, a story about learning to be critical, but not too critical as to miss what is staring you in the face. A bit of a hammy message to be sure, but also an endearing one in true Disney style.
Director: Kevin Lima
*****
Every once in a while, a movie comes along which flips convention on its head. It takes what we know, contorts it into something else and gives us a fresh experience. Just at a time when Disney films had become cliche, Enchanted came along, made fun of every tradition and allowed us to believe again, if only for a couple of hours. Princess-to-be Giselle (Amy Adams) is transported to modern day New York courtesy of her evil step-mother-to-be, Narissa (Susan Sarandon). There, she meets lawyer Robert (Patrick Dempsey), a man who has all but given up on the things Giselle believes in: true love forever and ever. When Prince Edward (James Marsden) braves the mean New York streets to find his beloved, a new world awaits him. And possibly a new love.
What Enchanted does so well is blend tried and true Disney ideas-lavish production numbers, animals flocking to a princess, hopelessly naive characters, an evil queen-and makes fun of them without actually making fun of them. First and foremost is Amy Adams as Giselle, quite possibly the best bit of acting from a lead actress in 2007. She is completely believable at every turn, from not knowing what a date is to taking matters into her own hands at the end. There is a naivety in everything she does, yet she isn't a stupid character. Marsden, in another of his broad and pompous characters, overacts, sometimes quite outrageously so. But we believe his personae based on what Adams brings to the table beforehand.
If there is a weak link, it is Robert, his daughter Morgan and girlfriend Nancy. They are plot contrivances and feel like afterthoughts in most scenes. Morgan especially is thrown in for apparently no good reason. She has no critical part in the narrative nor does she appear on screen in the climactic finale. Nancy, for her part, isn't given anything of substance to do, though her eventual fate jives nearly perfectly with what we know of her.
The finale, featuring Susan Sarandon in full diva mode, rings just a bit hollow and sped up, as if a certain running time had to be met instead of a naturally flowing story. It's not enough to derail Enchanted, a story about learning to be critical, but not too critical as to miss what is staring you in the face. A bit of a hammy message to be sure, but also an endearing one in true Disney style.
Released:
October 12, 2007 (New York Film Festival)Director: Sidney Lumet
*****
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is like the ball of yarn a cat plays with. As long as both ends are tucked in and not pulled, the ball of yarn remains relatively intact. But pull a stray piece and, soon afterward, the entire thing becomes undone. Such is the case here. When brothers Hank and Andy (Ethan Hawke, Philip Seymour Hoffman) decide to knock over their parents jewelry store because both are in desperate need of money, they call it a victimless crime. The robbery goes horribly wrong, resulting in the fragile lives the family has created to come shattering apart, making each person do things they wouldn't normally do.
With lesser actors, director Sidney Lumet's latest outing would have rung hollow, as if the script was imposing a set of character traits on a group of actors unable to inhabit the parts. Without muttering a line of dialogue, though, we know each of the people on screen, if only in the broad sense. Hawke, as Hank, with his moppy, unkempt hair is a man at the end of his rope while brother Andy carries himself with dignity and class, despite being in well over his head as well. Then there's Andy's wife Gina (Marisa Tomei). We know her, too. She is upper class, with Andy only for the money and not real love. It is these people, and to a lesser extent Albert Finney and Rosemary Harris as the parents, we want to shake, rattle and stir. In the great pantheon of bad movie ideas, robbing your own parents store is near the top of the list.
What the film doesn't tell us-at least not all at once-is why they do it. Instead of being a simple whodunit story, the script throws that question out of the window at the outset. We know who it is. But why? That's the great mystery. And once those answers come, in the form of segments devoted to each character leading up to and after the robbery, they are whole people. Not terribly brilliant people, but complete. Even at this point the film doesn't fade to black, allowing us to ruminate on what they have done. We are forced to follow them to their ultimate destruction. Remember that yarn? It is pulled to such lengths there is no ball anymore, just a mess of tangles and waste.
Lumet gets perhaps the best work out of Hawke since Dead Poet's Society, as he is continually forced to carry the emotional burden of the film. Perhaps a bit overreaching in some scenes, he isn't strictly a bad person, just caught up in events he can't do anything about, trying to be everything to everybody. Hoffman is more restrained, lashing out only at the end. Tomei is wonderfully understated, knowing full well hers is a supporting part and not where the camera is going to be focused for any prolonged period of time. A minor gripe: the slam cuts which shift the perspective of the film come on suddenly, just as we're becoming comfortable with what we're seeing. Maybe that's the point, though. To make sure we're not comfortable watching a group of people dig their own graves.
Released: March 30, 2007
Director: Stephen J. Anderson
*****
Meet the Robinsons carries many of the hallmarks of a Disney film (a theme of family, non-fatal action, eccentric characters) yet misses a rather big one: heart. That's not to say the computer animated film isn't a fun ride with enough in-jokes to present and past Mouse House projects; by the end, though, we're left feeling a little empty. After he is left on the doorstep of an orphanage as a baby, brainy Lewis puts off one adoption family after another with his crazy inventions. One day, he travels to the future with a boy named Wilbur. Someone has stolen a time machine from Wilbur's garage and he needs Lewis to help him find it.
From a pure children's perspective, the film is colorful, fairly action packed and potentially mesmerizing. But with complex themes like time travel and a past self meeting the future one, the story proper inevitably goes over their heads. The script is so concerned with making sense of going forward in time and giving us enough wacky characters it never bothers to explain what it's doing. Not even a half hearted attempt. This isn't a simple story like Snow White or even Toy Story. Full of paradoxes and "what if's," it plays on our sympathies more than it has any right to.
See, since Lewis doesn't know who his mother is, he forces Wilbur to take him into the past to see her in exchange for his work in the future. Throughout the film, we're told all the spiky haired boy wants is to have a family. It's a point driven home more times than anyone can count, making him a caricature, a stereotypical kid in the adoption system. But there's nothing else there. He's smart and puts himself first. Yup, great character development. We get marginally better from his roommate, affectionately known as Goobs, who gets an actual storyline from beginning to end.
One technical matter, though: if Lewis stops the bad guy in the future and goes back to change said bad guy's past (hence making him a good guy), does that not alter future history and kill a person? And why does future Lewis not remember his son Wilbur going back in time to visit his past self?
This isn't a total wash. The film zips along fairly well, keeping the audience engaged throughout. Various gags are actually funny (note the big-headed, small-handed T Rex) and there is an interesting concept buried in the material. A whole cadre of writers (9 credited, not including William Joyce) is the major problem, with a whole lot of elements thrown in "just because." Is this worth the 95 minute investment? Yeah, you could do worse. Just put your brain on hold and enjoy the vibrant-if untextured-pictures.
Director: Stephen J. Anderson
*****
Meet the Robinsons carries many of the hallmarks of a Disney film (a theme of family, non-fatal action, eccentric characters) yet misses a rather big one: heart. That's not to say the computer animated film isn't a fun ride with enough in-jokes to present and past Mouse House projects; by the end, though, we're left feeling a little empty. After he is left on the doorstep of an orphanage as a baby, brainy Lewis puts off one adoption family after another with his crazy inventions. One day, he travels to the future with a boy named Wilbur. Someone has stolen a time machine from Wilbur's garage and he needs Lewis to help him find it.
From a pure children's perspective, the film is colorful, fairly action packed and potentially mesmerizing. But with complex themes like time travel and a past self meeting the future one, the story proper inevitably goes over their heads. The script is so concerned with making sense of going forward in time and giving us enough wacky characters it never bothers to explain what it's doing. Not even a half hearted attempt. This isn't a simple story like Snow White or even Toy Story. Full of paradoxes and "what if's," it plays on our sympathies more than it has any right to.
See, since Lewis doesn't know who his mother is, he forces Wilbur to take him into the past to see her in exchange for his work in the future. Throughout the film, we're told all the spiky haired boy wants is to have a family. It's a point driven home more times than anyone can count, making him a caricature, a stereotypical kid in the adoption system. But there's nothing else there. He's smart and puts himself first. Yup, great character development. We get marginally better from his roommate, affectionately known as Goobs, who gets an actual storyline from beginning to end.
One technical matter, though: if Lewis stops the bad guy in the future and goes back to change said bad guy's past (hence making him a good guy), does that not alter future history and kill a person? And why does future Lewis not remember his son Wilbur going back in time to visit his past self?
This isn't a total wash. The film zips along fairly well, keeping the audience engaged throughout. Various gags are actually funny (note the big-headed, small-handed T Rex) and there is an interesting concept buried in the material. A whole cadre of writers (9 credited, not including William Joyce) is the major problem, with a whole lot of elements thrown in "just because." Is this worth the 95 minute investment? Yeah, you could do worse. Just put your brain on hold and enjoy the vibrant-if untextured-pictures.
Released: December 1, 2006
Director: Brad Silberling
*****
The first film in history to be released via internet download while playing in theaters, 10 Items or Less strives for an indie-quirk attitude, yet loses it within the first twenty minutes of the production. For the next hour, it is a rumination on the differences between the working and upper classes. It's too bad the interplay Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega display in the grocery store early on is moved outside that establishment later in the film; the down and out market is a wondrous place filled with rich possibilities for dark humor.
And there's the problem: this movie is billed as a comedy when it really isn't. Sure, watching Freeman as an out of work actor watch Vega's Scarlet go about her rudimentary cashier job doesn't sound funny, though it is his wide eyed disbelief over her menial tasks which makes the sequence a pleasure to watch. (Not to mention director Silberling allows the actors to act in unbroken takes throughout the film.) An entire film could have been made inside the market, centering on the people there and Freeman's reactions to each of them. Truthfully, that's where the movie should have been set, not in car washes and interviews, trailer parks or car hoods.
However, the finished product is what we're given. 10 Items or Less turns into each of them teaching the other something important about life. Scarlet, stuck in a dead in job with a dead end husband, brings Freeman back to earth, walking him through a world he has never known. For his part, Freeman is happy go lucky, without a seeming care in the world...a lesson he imparts on Scarlet. She is perpetually negative, finding reasons not to do the things she should be doing. Take a job interview. The pair go into Target-a wonder for Freeman-where he "puts her together," casting her in the role of an office manager. He's soft and delicate with his young ward, pushing her to think of herself in a positive light. But it's dreadfully boring.
Freeman and Vega develop an easy rapport in 82 minutes, inhabiting both their characters fully. Considering they are are the leads and only actors with any appreciable screen time, the relative success of the production rests squarely on them. Silberling's direction is functional, considering the film was shot in 15 days on a "nothing" budget. His greatest achievement is knowing when to allow the scene to continue uninterrupted, making this truly an actors film. Despite the acting and directing, it's the script which lets us down in the end. Too indie, too high minded, too art house.
Director: Brad Silberling
*****
The first film in history to be released via internet download while playing in theaters, 10 Items or Less strives for an indie-quirk attitude, yet loses it within the first twenty minutes of the production. For the next hour, it is a rumination on the differences between the working and upper classes. It's too bad the interplay Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega display in the grocery store early on is moved outside that establishment later in the film; the down and out market is a wondrous place filled with rich possibilities for dark humor.
And there's the problem: this movie is billed as a comedy when it really isn't. Sure, watching Freeman as an out of work actor watch Vega's Scarlet go about her rudimentary cashier job doesn't sound funny, though it is his wide eyed disbelief over her menial tasks which makes the sequence a pleasure to watch. (Not to mention director Silberling allows the actors to act in unbroken takes throughout the film.) An entire film could have been made inside the market, centering on the people there and Freeman's reactions to each of them. Truthfully, that's where the movie should have been set, not in car washes and interviews, trailer parks or car hoods.
However, the finished product is what we're given. 10 Items or Less turns into each of them teaching the other something important about life. Scarlet, stuck in a dead in job with a dead end husband, brings Freeman back to earth, walking him through a world he has never known. For his part, Freeman is happy go lucky, without a seeming care in the world...a lesson he imparts on Scarlet. She is perpetually negative, finding reasons not to do the things she should be doing. Take a job interview. The pair go into Target-a wonder for Freeman-where he "puts her together," casting her in the role of an office manager. He's soft and delicate with his young ward, pushing her to think of herself in a positive light. But it's dreadfully boring.
Freeman and Vega develop an easy rapport in 82 minutes, inhabiting both their characters fully. Considering they are are the leads and only actors with any appreciable screen time, the relative success of the production rests squarely on them. Silberling's direction is functional, considering the film was shot in 15 days on a "nothing" budget. His greatest achievement is knowing when to allow the scene to continue uninterrupted, making this truly an actors film. Despite the acting and directing, it's the script which lets us down in the end. Too indie, too high minded, too art house.
Released: November 23, 2006
Director: Emilio Estevez
*****
You would think in a movie named Bobby the titular character would show up at some point and be integral to the plot. Robert F. Kennedy (yes, that Bobby) doesn't, perhaps the the film's great credit. Instead, the myth of the man takes over as people from different walks of life converge on the Ambassador Hotel in June, 1968, for their own set of reasons, all of which ultimately show the power he had over the American people.
With such an eclectic and A-list cast (including, but not limited to, Anthony Hopkins, Martin Sheen, Helen Hunt, Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, Ashton Kutcher and many more), there was a chance Bobby would fail at the very thing it was trying to do: celebrate the promise RFK had for divergent groups. The young praised him for his revolutionary thinking; the older because of his charismatic and thoughtful ways. And, truth be told, with as many main characters as there are here, the entire story does feel jumbled and chaotic in a way which feeds into this particular day. By not focusing on one person or plot, we run from the kitchen staff straight up to the entertainers to campaign workers, old men sitting in the lobby with nothing better to do and into the lives of a couple planning on getting married. Each time the setting changes, we almost engage in whiplash due to the speed at which Estevez (also the writer and co-star) drops the current train of thought and hitches to another.
If anything, the film comes off as being a memorial to Kennedy, with the palpable excitement...jubilation...over his candidacy from all quarters. Which makes everything on screen simultaneously exciting and tiresome to watch. Constantly talking in the third person about what the man would do for the country without getting to know him in any meaningful way leaves you wanting more, the hallmark of any good movie. Estevez and the characters revere RFK and this is nothing more than a tribute to him through rose colored glasses. No one is as saintly as he is made out to be here. It simply isn't possible, making this a difficult watch as well.
The structure of the film has the same effect on the audience. While we never get bored with what we're watching, because of the plethora of characters, none get the chance to stand out from another. By the time the credits roll, we are potentially more interested in playing the "Name the Actor" game than whatever is on screen. Though, the assassination and the ensuing reactions, provide an attitude-a consensus feeling-which can't be put into words. Hopes, dreams, wishes...all shattered right there. It was a moment exemplified by the hotel patrons felt across the country. In that sense, the ability to highlight how individuals from different walks of life react in the same way to the same disaster, Bobby excels. Maybe that is the point, after all. To show how alike we really are in the grand scheme of things.
Director: Emilio Estevez
*****
You would think in a movie named Bobby the titular character would show up at some point and be integral to the plot. Robert F. Kennedy (yes, that Bobby) doesn't, perhaps the the film's great credit. Instead, the myth of the man takes over as people from different walks of life converge on the Ambassador Hotel in June, 1968, for their own set of reasons, all of which ultimately show the power he had over the American people.
With such an eclectic and A-list cast (including, but not limited to, Anthony Hopkins, Martin Sheen, Helen Hunt, Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, Ashton Kutcher and many more), there was a chance Bobby would fail at the very thing it was trying to do: celebrate the promise RFK had for divergent groups. The young praised him for his revolutionary thinking; the older because of his charismatic and thoughtful ways. And, truth be told, with as many main characters as there are here, the entire story does feel jumbled and chaotic in a way which feeds into this particular day. By not focusing on one person or plot, we run from the kitchen staff straight up to the entertainers to campaign workers, old men sitting in the lobby with nothing better to do and into the lives of a couple planning on getting married. Each time the setting changes, we almost engage in whiplash due to the speed at which Estevez (also the writer and co-star) drops the current train of thought and hitches to another.
If anything, the film comes off as being a memorial to Kennedy, with the palpable excitement...jubilation...over his candidacy from all quarters. Which makes everything on screen simultaneously exciting and tiresome to watch. Constantly talking in the third person about what the man would do for the country without getting to know him in any meaningful way leaves you wanting more, the hallmark of any good movie. Estevez and the characters revere RFK and this is nothing more than a tribute to him through rose colored glasses. No one is as saintly as he is made out to be here. It simply isn't possible, making this a difficult watch as well.
The structure of the film has the same effect on the audience. While we never get bored with what we're watching, because of the plethora of characters, none get the chance to stand out from another. By the time the credits roll, we are potentially more interested in playing the "Name the Actor" game than whatever is on screen. Though, the assassination and the ensuing reactions, provide an attitude-a consensus feeling-which can't be put into words. Hopes, dreams, wishes...all shattered right there. It was a moment exemplified by the hotel patrons felt across the country. In that sense, the ability to highlight how individuals from different walks of life react in the same way to the same disaster, Bobby excels. Maybe that is the point, after all. To show how alike we really are in the grand scheme of things.
Released: June 2, 2006 (Seattle International Film Festival)
Director: Thom Fitzgerald
*****
A movie told in three acts, 3 Needles looks at the AIDS epidemic from the perspective of people trying to make a difference, yet failing. Act I takes place in China, where a woman (Lucy Liu) runs blood from villages to the cities, unknowingly passing contaminated blood to healthy people. The second story takes place in Montreal, following a young porn actor (Shawn Ashmore) and his quest to fool an AIDS test in order to keep working. And, at the end, three nuns in Africa try to help families ravaged by the disease, yet are horrified at how far they are willing to suspend their principles to do so.
Writing and directing this epic, spanning five different languages and three continents, is Thom Fitzgerald. He handles each story with care and conviction, never letting the action on screen become too violent, grotesque or graphic. That is perhaps the film's largest drawback: it sanitizes AIDS and what it does to people. When a pregnant Jin Ping (Liu) is raped by Chinese soldiers, the camera only shows the men exiting her van in extreme long shots. As people die of AIDS throughout the film, their symptoms and pain are glossed over with a very minimal amount of acknowledgment. Perhaps that is the idea behind the film, to be as unintrusive as possible in an attempt to get in front of as many people as possible.
One other minor quibble with the production comes in the length of each story. Running at 127 minutes, there is ample time for each act to receive an equal running time. Yet the arguably least compelling group of characters-the nuns-get more time than either of the other two stories. There is no need for us to see the nuns arriving at their monastery. Instead jump right into the middle of the existing story, following the death of a woman from AIDS and her family. Devote some more time to fleshing out the truth in Act II (keep reading).
Yet for all its faults, 3 Needles is an heartfelt production, armed with top notch actors (Ashmore, Liu, Stockard Channing, Olympia Dukakis, Sandra Oh, Chloe Sevigny and a cast of unnamed hundreds as background extras and in supporting parts) and exquisite location shooting. Fitzgerald refrains from preaching, opting instead to simply tell the stories he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell them. Is there ambiguity at the end? Of course, most notably in the second vignette. How does Olive (Stockard Channing), porn actor Denys' mother, actually get the virus? There are two possible routes, though in the end the how doesn't really matter, only the fact she tests as positive. What is her rationale when she cashes in the life insurance policy? To be a selfish and jealous woman? Or she is helping Denys in some way we never get to know about? These questions aren't critical to the main story and, thus, were most likely left out. Just loose strings to be tied up.
The finished product is epic, though retaining a sense of the people who make up each story. It's not nearly enough to understand the wide implications of actions (or inactions); to see how each act impacts the immediate vicinity and the world reminds us we aren't alone. Whatever the good intentions are, even one reused needle can potentially infect hundreds of people with contaminated blood, for example.
Director: Thom Fitzgerald
*****
A movie told in three acts, 3 Needles looks at the AIDS epidemic from the perspective of people trying to make a difference, yet failing. Act I takes place in China, where a woman (Lucy Liu) runs blood from villages to the cities, unknowingly passing contaminated blood to healthy people. The second story takes place in Montreal, following a young porn actor (Shawn Ashmore) and his quest to fool an AIDS test in order to keep working. And, at the end, three nuns in Africa try to help families ravaged by the disease, yet are horrified at how far they are willing to suspend their principles to do so.
Writing and directing this epic, spanning five different languages and three continents, is Thom Fitzgerald. He handles each story with care and conviction, never letting the action on screen become too violent, grotesque or graphic. That is perhaps the film's largest drawback: it sanitizes AIDS and what it does to people. When a pregnant Jin Ping (Liu) is raped by Chinese soldiers, the camera only shows the men exiting her van in extreme long shots. As people die of AIDS throughout the film, their symptoms and pain are glossed over with a very minimal amount of acknowledgment. Perhaps that is the idea behind the film, to be as unintrusive as possible in an attempt to get in front of as many people as possible.
One other minor quibble with the production comes in the length of each story. Running at 127 minutes, there is ample time for each act to receive an equal running time. Yet the arguably least compelling group of characters-the nuns-get more time than either of the other two stories. There is no need for us to see the nuns arriving at their monastery. Instead jump right into the middle of the existing story, following the death of a woman from AIDS and her family. Devote some more time to fleshing out the truth in Act II (keep reading).
Yet for all its faults, 3 Needles is an heartfelt production, armed with top notch actors (Ashmore, Liu, Stockard Channing, Olympia Dukakis, Sandra Oh, Chloe Sevigny and a cast of unnamed hundreds as background extras and in supporting parts) and exquisite location shooting. Fitzgerald refrains from preaching, opting instead to simply tell the stories he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell them. Is there ambiguity at the end? Of course, most notably in the second vignette. How does Olive (Stockard Channing), porn actor Denys' mother, actually get the virus? There are two possible routes, though in the end the how doesn't really matter, only the fact she tests as positive. What is her rationale when she cashes in the life insurance policy? To be a selfish and jealous woman? Or she is helping Denys in some way we never get to know about? These questions aren't critical to the main story and, thus, were most likely left out. Just loose strings to be tied up.
The finished product is epic, though retaining a sense of the people who make up each story. It's not nearly enough to understand the wide implications of actions (or inactions); to see how each act impacts the immediate vicinity and the world reminds us we aren't alone. Whatever the good intentions are, even one reused needle can potentially infect hundreds of people with contaminated blood, for example.
Released: October 27, 2006
Director: Gabriel Range
*****
Known more for its controversial subject than any detailed part of the plot, Death of a President focuses on a fictional assassination of President George W. Bush in Chicago following a speech in 2007. At least, that's what the movie bills itself as. Instead, it is an attempt-a decent one at that-to bring the events of September 11 down to a more manageable level. Instead of buildings being hit by airplanes, the president is shot. Poor intelligence about terrorism is replaced by racial profiling and a rush to judgment. All the while, in a documentary-style approach, the event is "examined" through interviews with key personnel...though no one we really want to hear from.
Director and co-writer Range seems a bit schizophrenic in executing the film. The titular act doesn't happen until a half hour into the 90 minute production and, even then, never achieves the emotional punch it should. President Bush dies in surgery, not on the rope line when he's greeting people. Not in his motorcade. In the hospital. For us to feel the impact, there has to be something more, a better constructed narrative. Because of all the eggs in the narrative basket, it never focuses on one and rides it to the end. Is this the story of a nation grieving for a fallen president? Or the story of people wrongly accused of a crime? Racial profiling? Rush to judgment? Consequences of not listening to advisers? What is the movie truly about?
Some credit has to be given to Range for constructing the film from reenactments and archival footage of the participants. Since no government entity was involved in the production, hours of news footage had to be sifted through to find appropriate moments. For instance, new President Cheney's eulogy is lifted from Ronald Regan's funeral, only with the name changed. While we do see the moment on screen, we also know to watch his lips. When they don't match up to the actual words, there is a problem. (Every other instance of doctored archived footage is manipulated off screen.)
Critics have said Death of a President goes too far in the hatred people feel toward the current president. To pretend he is dead and show a supposed aftermath is in poor taste. Does the movie cross the line? It may skirt it, but not cross. Why? There is a larger point Range is trying to make, I think, which gets lost in the shuffle. This is supposed to be a "worst case scenario" prediction, possibly even a warning to the world. Preachy and heavy handed? At times, yes. Well constructed from a visual perspective? Sure. A good film? It's marginal.
Director: Gabriel Range
*****
Known more for its controversial subject than any detailed part of the plot, Death of a President focuses on a fictional assassination of President George W. Bush in Chicago following a speech in 2007. At least, that's what the movie bills itself as. Instead, it is an attempt-a decent one at that-to bring the events of September 11 down to a more manageable level. Instead of buildings being hit by airplanes, the president is shot. Poor intelligence about terrorism is replaced by racial profiling and a rush to judgment. All the while, in a documentary-style approach, the event is "examined" through interviews with key personnel...though no one we really want to hear from.
Director and co-writer Range seems a bit schizophrenic in executing the film. The titular act doesn't happen until a half hour into the 90 minute production and, even then, never achieves the emotional punch it should. President Bush dies in surgery, not on the rope line when he's greeting people. Not in his motorcade. In the hospital. For us to feel the impact, there has to be something more, a better constructed narrative. Because of all the eggs in the narrative basket, it never focuses on one and rides it to the end. Is this the story of a nation grieving for a fallen president? Or the story of people wrongly accused of a crime? Racial profiling? Rush to judgment? Consequences of not listening to advisers? What is the movie truly about?
Some credit has to be given to Range for constructing the film from reenactments and archival footage of the participants. Since no government entity was involved in the production, hours of news footage had to be sifted through to find appropriate moments. For instance, new President Cheney's eulogy is lifted from Ronald Regan's funeral, only with the name changed. While we do see the moment on screen, we also know to watch his lips. When they don't match up to the actual words, there is a problem. (Every other instance of doctored archived footage is manipulated off screen.)
Critics have said Death of a President goes too far in the hatred people feel toward the current president. To pretend he is dead and show a supposed aftermath is in poor taste. Does the movie cross the line? It may skirt it, but not cross. Why? There is a larger point Range is trying to make, I think, which gets lost in the shuffle. This is supposed to be a "worst case scenario" prediction, possibly even a warning to the world. Preachy and heavy handed? At times, yes. Well constructed from a visual perspective? Sure. A good film? It's marginal.
Released: October 13, 2006
Director: Barry Levinson
Director: Barry Levinson
*****
When a political humorist gets elected president of the United States, the vote at first takes people by surprise. But as Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams) begins to show he may be up to the job, a revelation about the computerized voting machines is brought to his attention, forcing him to make a decision not only in his best interest, but also in the best interest of the country.
Ya know, there's a halfway decent movie sitting somewhere in Man of the Year. The very concept of a candidate from neither of the two major parties being elected to the White House has a certain charm to it. Had the film written and director by Barry Levinson remained focused on Dobbs' campaign and culminated in his eventual win, it would have been far more enjoyable. The problem is the campaign and election are given relatively short thrift in the first half of the picture to make way for a convoluted plot from a computer company hellbent on keeping a former programmer quiet regarding potential voting errors. Compounding the left turn in plot are the accompanying scenes of intrigue and corporate shenanigans, neither of which belong in this film.
Man of the Year wants to be a political satire. And it succeeds, during a great deal of its running time. From an impromptu monologue during a debate to his first unscheduled speech in front of Congress, Tom Dobbs seems to understand his place in history and on the world stage. Even if he entered the election on a lark, who cares? He is as sharp witted as anyone within the reality we're presented. Moreso, when you look at the sitting president and his Republican challenger, neither of whom come off as anything but snake oil salesmen. It's Dobbs with the charisma and personality to connect with the people. However, we never get to see how he accomplishes that feat in anything but rock star-like montages.
Instead, Laura Linney's Eleanor Green is chased through very public shopping malls in broad daylight and nearly run over by pickup trucks, all because she harbors a secret which can bring down her former employer. And the stupidly obvious way Dobbs wins the election? Green would have us believe it has to do with the double letters in the candidates names (Dobbs, Mills and Kellogg); apparently, KeLLoGG trumps MiLLs because of the two sets of doubles, yet DoBBs beats Kellogg based on the alphabet. Whatever. Maybe in a movie based where a comedian can become president, this thinking works. But anywhere else? Nah. And as part of a satire, designed to be funny in at least one way? Not even close. It's the ending-the complete left turn in the tone-where Man of the Year completely falls apart. Not even guest appearances by Tina Fey and Amy Poehler in the climax can help. And that's saying something.
When a political humorist gets elected president of the United States, the vote at first takes people by surprise. But as Tom Dobbs (Robin Williams) begins to show he may be up to the job, a revelation about the computerized voting machines is brought to his attention, forcing him to make a decision not only in his best interest, but also in the best interest of the country.
Ya know, there's a halfway decent movie sitting somewhere in Man of the Year. The very concept of a candidate from neither of the two major parties being elected to the White House has a certain charm to it. Had the film written and director by Barry Levinson remained focused on Dobbs' campaign and culminated in his eventual win, it would have been far more enjoyable. The problem is the campaign and election are given relatively short thrift in the first half of the picture to make way for a convoluted plot from a computer company hellbent on keeping a former programmer quiet regarding potential voting errors. Compounding the left turn in plot are the accompanying scenes of intrigue and corporate shenanigans, neither of which belong in this film.
Man of the Year wants to be a political satire. And it succeeds, during a great deal of its running time. From an impromptu monologue during a debate to his first unscheduled speech in front of Congress, Tom Dobbs seems to understand his place in history and on the world stage. Even if he entered the election on a lark, who cares? He is as sharp witted as anyone within the reality we're presented. Moreso, when you look at the sitting president and his Republican challenger, neither of whom come off as anything but snake oil salesmen. It's Dobbs with the charisma and personality to connect with the people. However, we never get to see how he accomplishes that feat in anything but rock star-like montages.
Instead, Laura Linney's Eleanor Green is chased through very public shopping malls in broad daylight and nearly run over by pickup trucks, all because she harbors a secret which can bring down her former employer. And the stupidly obvious way Dobbs wins the election? Green would have us believe it has to do with the double letters in the candidates names (Dobbs, Mills and Kellogg); apparently, KeLLoGG trumps MiLLs because of the two sets of doubles, yet DoBBs beats Kellogg based on the alphabet. Whatever. Maybe in a movie based where a comedian can become president, this thinking works. But anywhere else? Nah. And as part of a satire, designed to be funny in at least one way? Not even close. It's the ending-the complete left turn in the tone-where Man of the Year completely falls apart. Not even guest appearances by Tina Fey and Amy Poehler in the climax can help. And that's saying something.
Released: June 1957
Director: Nathan Juran
*****
Let's be honest: no one is lining up for the story or human characters in 20 Million Miles to Earth. The attraction remains the stop motion creature work by Ray Harryhausen. Perhaps a bit underwhelming in today's era of CGI, the work done by Harryhausen and other artists of his ilk is on full display here, with a generally lifelike and graceful moving (for 1957, of course) creature from Venus tangling with an elephant. Just about the only problem with the special effects happens to be the shifting size of both animals in the action finale.
In case anyone is really interested: man's first exploration of Venus crashes into the sea off the coast of Sicily with only one survivor. A container washes up on shore, which a young boy named Pepe, promptly opens up, bringing the contents to a traveling zoologists, Dr. Leonardo. From there, the gelatinous blob hatches, unleashing Ymir onto the world.
In a nutshell, that's all there is to Earth. A straight forward enough story with wooden characters and actors, both playing a distant second fiddle to the creature effects. None of the actors are particularly memorable, either in the story or in their careers. And yet, the film doesn't buckle under them. They're simply placeholders until we can get to the siege of Rome. It is a glorious battle by 1950s standards. Showcasing many more creature effects than it has any real right to, Harryhausen reaffirms his place in history as a pioneer of special effects. And, most likely, of patience, considering the painstaking detail which went into creating every aspect of a show, from something as simple as a tail moving to engaging in a street battle with an elephant.
Whereas the popular notion of creatures born out of nuclear experiments was popular at the time, 20 Million Miles to Earth uses another standby, the then-new space program, to bring Ymir to Earth. The script is horribly lacking in specifics regarding technology or scientific fact, however. Mentions of Ymir eating sulfur and being stopped by electrical impulses notwithstanding, the script gets us from the beginning of the story proper to the first time a full Ymir is seen with all deliberate speed. There's no pretense of reality; just a good monster movie without the current wave of humanizing the creature, of understanding it and helping it get back home. Ymir smash indeed.
Director: Nathan Juran
*****
Let's be honest: no one is lining up for the story or human characters in 20 Million Miles to Earth. The attraction remains the stop motion creature work by Ray Harryhausen. Perhaps a bit underwhelming in today's era of CGI, the work done by Harryhausen and other artists of his ilk is on full display here, with a generally lifelike and graceful moving (for 1957, of course) creature from Venus tangling with an elephant. Just about the only problem with the special effects happens to be the shifting size of both animals in the action finale.
In case anyone is really interested: man's first exploration of Venus crashes into the sea off the coast of Sicily with only one survivor. A container washes up on shore, which a young boy named Pepe, promptly opens up, bringing the contents to a traveling zoologists, Dr. Leonardo. From there, the gelatinous blob hatches, unleashing Ymir onto the world.
In a nutshell, that's all there is to Earth. A straight forward enough story with wooden characters and actors, both playing a distant second fiddle to the creature effects. None of the actors are particularly memorable, either in the story or in their careers. And yet, the film doesn't buckle under them. They're simply placeholders until we can get to the siege of Rome. It is a glorious battle by 1950s standards. Showcasing many more creature effects than it has any real right to, Harryhausen reaffirms his place in history as a pioneer of special effects. And, most likely, of patience, considering the painstaking detail which went into creating every aspect of a show, from something as simple as a tail moving to engaging in a street battle with an elephant.
Whereas the popular notion of creatures born out of nuclear experiments was popular at the time, 20 Million Miles to Earth uses another standby, the then-new space program, to bring Ymir to Earth. The script is horribly lacking in specifics regarding technology or scientific fact, however. Mentions of Ymir eating sulfur and being stopped by electrical impulses notwithstanding, the script gets us from the beginning of the story proper to the first time a full Ymir is seen with all deliberate speed. There's no pretense of reality; just a good monster movie without the current wave of humanizing the creature, of understanding it and helping it get back home. Ymir smash indeed.
Released: December 25, 2006
Director: Bill Condon
*****
Much like it's 2007 movie musical brethren Hairspray, Dreamgirls concerns itself with race relations in a more straight forward, less pop way. Which isn't to say either approach is better then the other: both end on positive, uplifting notes for the most of the characters and are filled with music from beginning to end. Dreamgirls, though, relegates the various love stories to second tier status in favor of contrasting the rise and fall of early Motown music personalities. Namely James "Thunder" Early (Eddie Murphy, in a role he should have received an Oscar for), car salesman turned executive Curtis Taylor, Jr. (Jamie Foxx in a smoldering performance) and the girls who comprise the Dreamettes (later the Dreams) singing group.
In a desperate bid to put his new act on the map, Taylor, Jr. engages in dubious at best payola with radio stations in the Detroit area. As new gigs start to be lined up, lead singer Effie (Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson) is replaced with Curtis' lover, Deena (Beyonce). With an arguably better looking lead to front the Dreamettes, Effie eventually drops of the group, squandering all the money she has saved up. Over the course of several decades, the Dreams chart hit after hit while Effie has all but abandoned her singing career. Until one fateful day at the unemployment office when she the lightbulb finally goes off for her. And this begins her comeback, if only for a moment, and the destruction of everything Curtis has built.
Despite a 130 minute running time and musical numbers nearly blanketing the entire film, Dreamgirls never turns into a chore to watch. Rather, with shifting time periods, an engrossing story, kinetic music sequences and glorious acting turns by everyone involved, it not only charts the career trajectories of those fictional people involved, but also the rise of "black" music in America. Even though the history lesson is always foremost in the mind of the script, preaching is never at the heart of the story. Instead, the characters-through song-drive the drama. Dialogue is relatively sparse in favor of song, although the only gripe one can have with the film is the relative lack of development some of the supporting players get. Danny Glover's Marty Madison, for instance, or Anika Noni Rose's Lorrell. There just isn't enough time to tell the main story while giving everyone a fully formed character.
It can be argued a great many aspects of the film are the highlight, it is the script (based on the original production) which propels the action on screen. It constantly asks the audience to keep up with leaps in time and story without including subtitles of obvious references to what happens between one scene and another. The story simply flows, and with each change of scenery, costume or hairstyle, we are expected to connect the dots. This approach forces us to become invested in the story from the very beginning as opposed to being passive viewers.
Bill Condon brings a unique flair to the production, not with flashy camera moves, but with a steady hand and a trick I found mesmerizing the two times he used it. Going from a rehearsal to an actual production, the camera pans around the group singing on stage, only to reveal an audience where there was none previously after one full rotation. Simple enough to be sure, but fascinating nonetheless. Beyonce, Murphy, Hudson, Foxx, Danny Glover and the rest of the cast shine in their own roles,searching for the depth of their character whenever they can. The singing from the entire cast is above reproach; costuming, makeup, hairstyle and production design are vibrant and alive, drawing us into their world. The finale may seem a bit too easy for some audiences, yet it works for the story.
Director: Bill Condon
*****
Much like it's 2007 movie musical brethren Hairspray, Dreamgirls concerns itself with race relations in a more straight forward, less pop way. Which isn't to say either approach is better then the other: both end on positive, uplifting notes for the most of the characters and are filled with music from beginning to end. Dreamgirls, though, relegates the various love stories to second tier status in favor of contrasting the rise and fall of early Motown music personalities. Namely James "Thunder" Early (Eddie Murphy, in a role he should have received an Oscar for), car salesman turned executive Curtis Taylor, Jr. (Jamie Foxx in a smoldering performance) and the girls who comprise the Dreamettes (later the Dreams) singing group.
In a desperate bid to put his new act on the map, Taylor, Jr. engages in dubious at best payola with radio stations in the Detroit area. As new gigs start to be lined up, lead singer Effie (Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson) is replaced with Curtis' lover, Deena (Beyonce). With an arguably better looking lead to front the Dreamettes, Effie eventually drops of the group, squandering all the money she has saved up. Over the course of several decades, the Dreams chart hit after hit while Effie has all but abandoned her singing career. Until one fateful day at the unemployment office when she the lightbulb finally goes off for her. And this begins her comeback, if only for a moment, and the destruction of everything Curtis has built.
Despite a 130 minute running time and musical numbers nearly blanketing the entire film, Dreamgirls never turns into a chore to watch. Rather, with shifting time periods, an engrossing story, kinetic music sequences and glorious acting turns by everyone involved, it not only charts the career trajectories of those fictional people involved, but also the rise of "black" music in America. Even though the history lesson is always foremost in the mind of the script, preaching is never at the heart of the story. Instead, the characters-through song-drive the drama. Dialogue is relatively sparse in favor of song, although the only gripe one can have with the film is the relative lack of development some of the supporting players get. Danny Glover's Marty Madison, for instance, or Anika Noni Rose's Lorrell. There just isn't enough time to tell the main story while giving everyone a fully formed character.
It can be argued a great many aspects of the film are the highlight, it is the script (based on the original production) which propels the action on screen. It constantly asks the audience to keep up with leaps in time and story without including subtitles of obvious references to what happens between one scene and another. The story simply flows, and with each change of scenery, costume or hairstyle, we are expected to connect the dots. This approach forces us to become invested in the story from the very beginning as opposed to being passive viewers.
Bill Condon brings a unique flair to the production, not with flashy camera moves, but with a steady hand and a trick I found mesmerizing the two times he used it. Going from a rehearsal to an actual production, the camera pans around the group singing on stage, only to reveal an audience where there was none previously after one full rotation. Simple enough to be sure, but fascinating nonetheless. Beyonce, Murphy, Hudson, Foxx, Danny Glover and the rest of the cast shine in their own roles,searching for the depth of their character whenever they can. The singing from the entire cast is above reproach; costuming, makeup, hairstyle and production design are vibrant and alive, drawing us into their world. The finale may seem a bit too easy for some audiences, yet it works for the story.
