L. Lion Reviews

The Vast of Night (2019)

All style and almost no substance

[4/10 · 14 June 2020]

Several reviewers have already said that this could have been a 25 minute Twilight Zone episode, but it gets stretched to 90 minutes. That is an apt description. The film's major flaw are long, unbroken scenes of dialogue that aren't interesting and don't advance the plot. Someone needs to tell the writer and director that watching an actress talk for five minutes at a switchboard is only impressive insofar as the actress is able to complete the scene, but with no cuts or anything visual of interest happening it becomes boring and after that, aggravating. These sorts of things happen several times with a caller to the radio station, a long unbroken shot of two characters talking (shot from behind) as they meander through a small town at night, and later in an old lady's house.

However this is a very well made movie - the production design and sets are impressive, but when your best scenes are in the high school gymnasium that has nothing to do with the plot but are only interesting because something visual is happening, you have a problem. Did Cayuga win the game?

In terms of plot points, there are several that just don't make any sense. The lead actress is working the town's switchboard - which she leaves multiple times. How are people supposed to make telephone calls in town if no one is there? The lead actor has a radio show - which he leaves. Does he leave his radio station with completely dead air? How much are the sponsors paying for that?

The cinematography and production design is very good. The tracking shots are very good. The acting is wooden, but given the absurdly long scenes of dialogue the actors are forced to deliver in one take, I applaud them for their ability to memorize. The rest of the movie is slow and boring. I'll give it 4 stars for the attention to period detail and the tracking shots. That's about the most I can do.

Too Many Cooks (2014 TV Short)

Gets better each time you watch it

[10/10 · 8 November 2014]

A kaleidoscopic pop-culture send up, Too Many Cooks gets better each time you watch it. At first it appears to be a spot-on parody of a 1980s sitcom, then it slowly morphs into something that moves through TV tropes and genres until it becomes unsettling as a gleeful murderer (William Tokarsky) begins offing the cast. He continues to do so as the genres change - cop show, nighttime soap, action cartoon, space opera. It isn't until the end that we learn that he might have been doing the cast a favor.

Watch it again. First, you will not be able to get the outstandingly cheesy theme song out of your head. Second, you will start noticing the killer showing up in weird places far earlier than what seemed to be his initial appearance. Plus, in subsequent viewings his murders become more and more funny.

Arguments can be made about the meaning of the entire thing - does it have a plot? Is Tokarsky's murderer a hero or a generic 80s slasher set loose in an 80s sitcom? When will Smarf get his own show? Very few films get better the more often they are watched. This is genius. 10 stars.

Hollywood Sex Wars (2011)

Dreadful

[1/10 · 13 January 2012]

Want to see a movie that gets less sexy the more naked women it has in it? That becomes more turgid the more the characters try to crack lame jokes? Then this is the movie for you.

Paul Sapiano apparently learned about filmmaking by watching nothing but pornos. The problem is that HSW isn't sexually appealing at all. Not only does it not contain any actual sex, but your average porno is a step up in terms of quality of writing, acting, and technical merit.

The plot? The bimbos form a club to teach women that they should bilk as much money out of men as possible without giving them any actual sex. The studs form a club to learn how to scam as much sex out of the women without actually giving them any money. That's it. That is the plot. If it sounds amazingly inept, it is. If all the characters sound repellent, even the pretty naked girls, THEY ARE. This is one of the most incompetent movies I've ever seen. Avoid at all costs.

Lovers of Hate (2010)

Weird melange that doesn't seem to know its own journey or destination

[5/10 · 19 February 2011]

Lovers of Hate is a strange drama about a situation that begs for catharsis, but never delivers. Tension builds throughout, without payoff. Strangely watchable, but uncomfortable and unsatisfying.

Rudy and Paul are brothers. Rudy, the older, has wrecked his life. Paul, the younger, is very successful, a success (in a tangential way) built on contributions from Rudy. Paul has also harbored feelings for Rudy's estranged wife Diana for years, and with Rudy out of the way, he makes his move, inviting her to his chalet in Park City Utah for the weekend. Unknown to him, Rudy had decided to drive up and visit Park City at the same time and breaks into Paul's house in order to surprise his brother. When Paul shows up with Diane, Rudy decides to play the ghost rather than reveal himself. He conceals himself in the too-large house, listening to their conversations and leaving little hints as to his presence.

While this sounds like a strong build-up to something cathartic - either a dramatic confrontation or a murder spree - we never get either. The characters don't seem to have any arc. Rudy arrives a bitter loser - does his experience hearing his brother and ex-wife candidly discuss him (between sessions of knocking boots) change him? Not that I could tell. Paul is incredibly underwritten - all we ever really discover about him is that he is wealthy, has a treadmill he runs on in the morning, and has a thing for Diane. Diane comes the closest to taking full form because she is conflicted about what she is doing. I had mixed feelings about the performances - Heather Kafka does the best job of making her character sympathetic. Doubek as Rudy mostly cringes in corners making faces and letting his three-day beard and unkempt hair act for him, and Karpovsky never imbues Paul with any recognizable attributes other than a desire have sex with Diane. The brothers are so wimpy that watching the film became something of a chore. Another thing that bothered me was the casting - Karpovsky and Doubek do not look anything like brothers. Would it have killed the producers to at least find actors who resembled one another? For all of that it is still an oddly watchable film, primarily because the fuse on what must be a final explosion continues to burn. But then it never goes off. Several of the scenes have a strong horror-film flavor as you can feel Rudy lurking just outside of the shot, but there are no horror movie thrills because Rudy remains inert. That's not a bad thing - Rudy isn't a killer - but it does pose several questions that the film completely fails to answer:

1) What was Rudy attempting to achieve by continuing to stick around? He commits some minor mischief, but aside from that he never acts, he just sits there and hears the people he is closest to say things about him that we already knew from the first ten minutes of the film. If he is going to be the hero - and the film is told from his point of view - then his actions to change himself are what will make this journey of interest. But he never does anything.

2) What was Paul really trying to accomplish with Diane? His attempts at romance with her are only modestly successful. Is this really about getting back at Rudy, which is hinted at?

3) What is the result of this meandering journey? The final shot of the film is perplexing to say the least.

The canned shot-on-HD-video made the film rather unappealing to watch. Because it was shot in a ski chalet with giant windows in winter, daytime shots at the house has an overexposed washed-out feel due to the snow reflections. Shots in dark interiors or at night have a red-hued washed out feeling as well. The exterior shots in the mountains look nice.

My recommendation is that this is not ready for prime time - there is an interesting movie to be made here, but the writer-director has only uncovered about one-third of it.

Tangled (2010)

paint by the numbers mediocrity

[3/10 · 18 November 2010]

My six year old daughter had somehow scored passes to a preview screening of Tangled. Previously she had received passes to a preview screening of Alpha and Omega, the 3-D talking wolf animated movie. Based on my experiences with these two films, receiving free preview screening passes to a 3-D animated feature indicates that it sucks.

I expected much more from Disney than from Lionsgate, the studio responsible for Alpha and Omega. John Lasseter of Pixar was credited as executive producer, so he must have overseen some element of the story development. Furthermore Dan Fogelman, who wrote Pixar's Cars, was credited with the script. So how could the story be so lacking in interesting characters or surprising plot twists? Characters are introduced and then disappear until called upon, especially a band of ruffians at a pub called the Snuggly Duck. Settings, especially a large wooden dam, seem to come out of nowhere purely to provide a place for an action scene. The romance is uninvolving. The dialogue is boring. The lead characters have no chemistry, and Rapunzel's animal playmate, a chameleon, is utterly lacking in expression. The villainness is surprisingly mundane and never feels threatening. About the only character who was amusing was a horse named Maximus. In fact, everything about this film, aside from some of the artwork and production design, feels paint-by-the-numbers. People associated with Pixar should do much better.

The Rapunzel story was always one of the weakest of the Grimm tradition. Aside from having the chick with long hair, it's mostly forgettable. If you thought Shrek 3 was good, this will please you. If you recognized Shrek 3 for being what it was, which was a warmed-up rehash the same old thing, then you should know what you are getting yourself into.

Incidentally, anyone reviewing this film before me that said anything along the lines of 'Disney's most wonderful film' is definitely a studio marketing hack. Disney has a stinker here, and they know it.

How to Train Your Dragon (2010)

Exceptional, often delightful animated fare

[8/10 · 18 April 2010]

How To Train Your Dragon is another delightful addition to the library of CGI films, which almost always seem to receive more attention in the plot and story phase of development than live action films. Blame Pixar for raising the bar in this genre. Although it is from Dreamworks and not Pixar, HTTYD is definitely in range of Pixar's best work.

Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel) is the equivalent of Flick from Pixar's A Bug's Life in this film. Kind and creative, he wants to do well, but he just doesn't fit in as a dragon-battling Viking. Against the better instincts of his father, the Viking chieftain, he is allowed to enroll in a dragon-killing class with the other young vikings, including teen beauty Astrid (America Ferrera). Hiccup's fate is changed when he comes across a downed night-fury dragon, Toothless (who isn't really toothless), whom he brought down with his own strange weapon. Rather than slay Toothless he befriends him, and begins to learn the secret of dragons, where they come from, and why they raid the Viking village. As it turns out, it's not really their fault.

Without giving too much more away, HTTYD is delightful and beautifully rendered. I recommend it with little qualification, even if I felt the third act was forced and some of the scenes of bonding with the other Viking teens were perfunctory. However I do have one major beef with this movie: The Shrek Effect.

Every adult viking in this movie speaks with a Scottish brogue. Were the Vikings Scottish? I don't think so. It would have made more sense if they had said things like 'yumpin yiminy' or 'bork bork bork' rather than with Craig Ferguson's rich, melodious accent. However the whole Scots thing stands out even more due to the fact that NONE OF THE VIKING TEENS SPEAK WITH Scottish ACCENTS - they are all voiced with American accents. Is there some ginormous generation gap in this Viko-Scottsky village? Do they only get American television and music for the youth? I blame Shrek. Since Mike Myers' famed voicing of the ogre, adult characters in these things always seem to have been fed through some kind of Shrekalyzer to remind us they aren't Americans, they're furriners, but they're still good guys. Except their kids. Because kids never speak with a Scottish accent.

Rant over. HTTYD is great. Take your child. The one that's not Scottish.

Kick-Ass (2010)

a mixture of the bitter and sweet - entertaining, but sometimes discomfiting

[7/10 · 16 April 2010]

Kick Ass is a good popcorn movie, but it's also a strange melange of the sweet and the pungent - like chocolate mixed with spaghetti sauce. It's really two stories with drastically different tones that aren't miscible. This can make some of the film uncomfortable to watch - it sets you up for one story, then springs a decidedly different one.

The first story is about Kick-Ass (Aaron Johnson), the eponymous hero. An invisible high school student by day named Dave, he takes it upon himself to dress up and fight crime. All he has is a costume - his fighting skills leave much to be desired, and he never does figure out that body armor might be a good idea. After a disastrous first experience that leaves him in a hospital, during his second encounter, defending an outnumbered man from gang members, he earns internet fame when a video of the fight is uploaded onto Youtube. His weapons are non-lethal, and his standing up to the bad guys is heroic. This is the romantic, sweet story - the goofy guy who wants to be a hero and also wants to win the girl of his dreams. Of course you know he's going to wind up in over his head, but that he will find a way to grow and win the battle and the girl.

The second story is a powerful tale of revenge that belongs in the martial arts milieu. Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and his protégé and daughter Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz, a name to remember) have a beef with the town's drug lord, a truly vile mafia don named D'Amico. Unlike Kick-Ass, they are up against real killers and their weapons are lethal - guns, knives, grenades etc. When they hit they leave piles of bodies on the floor. When they catch Kick-Ass' heroics on the web they don their own costumes, and Kick-Ass becomes intrinsically involved with them.

The film's problem is that these two stories don't mix well. Watching Aaron Johnson's likable Dave try to earn his wings in an improvised scuba suit is winning and fun. Watching Hit Girl, an 11-year old in a purple wig and tights, administer head shots to ten bad guys in the space of sixty seconds is well done and exciting. But what the hell is sweet, goofy Dave, who when he is not Kick-Ass pretends he is gay to give the gorgeous girl he is in love with rub-downs, doing in the middle of this? Even Dave doesn't know, and as a result he literally tries to exit his own story. However the machinations of mafia don, and his known relationship with Big Daddy and Hit Girl, keep dragging him back in.

Kick Ass is a very well made film, and the climax is exciting and dramatic. All of the leads give excellent performances, especially Moretz and Cage, who have a touching, twisted daughter-father relationship. The writing is smart and witty, such as when Dave finally decides to don his Kick Ass costume and confront some thieves: "I reached the point, like all serial killers, that it was time to stop fantasizing about it and just do it", but nonetheless the film doesn't switch gears well. When it goes from being Can't Buy Me Love with a goofy costume to Kill Bill, there's nothing in between.

Furthermore, the script doesn't give Kick Ass the growth he needs to sufficiently meld with the story of Hit Girl and Big Daddy. When he finally accepts that he will have to partake of the violence that he has been trying to avoid, it is not because of internal growth, but the machinations of supporting characters that drag him back in. The story would have felt fuller had Dave decided to join Hit Girl and Big Daddy because of something that drove him from inside, rather than being thrust into the middle of it.

I do recommend Kick Ass, because it is exceptionally well made. The dialogue is funny, the action scenes are exciting, and the performances are great. But I don't think it will enter the pantheon of great cult movies that it aspires to, for the reasons given above, but it is worth seeing.

Mermaid (2007)

Anna Melikyan is a filmmaker to watch

[9/10 · 22 January 2010]

Mermaid (Rusalka in Russian) is a cross between Ghost World, Amelie, and The Tin Drum, from a post Soviet perspective. Alisa is a girl from a small seaside town who never knew her father. Trauma at an early age makes her decide to become mute. She also learns that she has the ability to make her wishes come true. When her family moves from the countryside to Moscow, her horizons are broadened - she grapples with depression, falls in love with a handsome, rich con artist, and begins to see life differently.

The story could feel aimless, since Alisa only reacts and there is no outward motivating force pushing the plot into motion, but the script by writer-director Anna Melikyan never lets us worry about that. It shows the strangeness of modern Moscow through the eyes of a very strange girl. The lead, played by Maria Shalaeva, is remarkably expressive as a mute. When she finally begins talking (because she has fallen in love) she becomes even more of a force on screen.

Her introduction to Moscow and the jobs she works (as a walking cellphone advertisement, then, when that costume is destroyed during a soccer riot, a walking stein of beer) are beautiful commentaries on society and her life. Aleksandr, the man she falls in love with is a walking contradiction - very successful, very sleazy, very handsome, and totally self-destructive. Saving his life from a suicide attempt (which he doesn't even remember) she is drawn into his world and comes into contact with her first romantic competition - Irina Skrinichenko as Rita, a woman so beautiful her presence by itself is intimidating. How could plain Alisa win Aleksandr with women like Rita around? How Alisa and Aleksandr bond, and the result of magic spells cast by both Rita and Alisa together (not knowing at the time that they yearn for the same man) give the film a lightness in what would otherwise be a very bleak tale. The film also includes one of the funniest scenes of romantic betrayal in many, many a moon.

I am so glad I caught this film. Anna Melikyan is a filmmaker to watch. If you like whimsical, bittersweet romance, this will be your cup of tea.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

The rut

[3/10 · 26 January 2008]

Tim Burton is stuck in a rut. His film Sweeney Todd – The Demon Barber of Fleet Street looks like Willie Wonka, which looked like Sleepy Hollow, which borrowed much from Ed Wood and the Nightmare Before Christmas and Edward Scissorhands. When he goes outside of his oeuvre of desaturated colors and Gothic pallor his films are usually awful – Planet of the Apes, anyone? So is there any reason that I shouldn't have been bored with his dreadful Sweeney Todd? I have already seen this movie several times in its different Burton/Depp incarnations, and it isn't getting better with age. I loved Vincent, his first animated short. I enjoyed Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands. I thought Ed Wood was his most complete film. But since then Burton has been in a rut, and I don't want to be in there with him anymore.

Burton is, at best, a creator of atmosphere. His ability to stage stories has declined, and he has never been much as a provider of action. Sweeney Todd's story is surprisingly weak – a demented barber, unjustly transported, returns to London to wreak vengeance on those who wronged him. His ally is an equally demented chef (Helena Bonham Carter) who will make use of the bodies of those he slays to make meat pies. So the story is basically the Texas Chainsaw Massacre as a musical told from the point of view of Ed Gein. Most of Todd's victims had absolutely nothing to do with the injustice enacted upon him or work into his plans for vengeance. The bloodbath might have been more lighthearted had Burton and Depp not worked so assiduously to develop Todd's burning internal rage at the judge, but not the society as a whole. As it is, it makes me wonder why Todd is expending such effort to slaughter innocent men. Not that I felt any emotional reaction one way or the other.

One of the largest problems with the film is the aching pace at which the plot moves. There are, at best, six main players to the storyline – how it takes more than two hours for these somewhat somnambulant performers to finally come together is something I witnessed but cannot justify. Depp glowers and simmers as the angry Todd, and his singing voice is the best of the leads, but the performance, like his Willie Wonka, lacks heart. Alan Rickman is the evil judge that Todd desires to wreak his vengeance upon, and their interactions are perfunctory and without fireworks. The only time the film actually moves is when Todd faces down an imperious Italian barber with a secret, played by Borat's Sacha Baron Cohen. But then Cohen is dead, and we are back into the swill of 19th century London.

The music is also a problem. I am certain with trained Broadway singing stars that it had its moments on stage, but in the film it is simply flat, exasperatingly expository, and every time the characters break into song the film loses any momentum it had.

All of Burton's films have the same atmospheric quality, and it is very well evoked here, but I found this film to be a boring disappointment. Tim, climb out of your rut.

The Squid and the Whale (2005)

a spare, powerful masterpiece

[10/10 · 9 January 2008]

In reading the other comments for The Squid and The Whale I am both astonished and not astonished at the number of people the simply didn't understand this film. In their defense, The Squid and the Whale is not meant to be easy to swallow. Like the Lou Reed song that is used at the end of the movie, it is abstract, spare and avant-garde. Like Reed's music, it won't be appreciated by everyone. And like Reed's best work, The Squid and The Whale is a masterpiece.

The film documents a breakup of parents with two sons, Frank (12) and Walt (17) in Park Slope, Brooklyn circa 1986. It is based on the personal experience of Noah Baumbach, the writer and the director, and the end of his parents' marriage. Baumbach has decided not to sweeten the story, and his willingness to show all of the character's blemishes, including those of Walt, his 17 year old surrogate, could put people off who are used to having their stories told with heaping spoonfuls of sugar. The events in this movie are bitter, and Baumbach has not diluted them.

The divorce occurs early in the film, bringing about reactions of grief and anger from the children. The father, Bernard, moves into a rundown, ramshackle home and the arrangement is an awkward joint custody, with the children spending alternating days with different parents, both of whom are attempting to embark on their lives without one another. At times they will reach out to one another, but not at that moment when the other is receptive, and the distance grows. In addition, the sons are choosing sides – Frank the younger with the mother, Walt the elder following the father. To make matters worse, Bernard's writing career is dying and he is having financial difficulties while the mother's career is taking off. Each of them tries to replace the other with someone new, the mother more successfully choosing someone who if not right for her is at least approximating rightness. The children are caught in the middle of it all.

Baumbach is helped by powerful performances from the leads. Jeff Daniels does not play Bernard, he inhabits him. Bernard is a pompous intellectual, condescending of people and institutions he considers intellectually inferior, but for someone so smug about his intellect, he is surprisingly obtuse, rash on important decisions and incapable of expressing himself without using profanity. As the story progresses, however, it is revealed that he is dealing with an enormous amount of frustration in his personal and professional careers, much of which has been self-inflicted.

Although Laura Linney's performance as the mother, Joan, is not as flashy it is just as strong. A budding writer while her husband's literary career is dying, she has lived in the shadow of this often insufferable intellectual for years. Initially seeming the victim of angry outbursts from her husband, she has a dark passive-aggressive side as well. Linney manages to portray a woman as being both loving and motherly, but at the same time is causing as much damage to her children and the relationship as Bernard.

Owen Kline, son of Phoebe Cates and Kevin Kline, plays the role of 12-year old Frank. Frank is wary of his father, openly hoping not to follow in his footsteps as an intellectual and aspiring to become like the local tennis pro, Ivan, who if not a half-wit is certainly no intellectual heavyweight. However, Ivan is amiable and not prone to outbursts of rage and profanity like Bernard. Frank is also having difficulty dealing with a budding sexuality, and in the time spent alone has begun experimenting with alcohol.

The breakout performance for me was Jesse Eisenberg as Walt, the teenager. The events are mostly seen through his eyes, and he isn't dealing with the situation well, either. Baumbach doesn't spare his teenage alter ego any of the withering treatment of the other characters in the film. Walt blames his mother for the divorce, parrots his father's opinions without investigation, and is an intellectual fake, never having read the books he expounds about. This is brought to the fore when he wins his school's talent competition by playing "Hey You" from Pink Floyd's The Wall, claiming it was his own. This subterfuge is soon discovered, and tellingly his father defends his son's outrageous plagiarism by saying it was "his own interpretation", something the son repeats during sessions with a school psychologist. It is during these sessions with the shrink that Walt first mentions the film's eponymous Squid and Whale, a diorama at the Museum of Natural History that frightened him so as a child that he could not look directly at it.

What makes the film so strong is that the bad details are not spared from the viewer. None of the characters is a saint. Both parents are shown as being loving, but they are hurting each other and their children. Arguments could be made for both sides as to which was the worse parent – Bernard for his obtuse, overbearing behavior, or Joan for her infidelity. It's a vicious cycle, and neither and both are to blame at the same time.

Then there is Baumbach's final sequence, which is so powerful in its simplicity that it will be aped by filmmakers for years to come. The choice of the music, Lou Reed's Street Hassle, was a stroke of brilliance. The strident hum of the cello echoes Walt's emotions as he runs to the museum, and then the final moments of the film as he now, with the eyes of a man, takes in the diorama that had terrified him as a child, is brilliant.

The Squid and the Whale is one of the best films I have seen in the past five years.

Into the Wild (2007)

overlong, and without epiphany

[6/10 · 6 January 2008]

Sean Penn's sometimes engrossing and often beautiful film Into The Wild is, in the end analysis, about a character who was basically selfish and self-centered. Like Jim Morrison in Oliver Stone's The Doors, whom I found to be a self-centered ass, eventually I felt I was on a journey that had little or no revelation, with a person who was primarily selfish, and which leads to (spoiler follows) starvation in the Alaskan wilderness, an ending in which the only meaning I could find was that if you are going to camp next to a river and live off the land, bring a damn fishing pole.

This is not to say the film does not have its strengths. The cinematography makes the most of the beautiful landscapes through which Alexander Supertramp, in an earlier incarnation Chris McCandless (Emile Hirsch) passes. Also of note are some very strong performances by Catherine Keener, Vince Vaughn and Hal Holbrook as people that Alexander meets and bonds with during his journey. The same cannot be said of the lead, however.

Chris McCandless (Emile Hirsch) is a bright, upper middle class young man who has just graduated college. His parents are ready to gift him with a new car and hope he will apply to Harvard Law. He has other plans - to break the bonds of ordinary American existence and walk the Earth, rootless and without clear destination, in search of ... enlightenment? Escape? Even Chris doesn't seem to know.

The film is narrated by Chris' sister, Carine (played by Jena Malone), and we get some back-story. Chris was a born wanderer - at 4, he wandered away from home at 3 AM and was found 6 blocks away raiding a neighbor's cookie jar. His family life was unhappy - his parents had the kind of marriage that should have led to divorce, but didn't. And he feels a deep, internal rejection of modern life. He burns all his IDs, gives away his money, and drives off into the American southwest in his beat up Datsun. Sleeping in it one night he is caught in a flash flood, and abandons the car, setting off on foot, Burning Man style, with just the shoes on his feet and a backpack, on a voyage of discovery, and taking a new name - Alexander Supertramp.

These are all things that I could sympathize with. Many young people coming out of college seek something different from the lives their parents led. Alexander is simply taking the vision quest to a greater extreme. Without letting his family know where he is, he just disappears. In two years he will climb the highest peak of his journey, tramping off into the Alaskan wilderness alone, into the wild, to get away from civilization altogether.

The initial periods of his journey are the film's strength. Intermittently flashing forward and back from Alaska, the film follows Alex as he meets a couple of hippies with an RV, kayaks down the Colorado river into Mexico, then finds his way to South Dakota where he drives a combine, and so on. On his journey he bonds with a number of unusual individuals, and decides that the place he wants to be is Alaska, away from civilization completely.

However, the film begins to drag. It runs long (two and a half hours) and feels longer. There are really no revelations on his journey, just a series of beautiful landscapes and sometimes kooky characters that float in and out of his life. By the time he meets old coot Ron Franz (a superb Hal Holbrook) I was ready for this movie to hurry up and get to the resolution of his Alaskan adventure. When it is finally reached, I found it rather pointless - although he is equipped for the Wild, has a rifle for hunting, and has found a great camping site (an abandoned bus with a mattress as shelter), his supplies begin to run out and game becomes scarce. Forced to forage for edible plants and berries, he mistakes a poisonous plant for something edible. He is cut off from escape by a flooded river (and has, as I mentioned, NO FISHING POLE) and eventually weakens and succumbs to starvation. He could have at least tried spear-fishing - he had a knife and some waterproof boots.

The film also focuses, perhaps inadvertently, on something Alex did that I found to be unforgivable - the torture of his parents. They see him one last time after graduation at a McCormick & Schmick's in Atlanta before he disappears, and spend the ensuing two years in a state of agony over where their son is. Although I appreciated Alex' desire to find meaning in his life, not providing any word as to his well-being with his parents or his sister is just unforgivable. That may be a personal judgment about the character that not all people who watch this film will share, but that was my reaction.

Another flaw in this film is the casting of Emile Hirsch as the lead. He is appealingly good looking, but there is an inner fire missing there as an actor. Hirsch' Alexander is empty for me. I followed him across some amazing landscapes and through many interesting meetings without ever discovering why someone felt they needed to make a movie out of a young man who became a tramp after college and then starved to death in Alaska. Hal Holbrook is able to convey more depth and emotion in his brief time on screen than Hirsch does while on screen for almost three hours.

There are many sections of Into The Wild that I thoroughly enjoyed, and for a brief period during the first half of the film I was thoroughly engrossed. But that eventually passed, and I continued waiting for a revelation that never came. All in all, nice try, no cigar.

Art School Confidential (2006)

where archness goes outside the lines of character and takes over the movie

[6/10 · 10 December 2007]

Based on what I saw in this film, art schools are, in and of themselves, rather absurd places. Terry Zwigoff and Daniel Clowes apparently have a great deal of experience in this environment, as they send up art school classes as being absurd in Ghost World as well. However as opposed to Ghost World, where the character of Enid was in on the joke and was herself disconnected in a world that was absurd, here the entire world (and movie) is absurd. This leads to a disconnection for the viewer - if the filmmakers cannot be bothered with dealing with their subject matter with respect, eventually the audience will lose respect as well. And why are we watching something that the filmmakers themselves detest?

Strathmore Institute, an art school in New York and apparent stand-in for Pratt, is the destination for Jerome Platz, a virginal but talented young artist with dreams of being the next Picasso. Jerome has the eye and the hand - his work is shown repeatedly in the film to be evocative, well crafted and beautiful to look at. But his starry-eyed innocent gaze is soon to change as he deals with the world inside the school. Not only are the other students clichés, but the feedback he receives inside the school is counterproductive, and the lessons learned are bleak. If there is any lesson to be learned from the film it is that in the world of art no one knows what is any good, the only way to succeed is to somehow gain notoriety, and therefore it doesn't matter whether you are really any good or not. At this point the Jerome character has a crisis of confidence - his superior work is never give any kind of commendation, his opinions in class are ridiculed, and he is told point-blank by Jimmy, a failed artist and drunkard who lives in a hovel, the truth about the art world. Jerome loses his starry-eyed innocence and withdraws - he begins exhibiting Jimmy's work as his own - a very big mistake, or in the world of this film, a very good decision. In addition, a serial killer has been stalking random victims on campus, and there is a new student on campus who is too clean cut for art school and Jerome's new works are attracting his attention. To make matters worse, this new student, who is a hack, has also gained the affection of Jerome's crush, a pretty artist's model.

Jerome's rapid detachment from his dreams - at the first sign of negative reactions to his work he becomes churlish and angry - happens too quickly and he loses audience sympathy. To bravely stand up to adversity, or at least weather it and grow, is what a hero has to do even in a film as bleak as this. Instead, Jerome's seemingly immediate capitulation to his fate left me unsympathetic to his plight.

The film is clever in many ways. A lot of the supporting characters are funny, even if they are a bit trite - the closeted fashion student and the bombastic film major as his roommates, Bardo, the guy who doesn't know what he wants to be as Jerome's confidant, and the frustrated, detached professors. However eventually this archness overwhelms the film - if everyone is an ass and the business is a twisted joke, whom do we have to root for? The serial killer? In Ghost World Enid's reaction to the absurd world around her made her a beacon. Here, Jerome disappears into that world and becomes just another disaffected denizen. Since that world is shown in uncompromising terms to be barren and stupid, it lets the film down. Furthermore, this transformation occurs so quickly it makes Jerome seem to be weak and shallow.

In spite of these criticisms, Art School Confidential still has many clever and funny moments and some good performances, particularly Jim Broadbent as Jimmy, the failed drunkard artist with peculiar masturbatory proclivities. It is not a great movie, and maybe not a particularly good one, on the whole, but it is at times very fun to watch.

Stardust (2007)

A Magical Film, A Mystical Box Office Disappointment

[9/10 · 6 September 2007]

I went to see Stardust about a month after it opened and failed, rather spectacularly, at the box office. I support fantasy films and thought I would go even though my ability to help the film's box office fate had evaporated after the disastrous first weekend.

My first reaction to watching this film is what a joyous experience it was. This was truly imaginative, vibrant fantasy full of wonderful, whimsical performances and smart details. It has some of the best production design I have seen in some time - the settings are sumptuous and beautiful, every set has its own special character and helps establish Stronghold is a fairy land that I would love to visit.

If there was any place where I felt the film dragged it would had to have been the appearance of pirate captain Shakespeare and his lightning-fishing crew. Although there was nothing wrong with these scenes, they detracted from the work of some wonderful villains (Michelle Pfeiffer as Lamia the witch, and Mark Strong as Septimus, the last surviving prince of a fratricidal family). Any good quest movie needs smart, tough, evil villains, and this film has more than one. Even better, they are at the same time despicable and fun to watch. Captain Shakespeare's appearance put off their particular quests at a time when the movie needed more speed, not less.

I was also a bit mystified by the casting of Claire Danes as Yvaine, the fallen star who is sought by all of the leads. Ms. Danes is a fine actress, but she is plain looking. If you are going to be playing the embodiment of a pure fallen star, you had better be luminously beautiful. Does it help that the male lead, Charlie Cox, is prettier than she is? Would getting Rose Byrne have been such a problem? The final battle scene, at the house of the witches, also drags a bit. The film does not have a rousing finale.

However, in spite of these imperfections, and if anything I am a person who counts imperfections, Stardust was one of the best films I have seen this year, a glorious fantasy adventure. The greatest mystery behind this film is why audiences chose to ignore it, yet flocked to genuine turkeys like Wild Hogs. I expect this film to be discovered on cable in a year or two, and be in heavy rotation on basic cable channels for a decade to come.

Ratatouille (2007)

A scrumptious Pixar pastry that is only harmed by some hollowness in its middle

[8/10 · 1 July 2007]

Ratatouille, Brad Bird's third feature (after the scintillating Iron Giant and The Incredibles) measures up to his oeuvre. It's a fine film with wonderful animation, a charming story, and a slam bang finale that had me laughing. The story, in brief, is that Remy the Rat has the dream (and the talented nose) to be a great chef. Through a series of misadventures, he finds himself in the kitchen of Gusteau's, a former five-star restaurant now clicking over on the reputation of its deceased former owner, the great chef Gusteau, whose ghost (or else figment of Remy's imagination) is mentor to Remy. Remy develops a relationship with the hapless Linguini, a garbage boy in the kitchen with a secret past, and through him begins to return the restaurant to its greatness.

If the film has a weakness, it is in the second act. The baddie here is the head chef, Skinner, who is anxious to retain control of Gusteau's in order to launch lines of frozen foods. The problems here are that the main conflicts do not really play out. Once the relationship with Remy is established, Linguini becomes more interested in the only female chef in the kitchen, Colette (voiced by Janeane Garofalo) and for whatever reason begins to treat Remy as an afterthought. Since Remy is his only link to culinary glory, he has to be an idiot to treat the rat this way. Remy's personal inner conflict is based on the fact that he longs to treat humans to new culinary delights, while he is made all too aware of how humans feel about rats. Last, Skinner is concerned that a secret from Linguini's past will loosen his hold on Gusteau's. This is dealt with in the most perfunctory manner - Remy finds out, steals some documents, there is a chase (which is very well done) and then Skinner is out. Skinner never truly develops as a villain anyway, and his performance is probably the least weighty. Remy's conflict about how humans feel about rats never feels authentic. He knew about this all along, and he obtains far too much joy from creating new dishes to ever walk away from Gusteau's once has gotten his foot in the door.

However, once Linguini gains control of Gusteau's, and has wowed customers through Remy's genius, comes the big test - Anton Ego, the Simon Cowell of food critics, whose word can make or break a restaurant. He is initially developed as the baddie of the food world, but in fact this character is the heart of the film - he may be terrifying, but in fact he loves food, loathes mediocrity, and is honest. His visit to the restaurant, while Linguini is dealing with a full-scale kitchen mutiny, is the comic and action highlight of the picture. It is one of the best, and funniest, climaxes of any films on screen this year. And to understand how this can be, in a scene where the interaction is primarily between the kitchen and dining room, requires someone to see the film. Peter O'Toole does a superb job in voicing Ego, and his take on the evening, and his discovery about Remy (when he insists on meeting the chef), that he later writes up in his review is one of the most sterling pieces of critical journalism to ever appear in a film, ever. I highly recommend Ratatouille. The performances are terrific, the animation is wonderful, and so what if some parts of the plot drag or are never adequately realized. It is nonetheless a terrific movie.

Match Point (2005)

Allen's take on An American Tragedy - with his own twist

[8/10 · 9 June 2007]

Match Point is very similar in tone and story to Theodore Dreiser's great work An American Tragedy, although Allen has added a twist ending that hearkens back to Dostoevskii.

The plot is about a social-climbing tennis pro (Jonathan Rhys-Meyer as Chris) who charms his way into a rich British family, and the heart of their daughter, Chloe (Emily Mortimer). He is also friends with the scion of the family, Peter, whose fiancée is a beautiful young American woman, Nola (Scarlett Johansson). Chris is immediately enchanted by the bewitching Nola, especially in comparison to the rather plain Chloe that he has attached himself to, but both of them know that an indiscretion could spell disaster. Both of their futures appear hinged on remaining in the good graces of the Lord of the Manor and his children. Nola even spells it out for Chris - Chloe loves him, her father is also fond of him, his future is set if he doesn't "blow it". "How do you suppose I would do that?" Chris replies. "Me". She answers.

Without going into spoilers, the twists and turns of passion restrained by pragmatic, non-romantic concerns will lead Chris and Nola into territory where a difficult decision will need to be made.

For the most part, the performances are steady. Rhys-Meyer does his best work during the first half of the film, when his furtive nature and wariness at making a gaffe that could alienate this rich family create drama and intrigue. He always seems to have an agenda. This furtive nature is heightened by his reactions to Nola, reactions over which he has no control.

During the second half of the film, when he has to make more trenchant decisions, his work isn't as strong. For the most part his character is petulant and moody, and although this is called for by the script, it is hard to retain sympathy for the character. He was more interesting when he was climbing the social ladder than when he has already achieved a perch that he must protect from his own indiscretions.

Scarlett Johansson continues to impress as an actress. Her performance as Nola, a young actress aware of her effect on men but still unsure of herself, is beautifully portrayed. This is showcased in one powerful exchange where she and Rhys-Meyer have a drink after she has had a disastrous audition. Beginning distraught and cursing her life and choice of career, she morphs into a seductive temptress, sure of herself and well aware of her effect on Rhys-Meyer. "Where was this confidence during your audition?" he intelligently asks, all the while knowing and not knowing the answer. During the second half of the film, when Nola becomes more needy, she sets a clear choice for Rhys-Meyer - choose between his pocketbook, and his passion.

The film ends on a twist ending, which echoes some of the themes in Allen's earlier work, most notably Crimes and Misdemeanors. Allusions to Dostoevskii are made repeatedly. Although this film is not up with Allen's best work, it is a change - not set in Manhattan, and Allen appears nowhere in front of the camera. Well worth watching if you haven't seen it before.

28 Weeks Later (2007)

28 Weeks Later sucks

[2/10 · 6 June 2007]

28 Days Later, the precursor to 28 Weeks Later, is one of the best zombie movies ever made. Admittedly this isn't saying much, but it develops its story intelligently, builds character, and is suspenseful and incredibly frightening. Although the third act, with the mad soldiers, was something of a let-down, the overall movie-going experience was one that created shivers down the spine.

28 Weeks Later starts out rather promisingly - a confusing, if frightening, attack by the infected on a house of hold-outs in the British countryside (and Robert Carlyle abandoning his wife to the infected) before it switches to what happens six months later when, under the auspices of the US Army, London is being reclaimed.

Carlyle's character, Don, welcomes his children back from a refugee camp in Spain. They are the first children allowed back into the country. All of the infected have been dead several months due to starvation. The children break quarantine to visit their old house, and wonder of wonders, they find their mother still alive. Although she is infected, she seems to have some inborn, genetic resistance to the infection, although she still carries the infection. Carlyle gets in to see her, they kiss - and surprise! Carlyle is now one of the infected. Since the first 40 minutes of the film is spent developing Carlyle as a character, now that he is one of the infected, he is gone as a hero. Who does this leave the audience to root for? His children? Rose Byrne as the heroic doctor? These are characters we barely know, and their plight is handled so badly by the director, I couldn't find myself building any sympathy as they fled the coming chaos.

From this point forward the rest of the film is a waste of celluloid. The actions of the American military make no sense in the face of a new outbreak - they herd all the uninfected civilians into one enclosed area without any weapons and then leave them there - this is possibly the WORST WAY to try to prevent spread of the infection, since if one infected gets into this area it virtually guarantees that everyone there will become infected.

After that happens, the American military again does something remarkably stupid - a blank-check order to kill everything moving. At this point the "protagonists" - and the remaining characters are so thin that it is hard to imagine anyone answering to that description - are now on the run from the infected and also from the US military, which is fire-bombing London. Added to this fact is that the director's idea of shooting action scenes is to turn down the lights and shake the camera during the entire scene, creating a confusing, barfatonic effect to his action while providing no information to the audience as to what is going on and thus destroying suspense. People die, and we have no idea who they are or what they mean. We have to wait for the characters to reach a room with lights to determine who is still alive.

The entire second half of this film is shot in a confusing manner, provides no sense of suspense for the audience, and is emotionally empty. This is one of the worst films I have seen this year. 28 Weeks Later sucks.

Grindhouse (2007)

shameful box office response - and sort of deservedly so

[7/10 · 28 May 2007]

The failure of Grindhouse at the US Box Office is both shameful and deserved. On the one hand it includes Tarantino's scintillating, genre-transcending maniac murderer flick Death Proof. But it is bogged down by the inclusion of Robert Rodriguez' proto-turkey Planet Terror, and the eventual three-plus hour runtime, for what was supposed to be a light-hearted cinematic romp, kept audiences away.

The perceived "failure" of Kill Bill as two ninety-minute features is probably what led the Weinsteins to believe that Grindhouse, as a three-plus hour release, was a good decision. But three-plus hour time commitments are something an audience is only going to make if they are certain that the bulk of time sitting still is going to be edge-of-the-seat. And for all of it's good things, including Eli Roth's devastatingly funny faux-preview for THANKSGIVING, there is not enough edge-of-the-seat thrills to keep the butt from getting sore. They come, but it is a long wait.

The primary fault here is Rodriguez' side of the double feature. It is not to say that Planet Terror is out and out a bad movie - it's just not particularly good. There are some nice performances in this send-up of the Romero zombie flicks, and the script certainly hits every genre convention and includes some very funny dialog, but the whole thing feels like a refried mishmash with a very pat ending. The high point would be Rose McGowan's performance as Cherry Darling. Ms. McGowan is a stunning woman and gets the bulk of the best lines. Even after losing a limb - and part of my reaction to Grindhouse' poor box office has to do with this - she still manages to remain attractive. The missing limb, and what it has been replaced with, remain an ongoing visual joke the filmmakers cleverly use. But on the whole, even at 90 minutes the film feels long. It is not good enough to make a person want to endure three hours to see it, and by the time Tarantino's film rolls around, audiences will have become restless.

I believe that part of the poor box office reaction was due to using shots of Miss McGowan with a gun attached to her stump as a publicity vehicle. Amputee women are just not attractive, and it was a waste of Miss McGowan's formidable beauty to show her deformed. People coming to a Rose McGowan movie are partially attracted by her looks (Miss McGowan also appears in the Tarantino feature, and seeing her with blonde hair makes it apparent that much of her considerable appeal is the Snow White aspect she brings to the table, with alabaster skin, red lips, and luscious dark locks).

Although Planet Terror was a decent, if not particularly thrilling, short feature, Tarantino's DEATH PROOF truly does transcend its genre. Tarantino's film has an odd structure - the only thing I can think of that is similar would be PSYCHO - wherein the first forty minutes or so are spent developing characters as protagonists who are shockingly, and abruptly, killed off. Following this, a new set of characters is introduced, and the killer, Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell in a performance that transcends his career), begins to stalk them. A great deal of time is spent developing these characters as well. But when the killer strikes, what starts as an incredibly frightening and adrenal scene turns into one of the most rousing finales in years. Released on its own, with a few of the fake previews attached (especially THANKSGIVING) this movie would be one of the best of the year. The problem is that these well earned, skillfully made thrills show up past the two and a half hour point of GRINDHOUSE, by which time audiences will have been somewhat numbed.

Tarantino's skill, almost without peer, as a writer of crackling dialog shows up in Death Proof. The first group of girls, led by the remarkably lovely Sydney Poitier as Jungle Julia and Vanessa Ferlito as the petulant "Butterfly", come across as sexy, relaxed, and real, and their abrupt exit from the flick is shocking. The appearance of the second group of girl victims, with Rosario Dawson as a makeup girl and stunt-person Zoe Bell as herself, at first is something of a drag. So much time and energy had been invested into drawing Jungle Julia and her galpals as real people that it felt like a cheat that we were going to have to go through that all over again. In the hands of a lesser writer, the film would have died then and there, but Tarantino creates characters with enough richness to keep us interested even as they go off on their own, somewhat protracted and risky adventures leading up to the attack by Stuntman Mike. At this point, this second group of girls come into their own. Initially Stuntman Mike has them in a very precarious position, partially due to Zoe's own, somewhat singular recklessness, but eventually they get the tables turned. Without giving too much away, if you are going to commit vehicular homicide, Bell, Dawson and Tracie Thom's Kim are probably the worst women in the world you could try to do it to. Stuntman Mike receives one of the most deserved comeuppances of any movie bad guy in recent memory.

At this point the Weinsteins are talking about releasing Death Proof in a longer version in Europe. If successful, they might release only Death Proof in the US. This is the version I would see. Although Planet Terror is not a bad film per se, it is not worth sitting through to see Death Proof - think of having to sit through SLITHER to see a better movie after it. It's a shame the movie sank at the box office, but not undeserved.

Bad Santa (2003)

Wanna Play Again?

[9/10 · 5 April 2007]

One of the best black comedies released in the past 20 years, Bad Santa rewrites the book on profane, psychopathic loser characters actually providing something other than sorrow on screen. The script is incredibly sharp. Even the obligatory chase-scene finale has a wonderfully warped quality. Up there with the best Christmas movies ever, although definitely not kid-safe.

The performances, by some marvelous scene-stealing actors, are wonderful, but in my book special note has to go to young Brett Kelly as The Kid (actually named Thurman Merman). The child is an ignored cipher, a fat, dumb, cherubic, perhaps mildly autistic blank slate of a personality who is also an incipient stalker. To all outward appearances he is repellent - rotund, snot nosed, dressed like a retard, blank-eyed and stupid - and he somehow develops into the emotional heart of the film. Compare him with Curly Sue and you can see just how far the filmmakers managed to diverge from the beaten path and still score emotional points. Kelly's scenes with arch scene-stealer Billy Bob Thornton, who manages to take a whiskey-sodden, self-hating loser and somehow turn him into a charismatic hero while not hiding an iota of his character's degradation, are gold. For whatever reason, the Kid is determined to bond with Thornton's thieving Santa (possibly due to the absence of anything representing adult authority in his life) and almost impossibly, Thornton's character responds. Enough cannot be said of the casting of this pair and their performances.

They have competition from the other worthy members of the cast. Tony Cox is pitch-perfect as the scheming, evil midget elf trying to keep his safe-cracking Santa from going off the rails before the big payday on Christmas Eve. Bernie Mac as the corrupt, and crafty head of security who is on to them is also good. John Ritter is underused in his bit part, and Lauren Graham, although funny, seems to simply be there to provide whatever warped love interest there could be.

The script is worth five stars and the direction, by underrated genius auteur Terry Zwigoff, is spot-on. Absolutely worth watching. Many times.

Meet the Robinsons (2007)

colorful, imaginative kid's movie

[7/10 · 1 April 2007]

Meet the Robinsons is an uneven but generally entertaining and pleasant children's movie with some wonderful CGI renderings.

Lewis Robinson is an orphan that no one will adopt. He is also a science genius. On the cusp of his 13th birthday he builds a machine that will help read his mind back to the day his mother left him on his doorstep, so that he can see what she looked like, as it is the only memory he has of her. Unfortunately at the science fair, two things happen - he is accosted by one Wilbur, who claims to be a "time cop" tracking a villain who has come from the future - and a villain in an evil robot bowler hat. The bowler hat manages to botch his demonstration, making it look like his machine doesn't work, and once he's left, dejected, the villain steals the machine.

Wilbur, the time-cop, turns out not to be an actual cop but a boy from the future who takes Lewis into his time machine, where they zoom ahead to the time Wilbur came from. The world of the future is one of the glorious highlights of the film - a candy-colored wonderland. The Pixar influence is evident - the film looks very much like it had been rendered by the same people that did The Incredibles.

Once in the future Lewis is introduced to Wilbur's large and very eccentric family, the Robinsons, and learns the importance of getting his machine back from the villain in the bowler hat, who has the only other time machine in existence.

The film is very good for children. My three-year old sat still for virtually the whole movie, and the only part that was a little too scary for her was when a possible alternate future is shown where bowler hat guy has won (in a way) and humanity is enslaved.

In general, the film is a little too disjointed and uneven to earn a top rating. Much of the middle section consists mostly of shtick, and while funny, it doesn't move the plot forward. People seeking deeper meaning will be disappointed, and the material is not emotionally challenging in the way Spirited Away was. But the beautiful artwork and animation made up for most of the shortcomings. While not a Disney or Pixar classic, this is an entertaining 92 minutes.

Flightplan (2005)

unusual Hitchcockian thriller

[7/10 · 1 April 2007]

Flightplan mostly works. A taut Hitchcockian thriller about a woman who has lost her child on a plane, it is beautifully shot and well-acted, and the jetliner, a double-decker jumbo, provides an unusual setting with more hiding places for action than one would have expected. Director Robert Schwentke does a good job of keeping the action flowing and keeping audiences involved and guessing, helped by his professional cast including Jodie Foster, Peter Saarsgard, Erika Christensen and Sean Bean.

Kyle Pratt (Foster), is flying back to the US with her 6-year old daughter and the corpse of her husband, who died in a fall. During the flight Foster drifts off to sleep, and when she awakens her child is no longer in her seat. At first she assumes her daughter has just wandered off, but upon scouring the plane looking for her, becomes more concerned. At last the flight crew also searches. They cannot find her either, and no one can remember seeing the child. At last the truth comes out - the child was never on board the plane. Not only that, but the child died with her father. Pratt is suffering from delusions that her child is alive in a way to combat her grief.

At this point the film has developed into an interesting psychological thriller told from the point of view of the delusional passenger. What follows, in explaining this delusion, and Pratt's actions are what will take the film to the next level.

Without providing too many spoilers, this is the point where the film begins to fray. When the machinations of the villains are explained, they require an extraordinary level of unwitting cooperation from Pratt and others for success. Their plan is ENTIRELY based upon Pratt reacting to the situation precisely as they predict, and on the assumption that Pratt and the captain of the plane will not sit down and talk face-to-face at a critical juncture of the film. It is as if the screenwriters started with a cockamamie jigsaw piece and from there back-constructed their story to fit. It works until that ill-formed piece is shown, and everything thereafter suffers.

However, Flightplan is still worth a look. From the grey, sterile, beautifully antiseptic plane to Foster's reactions as she has to come to the realization that she may be crazy, and the dreamlike atmosphere of the film to this point, put it a notch above the average thriller.

Husbands and Wives (1992)

Allen at his most bitter and least romantic

[5/10 · 21 February 2007]

Woody Allen's Husbands and Wives tellingly came at the tale-end of his relationship with Mia Farrow, while he was already involved with Soon-Yi. Allen has always immersed himself and his personality in his films. In the 1970s he viewed himself in a more romantic vein, and his films sprang with hope and comedy amid neurosis. By the time his relationship with Farrow was about to come to its volcanic end, he is in the bitter grounds. The result is a film that becomes more and more uncomfortable and unpleasant to watch.

Allen casts himself and Farrow as the comfortably married couple whose relationship is fraying - he wants a child and she doesn't, she is drawn to a colleague at work (Liam Neeson) and they ignore each other at home. They are shocked when their friends, played by Sydney Pollack and Judy Davis, announce an amicable divorce. What does this mean for their relationship? Allen finds himself being drawn in by a 20-year old student (Juliette Lewis) with a penchant for flings with older men (and a self-confidence about herself and the torture she puts her men through" "I'm worth it" she states). Farrow is more and more drawn to Neeson, but she sabotages herself by setting him up with her newly divorced friend, Davis.

While the ground being covered by Allen is interesting, he clearly had little or no sympathy for his characters. All of them, even Neeson, who is romantic to the point of being dim, become more and more repellent as the film progresses. Scenes seem constructed simply so that the characters can have uncontrolled, outrageous emotional outbursts, and they do things that are unbelievable in their shortsightedness (SPOILERS BELOW): Allen's character, Gabe, is a professor and novelist. Attracted to Lewis, and not interested in the input from his wife, he entrusts a 20-year old with THE ONLY COPY OF HIS NEW NOVEL, which she loses in a taxi. While this might have been a believable plot twist prior to cheap and commercially available photocopying (say, the 1940s), by the 1990s, when word processors, hard drives, Kinko's et. al. are common, this is a unbelievable. Either the character is exceptionally stupid, or it's a plot device to provide conflict between Allen and Lewis. Neither explanation works in the context of the script. We already know Allen's relationship with Farrow is dying (both on screen and, as it turns out, in real life), so we don't need this episode as a way to force the characters together.

Allen should already be fleeing from Lewis. She has shown, with no hint of remorse, that she is a one-way train wreck and takes all of her older lovers with her. By showing only that dimension to her, and depending on Lewis' prettiness to draw men to the character, he is badly miscalculating the audience.

Farrow's character is just as bad. She hovers over Neeson at work in a manner that makes it obvious what her feelings are (to the viewer and, it would seem, everyone else in her office). Even at home, where she is cold to Allen and he oblivious to her, what could have been interesting scenes investigating the dynamic of alienation are wasted. These people have lost the ability to care about one another and don't even notice.

Neeson's Michael, the lone romantic, is also portrayed as stupid. Davis' character, in her first date with Neeson, is hypercritical and obnoxious about everything about their evening (she could have done the Alfredo sauce better, she doesn't like Mahler, she criticizes the way Michael drives etc. etc.), yet Michael is somehow attracted to her. How? He hasn't been shown to be a masochist. Davis is shrewish and antagonistic - there is nothing in the slightest appealing about her. At work, Farrow hovers over him in a manner that even an alien to the species would not mistake. She couldn't be more obvious if she doffed her clothes and sat down on his desk with her legs spread.

Sydney Pollack fares no better. Having left his wife, he takes up with a sexy aerobics instructor (Lysette Anthony). Unfortunately, she is dim, and argues about the veracity of astrology at parties. Having learned his wife is in a new relationship, Pollack suddenly becomes jealous, gets into a screaming fight with Anthony at the party, and high tails it over to his ex-wife, GIRLFRIEND IN TOW, to confront her and Neeson. One clever end to this would have been Neeson and Anthony, who are simultaneously ignored by their paramours, bonding and falling in love with one another, although Allen makes this impossible by making Anthony's character too stupid. Pollack and Davis get back together, Neeson is heartbroken and eventually soothed by Farrow, who leaves Allen. Allen is the only one who winds up alone.

Being forced to watch ostensibly intelligent characters ignore the obvious and then be subject to their tantrums is made worse by Allen's pursuit of a cinema verite aspect - the use of a jerky hand-held camera zooming around from character to character while they make their pronouncements. Allen is never a bad filmmaker, but he has made an uncomfortable and unpleasant film. Of his introspective 90's work I felt Deconstructing Harry worked better. Of course, comedies such as Bullets Over Broadway and Mighty Aphrodite are also quite worthwhile.

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

powerful story about the Spanish civil war - fantasy aspect the weaker side

[7/10 · 16 January 2007]

I believe Pan's Labyrinth to be misnamed. Although it is a clever title, and there is a faun and a labyrinth, the fantasy world is actually a very small part of the movie, which is mostly about a sadistic Fascist (Sergi Lopez, excellent as Captain Vidal)hunting partisans in the mountains of rural Spain during the second World War.

To be sure, the main character initially seems to be the Captain's unattended step-daughter, Ofelia (Ivana Baquero). Ofelia and her mother have accompanied the Captain while Ofelia's mother is dealing with a difficult pregnancy. The woman is not important to the Captain, only his legacy is and he will risk the mother's life to obtain his heir. In the meantime Vidal is not above executing anyone who even seems to be remotely suspect of aiding his enemy. This is bad news for the house maid, Mercedes (Maribel Verdu, who is also excellent) and the local doctor, both of whom are covertly aiding the rebels.

Ofelia seems to be dealing with this frightening situation by retreating into a fantasy world. A faun (Pan, played by Doug Jones) informs her that she is actually a lost princess from an underworld kingdom, and must pass several tests to prove her worthiness.

Here is where the weakness of the film comes into play. Both the fantasy world and the real one Ofelia inhabits are well evoked, but director Del Toro does not devote enough time to the fantasy world to make it the main arc of the story. Instead most of the time and focus (at least two-thirds) are on the Captain, Mercedes and the Captain's hunt for the partisans and their conspirators. When Ofelia does enter the labyrinth her tasks are usually straightforward (getting a giant toad to swallow a magic stone, stealing from a monster) and seem a distraction from the real story of the sadistic captain and the brave housekeeper. In particular on one sojourn Ofelia disobeys the orders of the Faun and awakens a child-eating monster from which she has to flee. This is out of character for Ofelia, who is shown as being canny and smart until that moment, and the Faun's pronouncements following this seem perfunctory. In addition, the fantasy adventures do not seem to gibe in any logical way with the story - I did not see a connection between the giant toad or the pale man with the actions taking place in the film. If the fantasy world is supposed to be an allegory for the real world Ofelia inhabits, then the connections were too tenuous.

Another fault I found with the film is that it takes the ambiguity away from the fantasy scenarios. Ordinarily in this type of story, the reality of the dreamscape remains in question, leaving the audience asking whether the character is actually experiencing the adventure or just imagining it. Here Del Toro removes the ambiguity - the dreamscape can only be real, or else the filmmaker is lying. I felt this was a cop out. If the girl is escaping her nightmarish reality by retreating into a fantasy world, then making the dream world real is unfair to the audience. What does it mean that this defenseless little girl can actually retreat into a fantasy world as a moral to the story? And if the opposite is true, that the fantasy world was just fantasy, then Del Toro creates too many contradictions - Ofelia uses tools and devices given to her by the faun to escape real world situations, and they are found by other characters.

The last criticism is the actions of Mercedes when she gets a drop on Captain Vidal. (SPOILER ALERT) Mercedes is very aware of how sadistic and evil the Captain is. She has the gumption to stab him and has him helpless, so WHY DOESN"T SHE FINISH THE JOB? Her leaving him alive has both immediate and far-reaching complications for herself and Ofelia and left me gasping in disbelief. This leads to the trenchant finale, where Captain Vidal, who has been stabbed at least five times, pursues Ofelia into the labyrinth. I had questions about this as well. During this climax I doubted Vidal's ability to go anywhere due to the brutality of the stabbings, but here he is, pursuing the little girl with the baby. I also questioned his actions toward Ofelia. Although he is shown as evil, he is never shown as anything more than dismissive of Ofelia. I doubted that his intentions toward a little girl he could easily overpower would turn murderous.

The ending is gripping and sad, but by this point too many contradictions had distracted me, and the explanation of the end once again made me feel the director was playing unfair games.

This is a strong, evocative film. If it sounds as if I am picking nits, it is because there are too many inconsistencies, and a distracted storyline, to prevent me from calling it great. People will be talking about this movie a long time, and I urge you to see it.

Rabbit (I) (2005)

ingenious and fascinating animation - tale ambiguous and sometimes confusing

[9/10 · 15 January 2007]

One of the secrets of making a movie that will captivate audiences is showing them something in a way they have never seen it before. Run Wrake's Rabbit takes elementary school reader illustrations and animates them in a bizarre story of greed.

Although the main theme of Rabbit is somewhat ambiguous, and the story veers into the strange, the unusual and effective animation style, using illustrations from grammar school readers, is visionary. The fact that the Dick and Jane characters in the film were amoral and venal was a strong counterpoint to their innocent origins.

If the film has a weakness, it is that the ending is ambiguous. What lesson is the reader to draw from the ending? That the whims of the gods (here seen as the cackling golden idol) are not to be trifled with? That the riches the gods seem to bestow can easily be taken away? The last third of the picture, where Dick and Jane simply try to capitalize on their apparent windfall, is the weakest part of the narrative.

Nonetheless, this film has a look and feel like no other I have seen in a long time. Strongly recommended.

The Fountain (2006)

A story about love void of humanity

[6/10 · 15 December 2006]

Darren Aronofsky is not what one would call a clone of Tom Shadyac. His films are challenging and intellectual, but not funny. In fact, in three features, I hardly recall a humorous moment in any of them.

That didn't stop Pi and Requiem For A Dream from being excellent films. But something is holding back The Fountain, Aronofksy's ambitious third feature. In brief, it is about a scientist (Hugh Jackman) working on a cure for a brain tumor that is killing his wife (Rachel Weisz). His wife is writing a book called The Fountain, about a conquistador's quest for the Fountain of Youth in a hidden Mayan temple in 16th century Central America. The story in the book is also told using Jackman as the conquistador and Weisz as his obsession, the queen of Spain. At a critical time in his wife's illness Jackman may not only have found a cure for the tumor, but for aging itself, using a compound from a Central American tree. Fast forward to an undetermined time in the future, when a bald Jackman, seemingly the now immortal scientist, is on a space trek with the tree to a star called Xibalba by the Mayans. Xibalba is a golden hued star, its color due to the fact that it is dying and wrapped in a nebula of dust. Xibalba represented to the Mayans the place our souls go when we die. "How interesting the ancient Mayans should have chosen a dying star to represent the doorway to the afterlife" Izzy muses to her husband as she approaches death. Why Jackman is going there is not yet clear, and will (presumably) be explained as the stories about the scientist and the conquistador unfold.

The story is not linear, opening with the conquistador's quest, with all three time lines jumping back and forth. Visually the film is beautiful. The golden nebula, and Jackman's isolation with the tree in their spaceship on his lonely journey is especially striking.

I found a couple of elements missing, however. For one, although Weisz performance is fine (and she is not asked to do much other than be beatific and look beautiful) Jackman's character is so obsessed with his cure that almost all of his interactions with other people involve anger, including when Izzy wants to go for a one last walk with him in the snow. Since the bulk of the story is scientist Jackman's quest for a cure, for most of the movie we are watching an obsessed and humorless man barking at others who are trying to help him. This reduces the interest and sympathy for the main character.

Second is the aforementioned lack of humor. Even in 2001's clinical darkness, Kubrick manages to inject humor (in particular Bowman's haggling with HAL after he has been locked out of Discovery, and the Hal's pleading when Bowman gets back on board). In The Fountain everything is so deadly earnest that the humanity drains away. We see Jackman's obsession more than we feel his love. Even in the one scene where he winds up in the bathtub with Izzy, it felt like he was in a hurry to get back to the lab.

The ending is ambiguous. What does Jackman hope to gain by visiting Xibalba? Why must the tree go? Is the tree the representation of Izzy or is it actually Izzy? Is it his regrets over not taking that last stroll in the snow with her that drives him? When he does reach Xibalba, what is the outcome of the action? Is he there for the star, or for him? I will not spoil the ending by saying what actually happens, but it is never fully explained.

However I have to respect Aronofsky's ambitions and skill, and his persistence (this project was shelved more than once, for years, especially after Brad Pitt walked out only a few weeks from shooting). Aronofsky is a talented filmmaker, and the Fountain, if not a classic, is certainly a welcome addition to his oeuvre.

Werewolf in a Womens Prison (2006 Video)

Tromaesque riot!

[7/10 · 22 October 2006]

I got invited to a screening of this film in a small empty space converted into a theater near downtown LA on tepid October evening. This film was made on something slightly more than a shoestring budget (call it bootlace), meaning that we are in Troma/Ed Wood territory. Filmmakers can either understand their territory and enjoy it, or else they can try to do too much and make something that goes well below what could have been.

These filmmakers understood what they were making - a monster nudie horror movie set in a woman's prison. They got an incredible amount of effects and action out of their tiny budget. Having the amazingly endowed Yurizan Beltran and the gorgeous Eva Derrek around to provide their own form of special effects also isn't a drawback.

The script has fun with the genre and the limitations the filmmakers faced. It is loaded with lines like "It was the silver flakes in the vodka that killed the werewolf - well getting set on fire and falling off a cliff didn't help". The plot is straightforward - a pretty American girl(Victoria DeMare), out camping with her boyfriend, gets thrown into prison for his murder after a werewolf tears her boyfriend to pieces. She dispenses with the werewolf using the expensive vodka her boyfriend had bought - "it's got the silver flakes in it!" - but not before being bitten herself. Her boyfriend, a la American Werewolf in London - returns as a zombie to explain her plight, and that she must die before the next full moon.

The prison she is in is more brothel than penitentiary. At one point the warden (Domiziano Arcangeli, very good in the David Keith role) says to his dominatrix head of discipline (Jackeline Olivier, delicious in the Sybil Danning role) "we're running low on prisoners - go out and round up some more". Olivier's character trades feel-ups for cigarettes (imagine what you can get for a full carton), and fortunately the filmmakers found a batch of well endowed pretty inmates who have no problem getting naked. Viewers will get treated to scenes of inmates "comforting" each other, girls staked in the sun licking the sweat off each other's bodies, and so on. The only thing missing is the shower scene. WWIAWP, when the wolf is not on the loose, is an unabashed T&A flick, and good for that. Anything else would have been a disappointment.

When the wolf is on the loose it becomes a gore fest that only Joe Bob Briggs could appreciate. Bisections (by prison bar), dis-arming of guards, heads ripped off, disembowelments, coitus evisceratus, and monsters bursting into flame are all part of the fun as the moon comes up and the pretty American girl ain't gonna take it anymore. It would seem like they spent the entire budget on corpses and fake blood.

The movie actually goes on a little long, and there are too many scenes of girls escaping prison and running through the scrub until finally the sadistic warden turns into Carl Denham and puts the monster on display in his sadistic little cabaret (with the same results Denham got in King Kong), but this is a movie that delivers on exactly what it is supposed to be. If you like this sort of thing, this will be up your alley.