fwomp Reviews

The American (2010)

Be Prepared For Something Very Different ...And Very Good

[10/10 · 11 September 2010]

Who would have thought that Hollywood could produce a taut murder-thriller without slamming every plot point down our throats? But there you have it: that's THE American.

George Clooney, whom I usually enjoy more in his comedic or semi-serious roles (O' BROTHER WHERE ART THOU and BURN AFTER READING being two of my recent favorites) pulls in a dark, interesting, and dangerous character as Jack, a weapons man/hit-man who's retirement from his chosen profession is proving extremely difficult.

Making friends is risky to both Jack and those he likes, as we witness early on in the film what he's forced to do to a woman whose innocence means nothing when Jack is discovered in a Swedish hideout. Forcing Jack to leave, he travels to Italy where he's told to lay low and wait for instructions. And when the instructions come, the audience can feel those pin-pricks of caution raising on their necks.

The great thing about The American is that Clooney is truly the only recognizable face for many U. S. film-watchers. But the rest of the cast are just as intense as Clooney's character. Great silences and moments of boredom are punctuated alongside moments of terrible aggression and death. And there's also sex, love, and priestly friendship intertwined.

It's rare nowadays to find something like The American showing in U. S. cities, but most of us should be very glad it's here. Hearkening back to Hitchcock days (but with a modern bent), this movie almost certainly would've never seen the light of the Western hemisphere had it not been for Clooney's pretty-boy face taking front and center stage. But as recognizable as Clooney's face is, it is NOT a typical Clooney role. Here we get the actor stretching himself into new (and greater) territory. I swear this movie had the fewest lines I've ever heard in a major Hollywood production; and I'm thankful for that because it helped up the tension.

Indeed, it is the film's tension that drives the entire plot. We see and feel the battles raging within Jack as he's forced to decide whether to kill someone he's growing close to, or to let them live and risk his own life ...again.

Those looking for a kind of BOURNE IDENTITY style flick are going to be sorely disappointed if they think this is in-line with that action-driven drivel. So be prepared for something very different. And very good.

Legion (2010)

The Apocalypse Cometh! And It's Really Stupideth!

[3/10 · 17 July 2010]

I like freakish films just as much as the next person, but they really need to make some sort of sense. Especially if you're going to be taking things straight from the Bible and trying to manipulate it to fit ...whatever you want to call LEGION.

Fairly new director Scott Charles Stewart goes beyond the grave and into Angel-Land in an attempt to draw Sci-Fi types and Bible-thumpers into what turns out to be a horrible mess in terms of script.

Paul Bettany (not known so much for his lead character slots as his supporting roles ...think MASTER AND COMMANDER), does okay with what's given him, but unfortunately doesn't really shine as Michael, the angel who wants to "give God what he needs, not what he wants." Michael (Bettany) comes down from the heavens in true Terminator-style, quickly ripping off his wings so that he can fit in with humanity. From here, he heads out into the desert to search for a pregnant woman named Charlie (Adrianne Palicki) who carries "the last hope for humanity." Why that is is never really explained. Guess it was just a roll of the dice for poor Charlie. Bummer girl! There are so many throwaway characters that we never really give a rats-rump about any of them, including Dennis Quaid (PANDORUM), Tyrese Gibson (TRANSFORMERS), Kate Walsh (GREY'S ANATOMY) and Charles S. Dutton (FAME). They all die in rapid succession and I just said, "Meh. So what." Then only actor who actually DID something was Kevin Durand (3:10 TO YUMA) as archangel Gabriel who planned to follow Gods word to the letter and wipe-out humanity. But first he has to get by Michael with all of his bad-ass guns....

Wait...

You mean guns can kill angels? How is that possible? Never mind. Just let it go. Like everything else. Including anything approaching believability.

So with all that said, you might think I absolutely hated Legion. And that's probably partially true. The only exception to this would be the special effects which were nicely done, especially the creepy ice cream man who sprouts lengthy arms and legs and crab-walks into a hailstorm of bullets. Oh yes. He dies easily, too.

And there you have it. A movie that suffers because of a horrendously bad script, but has a bit of eye-candy in terms of CGI. If that's all you're looking for, have at it. But don't say I didn't warn you.

Invictus (2009)

A Political Sports Film? Who Would Have Thought!

[8/10 · 17 July 2010]

It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.

These words, this verse of the poem by William Ernest Hensley in 1875, was the mantra of Nelson Mandela during his imprisonment in South Africa. He refused to give in to hate. He refused to give in to revenge. But how do you pull along an entire country with you? Especially a country as racially divisive as South Africa where Apartheid was a part of the landscape and politics for nearly 50 years?

Risking everything, Mandela achieved greatness by focusing not on politics, but on a sport: Rugby. Wanting to win the World Cup and thus unite a country, Mandela (played superbly by Morgan Freman, WANTED) sets out not to divide and conquer, but to unite and calm the racial tensions raging through his beloved South Africa.

With him, Mandela must convince Rugby captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon, THE DEPARTED) that their poorly performing team can do the impossible: win the World Cup.

As most of us now know, that is precisely what happens, and South Africa, for a while, forgets her bloody black-and-white past and turns everyone flush with excitement for simply being South African.

Clint Eastwood has proved in his waning years that he should remain (mostly) behind the camera and not in front of it. With the exception of GRAN TORINO, I've not been much of a fan of his as of late. However, when it comes to his directing chops, I've been fairly well pleased. Probably my favorite acted/directed Clint film would be the lesser known HEARTBREAK RIDGE. But that might just be me.

Many have already said that this was "the role Morgan Freeman was meant to play," and I won't contradict that. He was completely believable as Mandela, getting the look, verbal cadence and movements of The Great Man down perfectly.

Matt Damon on the other hand ...didn't really strike me as the bullish and larger-than-life Francois. Although I think he did "okay." I believe that a search for a more stylized actor could've easily resulted in a match more adequate to the part.

Regardless, the filming is enthralling because of Freeman's performance and the fact-based situations that this movie is based upon. For those looking for a sports film in-line with HOOSIERS, ROCKY or RUDY, you might want to look elsewhere. For those with an interest in human history and how politics can sometimes take a dive toward the goal line, this one will run straight at you.

Shutter Island (2010)

Scorsese Scores!

[9/10 · 8 July 2010]

If you don't like watching films twice, then I suggest you not view SHUTTER ISLAND even once. But if you do, you need to click over to the extra features on the DVD and watch "The Making of Shutter Island." It is here where you will begin to realize how important it is to restart the disc from the beginning.

Shutter Island is a film-within-a-film, about a character-within-a-character. The multiple layers and textures are unbelievably inviting in a very twisted sense. The entire film screams thriller, but after you view it a second time, it'll scream ...something entirely different.

Dividing audiences and critics, Shutter Island reveals itself to probably be too dense for many, but a revelatory success for others; I'm obviously in the latter category.

Leonardo DiCaprio (THE DEPARTED) has rapidly become director Martin Scorsese's muse (and rightfully so). The two have been nearly inseparable since GANGS OF NEW YORK. "Marty" saw something inside Leonardo and knew that he had the acting chops needed for some fairly tough roles. And here, on Shutter Island, Marty gives him his toughest role to date.

As soon as we see Federal Marshals Teddy Daniels (Leonardo) and his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo, WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE) arrive on Shutter Island to investigate the disappearance of a mentally deranged prisoner, we get the immediate sense that things are off-balance. The guards look at Teddy and Chuck with great apprehension; their weapons pointed in Teddy and Chuck's general direction.

And as Teddy's investigation winds up, so do clues that don't match up. The possibility of a 67th patient being on the island, even though the warden and his charges claim there are only 66, tips Teddy (and the viewer) off that something is amiss.

The dark edges surrounding the island also leads Teddy into flashbacks of his time in WW II, and into other muted corners of his past that he'd rather not see.

It is these dark corners that intrigue Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley, YOU KILL ME) and his partner Dr, Naehring (Max von Sydow, THE SEVENTH SEAL), themselves being psychiatrists. But we quickly garner that these two men are at opposite ends of the same field. And are they fighting each other over Teddy? If so, why? It is here that I'll stop any further possibility of spoilers for those who choose to read this review. And it is also here that I need to reaffirm the requirement that you watch this movie twice. If you do, you'll come away feeling as though you've seen two movies instead of just one.

Away We Go (2009)

Indie Film With Lots Of Love And Laughs

[10/10 · 26 June 2010]

When Burt (John Krasinski, JARHEAD) and Verona (Maya Rudolph, DUPLEX) discover they're pregnant, they take their unconventional lives on the lam and try to find an appropriate place to raise their child.

As many of you probably know, it's the journey, not the destination, that often makes for the most enjoyable parts. Which separates this film from other MEET THE FOCKERS-style movies where the protagonists find love and laughs with family and friends at a specific location and not necessarily on the journey.

Although there are other road trip movies out there (even old ones like THE LONG, LONG TRAILER, and TRAINS, PLANES, AND AUTOMOBILES), this film stands out for one very vital reason: it's not about having a good time or heavy laughs. It's about growing up, growing old, and growing out. That's not to say there aren't comedic moments. There are plenty! Even from the get-go, you know you're in for something different. Burt and Verona aren't married, and as they have an intimate encounter (scene one), and Burt comments on Verona's "different taste", we watch her slap him when he even mentions the possibility of her being pregnant.

Jump ahead six months and we find them discovering that becoming a parent has many perilous decisions. Not the least of which is "Where to raise our kid." The ensuing road trip finds them landing on family, friends, and friends of their families' doorsteps. They try to find someplace that they feel comfortable, but every stop throws warning flags in their faces. New-age hippies who reject their own names ("LN" instead of Ellen). Parents who are so self-absorbed they don't even notice when they're hurting their children's feelings. Siblings who have absolutely no filters and are completely nuts. Friends who can't get pregnant and hate themselves for it. And the list goes on.

Amidst all these damaged people is one who hits a nerve with Verona: her sister Grace (Carmen Ojogo, PERFUME), who brings up their parent's early demise. It is a raw point in Verona's life that triggers memories she'd rather suppress. But when she learns she can't hide from the past, and that it is inextricably interwoven with her future, a short trip reveals the location where Verona and Burt always knew they'd end up ...they just didn't know it ...for while.

The film is really an independent flick. At only $17 million dollars to make, and produced by Big Beach Films (who also did EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED and SUNSHINE CLEANING), the film had a limited release but did exceptionally well (even getting five nominations at small award shows). Part of the film's success, no doubt, rests with the star appeal (Jeff Daniels, Catherine O'Hara, Jim Gaffigan, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Chris Messina, to name a few) and it's amazing director, Sam Mendes (AMERICAN BEAUTY) who doesn't do many films, but the ones he does are exceptional. And this one is no exception! Rent it. Buy it. Just watch it!

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Less Is More

[10/10 · 11 June 2010]

I'm sure most of us have heard the term "less is more." Alfred Hitchcock helped bring this term to fruition by keeping the forces of evil hidden from us, but obviously with us, near us, and trying desperately to get in.

First time writer/director and renaissance film-make Oren Peli took the "less is more" to heart and decided to do his own version of a Blair Witch Project, but with much greater success in my book.

I am not an easily spooked guy. And I've seen my share of horror films that did absolutely nothing for me. Although some of them I still love, they didn't give me goosebumps. One of my favorites, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956), was creepy and it made me think, but it never made me jump in my seat. The same could not be said for PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. It is, without a doubt, a true minimalist horror film that strikes at the heart of our psyche. And when I say "minimalist", I mean minimal. Made for roughly $15,000, it's first week out in theaters it grossed over $9 million. I can't even imagine how many tens-of-millions its made now that its out on DVD. Peli took the minimalist approach on time, too, as the entire film runs only 86 minutes. And they filmed it all in ten days. And in Peli's own house! The best thing about the film is that it gradually builds tension, never letting us in on what it is that's stalking Katie. This unknown is frustratingly freakish, and we can really feel the stress Katie and her boyfriend Micah are under as they lose sleep, hear doors slam, see footprints appear out of nowhere, and helplessly watch as more and more "things" begin happening to them.

Those who hate the hand-held camera movements of The Blair Witch Project and CLOVERFIELD, will want to avoid this one, as it, too, uses a hand-held. But if you love to feel your heart beat faster, your breathing speed up, and to cover your eyes when you know something really bad is about to happen, then by all means please watch this.

I heard rumor that a sequel is in the making. Hmm. Let's hope they don't ruin a good thing by trying to make a big budget block-buster with M. Night.

Let the shrieking commence.

Land of the Lost (2009)

Worst Film of 2009

[1/10 · 6 June 2010]

If you're a fan of the 70s TV show LAND OF THE LOST, you will definitely want to steer clear of this bomb. Without a plot and trying to force the comedy down our throats, this newly reinvented LAND OF THE LOST is a complete disaster. Yes, even with the much improved CGI effects.

The film tries to pull in fans of the original by sucking the cast into a time vortex, similar to how Marshall, Will and Holly were in the original. But instead of being scientifically interesting (if outdated and impossible), this time we get some serious low-brow comedy that misses almost every mark.

Those of you out there who also are not fans of Will Ferrell (TALLADEGA NIGHTS) will want to avoid this film like the plague. He's in full-on childish mode, getting more groans than laughs (trying to make out with a proto-human while high on a hallucinogenic? Yes. Those kind of antics!). And he's in the lead role as Dr. Rick Marshall, so he's on screen in just about every shot.

His supporting cast are just as lame as he, unfortunately. Anna Friel stars as Holly, and her interactions and supposed romantic attraction to Ferrell's Marshall character are probably what'll give most of you a good laugh. It's so unrealistic you'll wish that she'd disappear down another vortex.

The more unfortunate cast member, Danny McBride (TROPIC THUNDER) as Will Stanton, the owner of an extremely destitute theme park ride, plays the fool more often than Ferrell's character, and not in a good way (is there one?). Which is too bad, really, as I like McBride in Tropic Thunder and SUPERBAD.

There's not much here to enjoy (in case you didn't notice my review rating). More groans than laughs. More childish than adult fun. You might want to run away from this one as if a T-Rex were after YOU.

The Lovely Bones (2009)

More Visually Appealing Than Character Driven

[6/10 · 5 June 2010]

There are easy film reviews to write and there are tough ones. But this one balances in-between. The main reason for this is that I read (and loved) the book by Alice Sebold. Deep and richly developed characters helped round out this sometimes depressing yet engaging story surrounding the murder of 14-year-old Susie Salmon ("like the fish"), and how she views her afterlife ...and looks on as her family attempts to deal with her disappearance.

Sebold incorporated a ton of information that was crucial to our understanding within the Salmon household, and the community as a whole. But much gets lost in translation. This isn't too much of a surprise, as Hollyweird requires directors to cut-cut-cut so that movies run shorter and thus can be shown more often (i.e., a three hour movie will only show about three times in a day, whereas a two hour flick jumps up to five a day).

Peter Jackson took on a major task here, but nothing compared to his LORD OF THE RINGS series (which I found to be brilliantly done, by the way). But Jackson is more of a visual artist. Which was wonderful for Middle Earth fans. But for fans of a story that has such a heavy character background (like this), I think he floundered a bit. In place of story, we get more stunning visuals. Although I didn't mind them (in fact, I found them wondrously eye-catching), it did tick away precious seconds and minutes that otherwise could've been put toward the characters. Fans of the book will be highly depressed to learn that there's nothing in here regarding adultery, and a time-line that is skewed so that we have a more warm and fuzzy ending. Entire characters are removed (including an Indian neighbor), while others are moved around to fit an obviously tightened time-frame for the film.

Still, THE LOVELY BONES is entertaining. The special effects/green screen visuals will have your mouth hanging open. And Saoirse Ronan (ATONEMENT) as Susie is played exceptionally well. But if you're going to watch it, you'll probably love to hate Stanley Tucci (JULIE & JULIA) as the sick and weird George Harvey, Susie's murderer. When he lures her into his trap, you can feel the skin prickling on the back of your neck. Tucci's Best Supporting Actor nod at the Oscars last year was well-earned.

If you haven't read the book, much of what I said here probably won't mean anything. But if you have ...well ...beware.

Valkyrie (2008)

The Critics Were Wrong...

[8/10 · 23 May 2010]

"Not only is Singer's film-making aesthetically frustrating (lacking coherent visual rhythm) but his juvenile regard of the July 20, 1944, plot to kill Hitler -- one of 15 documented attempts -- is intellectually insulting..." New York Press The above is the usual negative commentary you'll see regarding this film. Critics bashed it for being insulting, unoriginal, and unmoving. Let me make some corrections for them so that they can save a little face.

I'm no Tom Cruise fan. A buddy of mine, too, is so peeved at Cruise that he refuses to watch anything the man stars in. Mostly this has to do with Cruise's personal life and beliefs (just watch an episode of South Park to see how some people view him and you'll see what I mean). People have similar feelings toward Mel Gibson ...but I digress.

VALKYRIE, as most of you probably now know, is the final of 15 attempts on Hitler's life. Shortly after this (about nine months) he committed suicide in his bunker. But this is about the one time where it almost succeeded. I'd heard about this attempt and read bits of it in history classes, but never really gave it much thought. I mean, the mustachioed murderer offed himself, so that was that. But what gives this film much of its umpf! is how true to history the story sticks (that and how closely many of the actors resemble their true-life counterparts). It is also riveting coming from director Bryan Singer (who did one of my all-time favorite films, THE USUAL SUSPECTS).

Tom Cruise did a great job (probably one of his best since COLLATERAL and MINORITY REPORT). His Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg character was spot-on ...with one exception that seems to be a sticking point for many: his accent. It is true that none of the actors attempts a German cadence in their speech. Did this bother me? No. I think it would have bothered me if they'd TRIED to do one and made it sound forced or ridiculous. So there's that...

What makes the film a success was Cruise's rock solid performance and the amazing supporting cast: Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Terrence Stamp, and Eddie Izzard just to sprinkle a few names.

It is also noteworthy to mention that they filmed nearly everything on-location and in the exact same spots where the original incidents took place, including the subsequent trials and executions of the conspirators. Phenomenal authenticity.

If the cadence of their speech bothered some, then I failed to see how the cadence of the film could. It was absolutely perfect. It gradually built up suspense (even though we knew how it would end for the conspirators), and never slowed, right up until the very end. I am forced to use a cliché here in that "I was on the edge of my seat" throughout the second half of the film.

So if you're looking to tear apart Tom Cruise, you might look at WAR OF THE WORLDS or LEGEND. But not here.

The Blind Side (2009)

Sandra Bullock Finally Makes It To The Top

[8/10 · 16 May 2010]

Making schmaltzy movies is a thing Hollywood is overly good at. Music rises telling us when to get that lump in our throat. Actors talk softly with a glistening eye. And the love-fest ensues.

If you abhor these types of films, then you might want to avoid THE BLINDSIDE. Not because all of that is in here, but because some of it is ...but only mildly. If you despise the "great white person saving the {insert minority here} other person from certain doom" theme, you might want to avoid this flick, too. Yes, some of that is in here, too. So why, oh why, did I rate this film so highly. Well, it's not overly schmaltzy nor overly great-white-hope-ish either. It is a (relatively) true telling of NFL star Michael Oher's early, troubled life in Memphis, Tennessee.

Homeless at 16 (and without parental guidance), "Big Mike" is seen wandering the streets by the affluent Leigh Tuohy (Sandra Bullock, THE LAKE HOUSE) and her family. They do "the good Christian thing" and offer the big guy a place to sleep for the night. But as the strong, silent Michael attempts to leave the next day, Leigh decides to have him stay another night. And so goes his induction into the Tuohy family.

But before he gets into the NFL, Michael (Quinton Aaron) must first pass high school and then get into college. He must overcome the whitewashed system of academia in upscale Memphis to do it, too. He soon receives help with the arrival of a tutor, Miss Sue (Kathy Bates, CHARLOTTE'S WEB) who toughens up Michael's mental muscle and prepares him for his college days.

Most of this is just backstory, however, for the main event, which is Michael's immediate rise onto the football circuit. His size and speed shock all those who watch his games, making him a prime candidate for college scouts.

The film isn't without its funny moments, though, most of which are thanks to S.J. (Jae Head, HANCOCK), the Tuohy's youngest – and very small – son who helps Michael navigate through all of the college offers that come his way. There are also some combo touchy-feely and comical moments. The one that comes to mind is when the Tuohy's ask Michael to become a member of their family and he says, "I thought I already was." The main draw here is, finally, Sandra Bullock. Not known as a powerhouse actress and more as one who goes after the money, Bullock may have gotten lucky and found the part she could play so well that it grabbed her an Oscar. Her Leigh portrayal was truly excellent. But was it as good as, say, Gabourey Sidibe's PRECIOUS? Or Meryl Streep's Julia Child in JULIE AND JULIA? Some think not (Does Meryl need another Oscar? I mean, really!) Regardless, I think sports movie fans will gobble up this one just as much as HOOSIERS and ROCKY.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Holmes As Doyle Wrote Him

[9/10 · 16 May 2010]

There aren't many movies around that dare to reinvent something both literary and cinematic that is beloved by readers and movie-goers alike, but action director Guy Ritchie has dared in a big way ...and succeeded beyond my expectations.

When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created Sherlock Holmes (A Study in Scarlet, 1887), he made Holmes a roughshod, drug-addled genius with keen deductive powers. This made him a person that lay-readers could identify with. A man with problems, but with unique abilities that were much in demand. Coming off the heels of the Victorian era, too, Holmes was – in a very real way – a person coming out of that stuffy time period and into the more loose and modern one. Again, something readers of the time could identify with.

Although the books live on in perpetuity, most of the population over the age of 40 are probably more familiar with director Roy Neill's television series starring the estimable Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson (if you're under 40 you're probably hooked on the hit TV series HOUSE M.D. which has more than just a passing familiarity with Doyle's character). Basil recreated the character of Holmes and also cleaned him up quite a bit. No drugs. Clean shaven. A real gentleman. In Doyle's literary works, however, this is far from the case ... which brings us to this new manifestation: the 2009 cinematic work starring Robert Downey Jr. (TROPIC THUNDER) as Holmes and Jude Law (REPO MEN) as Watson.

Downey Jr. is one of our great new actors. He is a chameleon in every sense of the word. Which is why I found his Holmes to be extremely well played. From his migraines to drugging Watson's beloved dog, Downey Jr. truly encompassed everything that Doyle wrote about. He's both brilliant and prone to folly; seeks a new case that's semi-interesting but is just as likely to seek out a new drug to make him feel more interested; and only has eyes for one woman, the lovely Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams, THE FAMILY STONE) who is just as much trouble as any drug or migraine.

This film is, hopefully, a reawakening of the Sherlock Holmes mystique; but a reawakening with Doyle's truly flawed character and not some scrubbed clean version. The ending of this movie certainly leaves open the possibility of a sequel. Let's hope that happens.

One final word of warning in case you didn't get what I was saying: this isn't your grandmas Sherlock Holmes. If you want Rathbone, go watch him. If you want Doyle's Holmes, check out Guy Ritchie's newest (and more accurate) interpretation.

An Education (2009)

Predictable But With Good Characters

[6/10 · 2 May 2010]

I don't want to start out with a negative tone about AN EDUCATION, but I just can't help myself! The thing that draws me into a movie is mainly the unexpected. Give me, too, some good character and a good story and I'm hooked. But An Education gave me only the characters. The story was completely predictable. It is, at its core, a coming of age story. And its one that we've all seen before.

There's nothing remotely challenging for the viewer to follow. That doesn't mean I take ANYTHING away from Peter Sarsgaard (JARHEAD) as the handsome, witty, and alarmingly charming David. Nor can I say anything remotely bad about Carey Mulligan (PRIDE AND PREJUDICE) as the smart but inexperienced Jenny. When these two characters collide, sparks certainly fly. But they aren't unexpected. Or in any way surprising.

When we meet David (Sarsgaard) we immediately know that a guy this age should not be philandering around with a sixteen-year-old school girl. And I guessed much of what was to come long before it was revealed (no spoilers). I also knew how Jenny would react. She's an amazingly smart young lady, so her ability to handle this situation wasn't shocking at all.

Some people have commented on the supporting cast, especially Emma Thompson (HARRY POTTER series) as the Headmistress. But I didn't find her character intimidating or interesting. However, I did find Olivia Williams (X-MEN) as Jenny's English instructor a very interesting character. She had a profound impact on Jenny's life (pre- and post-David).

The remainder of the cast were fairly forgettable with only minor flashes of importance and interest that rapidly dissipated.

Let me say again that I found the two main characters very entertaining, but the story far too predictable to give a high rating. I am, however, happy that I saw the film. Most of the award nominations and wins were directed at Carey Mulligan, and I felt that was completely justified.

Too bad the rest of the film couldn't hold up to the actors' performances.

Adventureland (2009)

Not So Much A Comedy As It Is A Bittersweet Romance

[8/10 · 1 May 2010]

ADVENTURELAND will be enjoyed by those who go in with either no knowledge of the story, or those that thought it might be a comedy but quickly come to understand that it's much more than that.

More of a quirky summer romance than a laugh-out-loud comedy, Adventureland gets some surprisingly high marks for taking a tried and true genre and marketing it to young adults — as well as those of us with a touch of gray — who remember working the odd job in order to make money for school, and finding much more than just an income.

Director Greg Mottola springs into action again after his wildly successful teen comedy SUPERBAD. Mottola proved his comedic talent in that flick, but here in Adventureland pulls back and gives us more of a bittersweet love story with a comedic shell.

For those of you who saw (and loved) ZOMBIELAND, you'll definitely want to see Jesse Eisenberg in this film. Although he's not running for his life from brain-starved zombies, he is running toward a life as a man, trying to figure out where he's going and how he wants his life to pan out.

Kristen Stewart (INTO THE WILD) plays the love interest. She's the perfect confused and embittered daughter of a recently remarried father and "evil" stepmother. Finding solace in the sexual declivities of a married maintenance man, Arlene (Stewart) sees a kind spirit in James (Eisenberg), and the two form a budding romance that rocks, shatters, and builds as they discover what each has to offer the other.

The entire film circles around James' need to earn some cash for college after his parents' finances fall apart. He finds the only job offered to him at an amusement park named, yep, Adventureland. It is run by Bobby (comedic superstar Bill Hader, TROPIC THUNDER) and his wife Paulette (Kristen Wiig, KNOCKED UP). This park and it's workers are what makes for an interesting and occasionally funny mix. Bobby guides Adventureland with a quirky yet firm hand. The crew that helps run the park are as diverse as America itself, and often just as screwed up. One of them has been a long-time friend of James' and loves punching him in the groin. Another (known only as Lisa P) is the sexually desirable yet unknown virginal girl that all the guys lust after. And still another is an obviously mentally challenged security guard who is the knowledge-base about everyone and everything that goes on within (and around) the park.

As you can see, there's a lot going on, and not all of it is funny. In fact, if you go into the film thinking it's going to be SUPERBAD 2, prepare to be disappointed. Unfortunately, many of the previews gave that impression. Although there's comedy lightly (very lightly) sprinkled throughout, it's not what makes this movie go. It is post-teen angst and a surprisingly great love story that allows many of us a walk down memory lane.

2012 (I) (2009)

Oh Look! More CGI!

[2/10 · 17 April 2010]

Having very little to do with the Mayan calendar and its supposed threat of global doom in 2012 and more interested in being a CGI spectacle, this movie will most likely desensitize you to any impending crisis and make you wonder why you bothered watching it. Oh look, a CGI disaster. And another. And another. And ...oh look!...it's another one! Going to see a Roland Emmerich (director) film can be dicey at the best of times, and downright ugly if you're unfortunate. Arguably his greatest film was STARGATE which was spun off into a highly successful TV series on the SciFi Channel. But some fans are divided on others such as INDEPENDENCE DAY, GODZILLA and THE PATRIOT. Then we get into the "bad" category with MOON 44, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, and 10,000 BC (I think a little vomit came up the back of my throat for that last one).

If you've seen any world doom films in the past 15 years, you'll not see anything that'll surprise you here. Things like DEEP IMPACT and Armageddon are pretty much a dime a dozen nowadays. And so goes 2012 ...but with a really poor script and some serious miscasting.

Although John Cusack was an early childhood favorite of mine, starring in such low-brow comedies as BETTER OFF DEAD and ONE CRAZY SUMMER, he's grown into much more substantial roles in subsequent years, shining in HIGH FIDELITY, WAR, INC., and the astounding IDENTITY. But here John appears to have gone after the money. Reading the script, one can't help but wonder why anyone would choose to be in it. It really has no viable characters and relies solely on its massive special effects budget. But the actors did come. And not just Mr. Cusack.

Chiwetel Ejiofor (can anyone pronounce his name?) tries to give some additional star power but can't grab any traction, either. Too bad. He's become quite a versatile actor, going from the feminine KINKY BOOTS to the rugged SERENITY.

Thandie Newton (CRASH) gives the film even more eye-candy as the attractive daughter to the President. But here she is more caricature than character, giving some of the worst lines in the entire film.

Oliver Platt (FROST/NIXON) tries to play "the bad politician" and his lines, like Thandie Newton's, are so ridiculously contrived as to be laughable.

The only saving grace – acting-wise – was the role of Charlie Frost, a conspiracy theorist, played by Woody Harrelson (ZOMBIELAND). He so over-played the character that it made him fun to watch and not a chore.

So if you're looking for a good disaster movie, this ain't it. It has nothing for you to grab onto, except maybe pieces of the planet's crust ...and we see that more often than the actors themselves.

Up in the Air (I) (2009)

A Story Well-Told

[10/10 · 12 April 2010]

Think you've got plenty of frequent flyer miles? Wait until you meet Ryan Bingham (George Clooney, BURN AFTER READING), a guy who flies almost nonstop. It's his job that gets him Up in the Air all the time. He travels around the States firing people as humanely as he can. Trouble is, though, is that this job makes him the most detached person alive. No family ties. Not married. No kids. Not even a real home anywhere. Ryan lives out of his carry-ons and knows how to move through airports like grease through a goose.

But things are about to change. His boss Craig (Jason Bateman, SMOKIN' ACES) just hired a hot-shot who's idea to tele-fire people remotely (via computer) has the potential to ground Ryan. But he's not giving up without a fight. This new up-and-comer named Natalie (Anna Kendrick) has a few thins to learn. So Ryan takes her on the road with him to show her why firing face-to-face has its merits.

Paralleling Ryan is the female version of him; a woman named Alex (Vera Farmiga, THE DEPARTED) who so mirrors his sentiments that they seemed destined for one another. Sexual sparks fly but their jobs (and flights) keep them apart more often than not. Which initially seems fine for both of them.

As Ryan shows hot-shot Natalie the ropes of how-to and how-not-to fire someone, we learn that Natalie is more brittle than previously believed. A broken relationship with a boyfriend sends her reeling, much to the confusion of Ryan who's never had a serious relationship in his life. "Everything I own can fit in this backpack. Even my relationships." But as Ryan sees his job changing, he also sees his life moving in a different direction. He's headed for a three-way fulcrum. The first is that he might actually need someone. And as he begins to see that not everything fits so neatly into his backpack, his feelings for Alex change his views. The second is that he has a family member who's about to get married, and he finds that seeing a wedding and how people actually enjoy needing one another changes his outlook. And finally we get to his frequent flyer miles. He's about to hit a milestone that only a handful of other people have made it to. Millions upon millions of miles. And as the realization that he's collected all of these miles alone comes to him, he finds that maybe, just maybe, he needs to make a connection ...not a connecting flight but an actual human connection.

It is here that I have to end my summation of the movie and simply say that this isn't going to be some formulaic film where a person finds what they need and everyone lives happily ever after. Life just isn't that cleanly laid out. I applaud writer/director Jason Reitman for having the gumption to not take the road most traveled. Although I saw what was coming for Ryan after he decided to make a change, the impact of it astounded me. Clooney did a great job making us care for a man that we really shouldn't care for. We want to give him a shot at a normal life, but when that option is snatched away, we feel exactly the same way Ryan does: cheated. Even though he's been a complete butthead most of his life.

This is a story with no special effects. No tricks. And it pulls no punches. It's just a great story well-told. I loved it.

Clash of the Titans (2010)

Release The Crappen!

[1/10 · 11 April 2010]

And once again Hollywood proves it has run out of original ideas. Why else would they remake this movie? Back in 1981, when special effects were beginning to take serious root in films, we had the original CLASH OF THE TITANS. It had some cheesy claymation mixed with some less cheesy special effects. But it did have a story. A damn good one. Sure there were action sequences, especially when Perseus (Harry Hamlin) met up with Medusa. But these action scenes were barely a few minutes long. The story of the gods, how they felt about humanity (and how humanity felt about them) dominated the storyline. Yes, there was an ACTUAL story.

Fast forward to 2010 and you get this ...this ...this mess-of-a-remake that relies almost solely on CGI and, well, basically nothing else.

The brief understanding of the god/human relationship is thrust aside in favor of action scenes galore which have squat to do with the story. There are so many throwaway characters as to be laughable. And 3-D? For marketing purposes only. Save yourself some cash and see it in 2-D ...if at all.

My son went with me to see it (he's as much of a movie junky as I am) and we both nearly fell asleep for lack of anything approaching a viable understanding of who was carrying the storyline. We still ask each other, "What was the point, again?" Sam Worthington seems to be a hot commodity in today's movie market. TERMINATOR SALVATION and AVATAR are two of his more recent accomplishment. And although I found those two to be lukewarm in terms of story, they at least kept me engaged enough not to yawn. And Liam Neeson has also been splattered all over film posters (from TAKEN to KINGDOM OF HEAVEN). But a god? And Zeus for that matter? Not the best casting choice. He just didn't have the presence I was expecting. Perhaps the story (or lack thereof) stifled his performance. Probably.

I also MUST caution women against seeing this if they enjoyed the strong roles in the 1981 original. You'll find no such comparisons here. There's really no good female character to be found. The closest was Alexa Davalos (DEFIANCE) as Perseus' love interest, Andromeda. But her role is so laughably short and misunderstood that you won't care what happens to her (and things do happen).

My final word of caution comes to those of us (all of us) struggling in today's economy. We need our escapism, and sometimes (occasionally) Hollywood allows us to have it. But not here. You might as well sit on the toilet and release the crappen!

Precious (II) (2009)

Deserves Your Attention

[10/10 · 11 April 2010]

Hype is often undeserved, especially when it comes to films. Add to the fact that PRECIOUS had Oprah attached to it and you might back off even further. But there's no need. This film, for all intents and purposes, is a phenomenon that deserves your attention.

Garnering two Academy Award wins and multiple, smaller award show prizes, Precious is ...well ...precious. The story could've gotten dark and downright depressing. I mean, we're talking about an abused, overweight teenager who's now into her second pregnancy (incestuous pregnancy, I might add), and one can see where you could surmise this to be a gloom-and-doom movie. It isn't. It's hopeful and surprisingly upbeat. And it's well-acted by a veritable group of unknowns.

In the prime role of Precious we have Gabby Sidibe, a first time wannabe actress who serendipitously found the casting location and locked in the role. She was the perfect choice, and gave off a sense of foreboding and hope throughout the film's length. Her flattened emotional state at home, where she's abused by her mother, contrasts perfectly with her life outside where she's trying to better herself against tremendous odds.

But if Gabby was perfect, the woman who played Mary (her Mother) was ...beyond perfection. Mo'Nique (BEERFEST) pulls in the performance of a lifetime. Uneducated, uninspired, confused, and ill-equipped to deal with just about anything, Mo'Nique played the part so beastfully that it was sometimes hard to watch what she might do next. She was the perfect manipulator.

Direct Lee Daniels is one of those people who aren't afraid to steer directly into the path of controversy, and does so here with an able hand. You may have heard of his other successes; things like MONSTER'S BALL and THE WOODSMAN. No? Then I highly recommend you check them out if you enjoyed Precious.

I would warn parents, though, that Precious has a very appropriate R rating attached. The scenes of incest (although short-lived) are vivid, and there's liberal use of violence against infants and teens, as well as language that'd make a porn-star blush. But all of it is done in an appropriate context, never for shock value.

Precious deserves your attention. Not because it won an award, or because Oprah's attached to it. It deserves to be watched because there are too many kids out there going through this very same ordeal in social silence. Shame, despair, and anger eat at these kids. It's a miracle any of them come out the other side in a functional manner. Which is why Precious will inspire you.

Repo Men (2010)

May Not Be For Everyone, But It Was DEFINITELY For Me!

[10/10 · 31 March 2010]

Being summarily clobbered by movie-goers and critics alike, REPO MEN will obviously not be for everyone. But it will be a great movie for the right person, and I was obviously one of those "right" people.

So who is this movie directed at and why? Well, it's a combination of a smart espionage thriller in a science fiction setting, with a little comedy thrown in for good measure. This might sound like a recipe for disaster, but it is anything but. But is it right for you? That's a tough call. If you're in the medical field and are concerned about healthcare insurance, it will definitely pique your interest. If you enjoyed such films as KILL BILL and BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, this will be right up your alley.

So why did I rate the film so high? Let's look at it for a minute...

It's topical without being "in your face." It never tells you to believe that private insurance carriers are "bad" and simply shows us a ridiculous possible future where organs are built in factories and everyone who needs a pancreas, a liver, an ear, or whatever, can get one ...for a price. The Union is run by an unscrupulous business man named Frank (Liev Schreiber, DEFIANCE). He's basically a used car salesman trying to get you to sign on the dotted line for organs you desperately need. But make sure you don't miss any payments after you've gotten your new kidney. Why? Because if you don't pay the exorbitant prices and interest rates, your organ will be repossessed. Oh yes, even if it's your heart. How will you survive without it? You won't.

Remy (Jude Law, CLOSER) and Jake (Forest Whitaker, WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE) are two of these Repo Men and they're very good at their jobs. With surgical precision, they can track and excise overdue organ owners with gory efficiency. But when Remy is forced to get a new heart and begins falling behind on payments, he begins to see the other side of his previous life.

This sounds like a pretty straightforward premise. A sort of Darth Vader understanding where his son was coming from plot. And that is only partially true. Jude Law does an excellent job playing a badass with absolutely no conscious about ending a person's life if their delinquent on their bill. He is absolutely believable as a disconnected man only interested in money and being a great contract employee for The Union. This is seen early on when we witness him retrieving a liver in a rapid manner, making a beautiful incision and ripping the organ out. He heads to the previous owner's sink, rinses it off, packs it up, and heads out while stepping over the now probably lifeless man. Impressive. The gore is essential here to show the audience exactly HOW disconnected Remy is from humanity.

Jake, his partner, is even further gone than Remy. He enjoys his job so much that he's willing to do anything to anyone in order to ensure he and Remy can keep working together.

In the midst of Remy's life is a relationship that's falling apart and a son who is the only thing that keeps him remotely grounded. But when Remy suddenly needs a heart replacement, things rapidly change. You can see the wheels spinning in the back of his head after he returns to work. Would a Repo Man come after him if he failed to pay? What does it mean to have a piece of metal in his chest where his heart used to be? Does this make him less human? Or, in some bizarre way, does it make him more human? These are questions that are left up to the audience to decide.

The ending was telegraphed just enough to give it a fun twist without coming out of the blue. I kind of picked up on it after a significant fight sequence, and you might to if you pay attention. It is enough of an "a-ha!" moment that'll make some film watchers gasp.

With the current, raw, political climate I think this film was excellently timed to hit the big screen. Think about where our healthcare is going and who you want to control it, and this film will cut into you, too.

Fight Club (1999)

Don't Read Those Reviews With Spoilers. Please Don't!

[9/10 · 28 March 2010]

I have to admit from the beginning that I had never seen FIGHT CLUB before 2010. Yes (hangs head in shame), I'd heard all the hype and thought it to be just that: hype. Although I did notice that most of the kudos came from guys, not gals, even though the well-built Brad Pitt (INGLORIOUS BASTERDS) was liberally smeared on cover displays along with witty (and not unhandsome) Edward Norton (THE PAINTED VEIL). Hmm. So I finally took the plunge and picked up a Blu-Ray copy.

Although brutal along the lines of GOODFELLAS, Fight Club is smart, funny, and exceptionally dark. It also has at its heart a (very) surprisingly good love story starring Helena Bonham Carter (SWEENEY TODD). I also think this is one of Carter's strongest roles. She is so beyond anything I'd ever seen from her that I originally had trouble believing it WAS her in the film.

If you can get past some of the more gory scenes, I dare say that all viewers will be well-rewarded in the end. That's not to say you should dismiss the violence. Indeed, it is part-and-parcel to the entire components of the film and its incredibly awesome story structure.

And this isn't the first time Brad Pitt and director David Fincher have worked together. In 1995 they did the excellent film SE7EN. If you enjoyed that film, you'll absolutely fall in love with this one. Fincher loves to play mind-twists but he doesn't do it in a heavy-handed way or even in a directly misguiding one (unlike M. Night Shyamalan with his groundbreaking THE SIXTH SENSE).

Although the twist towards the end was enjoyable, I was an astute enough viewer to realize what was going on long before its reveal. Which didn't make the movie any less enjoyable. It was HOW the reveal was pulled off that made the film so amazing.

Some of those who haven't seen the film might want a kind of blow-by-blow description ...and many reviews like that can easily be found. DON'T READ THEM! They will absolutely ruin the film for you. I have, in the past (and probably will in the future), given descriptions of films, but not here. This one needs to be experienced without foreknowledge. Kind of like a surprise punch to the face...

Alien Trespass (2009)

A Wink And A Nod To 50s Sci-Fi Flicks...

[9/10 · 14 March 2010]

Yes, it's a 50s camp movie. But it's so much more than that. The contrasts are sharply drawn when you take notice of the fact that this is a homage to 50s sci-fi flicks but filmed in high-def. Similar to Quentin Tarantino's GRINDHOUSE series homage to the blood-and-guts films of the 70s, ALIEN TRESPASS pulls no punches in letting us see "the cheese" that accompanied these campy movies from 60 years past.

And the homage doesn't just stop at the style of the film. Many references to 50s flicks come up. Most notable is THE BLOB, where we've got a collection of people in a theater (trapped!) where an alien attack is about to take place (most sci-fi buffs will see this coming a mile away, but it's still cool to watch).

The great thing, too, about Alien Trespass is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. The main character Ted Lewis (Eric McCormack, DEAD LIKE ME) gets "inhabited" by the spirit of an alien who's ship crashed. This alien's name is (wait for it) ...Urp. And he's an intergalactic marshal. And he has a shoot out with a deputy. Any of this ringing a bell? Think "Earp".

With tongues firmly in their cheeks, but playing it straight, the entire cast really pulled in a very fun movie to watch. Even the interviews on the DVDs are done in such a way that we're led to believe these new actors are family members of the "original" actors who starred in the supposedly destroyed film, Alien Trespass. Yes, there's a documentary-style film-within-a-film, even before the actual movie begins. Kind of like the way TROPIC THUNDER started but bent more toward the appropriate era here.

I also enjoyed the overt sexuality simmering beneath the surface for Ted and his cleavage-enhanced wife, Lana (Jody Thompson). But there's no physical sexuality seen and only the great fade-to-black shots we were all used to seeing whenever something tasty was about to happen between men and women during films of the 50s.

If you were a fan of 50s camp-flicks (particularly COMMANDO CODY: SKY MARSHAL OF THE UNIVERSE), you definitely have to see this one.

Coco Before Chanel (2009)

I Didn't Know Chanel From Shinola

[8/10 · 13 March 2010]

I'm a guy. Okay. Let's get that out of the bag right now. I'm not overly fond of what I wear. Blue jeans and a t-shirt suit me just fine for most occasions. So when my wife wanted me to watch a foreign film about some gal named "Chanel" who was a famous clothes designer, I felt like I was in for an early bedtime (I can easily fall asleep during boring films).

So we slipped the DVD in and proceeded to watch what I assumed would be an incredibly monotonous film about a lady making clothing. I could hear my wife already: "Oooh. Isn't that beautiful." Or "Look how well she hemmed that pinafore" (whatever the hell a pinafore is ...and can you hem it? I still don't know).

But, much to my surprise, the film was more a myopic on the early life of Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel. Hence the name Coco BEFORE Chanel. Duh. Guess I should've paid better attention to the title.

There's certainly information and dress-wear visuals throughout, but the movie is more honed toward what made Coco who she would become later in life. Audrey Tautou plays the prime role of Coco and does so with grace, beauty, and a unique gruffness and individuality that struck me as incredibly honest (I did not enjoy her performance in The Da Vinci Code, so this was a nice change). She really carried the entire film and made every scene extremely watchable.

But the screenplay by writer/director Anne Fontaine was what helped keep this film together. Like I said at the beginning of my review, I felt that if it had expressly focused on clothing and the making of clothing, I would've been sawing some serious Zs before 30 minutes into the film. But I wasn't. Similar in concept to The Devil Wears Prada (which I also enjoyed mostly because of Meryl Streeps stellar performance), the film never lingers overly long on things that simply don't matter at that point in Coco's life. It is her lovers, her fiery desire to do something with her life, and her heartbreaks that made her who she would become, not the clothes (those were developing and came later).

So if you're like me, and don't know Chanel from Shinola, you still might give this one a try. Your wife will probably love it, and you'll score some points with her for watching it. Just don't give her the credit cards after finishing it. I just looked online at the cost of Chanel wear and ...well ...you don't wanna know.

The Hurt Locker (2008)

That Many Oscars? Really?

[6/10 · 12 March 2010]

I was beginning to hold out some hope (however little) that the Oscars might have been steering away from political correctness and social appeasement when, last year, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE took home 8 of the 10 categories it was nominated in, including Best Picture. A "feel-good" movie made on a $15 million budget with no-name actors, it came out of nowhere and blindsided many viewers and Academy voters. Pleasantly surprised, I flipped on the Oscars this year (2010) and watched the who's who for films in 2009.

I'm not going to take any large swings as THE HURT LOCKER because it was a good movie. I enjoyed the action, the tension, the acting. It was all nicely pulled together. But, out of the ten Best Picture nominees this year, was it really the stand-out? I felt that the Academy was slipping, once again, into the realm of trying to be "significant" and "modern" by voting for something that's on everyone's mind (the war in Iraq). Again, the movie was okay. Good. Adequate. But head-and-shoulders above such films as INGLORIOUS BASTERDS? DISTRICT 9? UP IN THE AIR? I humbly disagree that it was. And there was nothing in it that we haven't seen before: a war movie with internal angst and a man lost amidst society when he returns home. Jeremy Renner (28 WEEKS LATER) did a fine job as the risk-taking Sergeant James but, again, he was channeling every other warrior brought into a tough situation that we've seen on celluloid a gazillion times.

From reading what you've read of my review so far, you might think that I'm being more critical of the Academy than the film. That's partially correct. But when so much attention is heaped upon one film (including Best Director ...which we'll cover in a moment) and so many people think that this is "the film to watch" and not the other nominees that won little or nothing, I believe of informing those who might choose to read this of their folly should they not see something like District 9 or - one that didn't even get mentioned - MOON.

Let's hit on the Best Director item...

No female director has ever won an Oscar before Kathryn Bigelow did for The Hurt Locker. So what! We never elected a black President before Obama. Does that mean we should give him every break just because no other black man has ever sat in the White House? No! You win because you deserve to win, not because it's never happened to someone of your kind before. Was the directing of The Hurt Locker better than Inglorious Basterds? Was it? Sorry, but I completely disagree if you think it was.

I will say that I'm glad AVATAR didn't win Best Picture or Best Director. But to completely blank out such phenomenal films as DISTRICT 9 and other worthy competitors is simply ridiculous.

I think it's important for me to say here that I completely support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; they risk their lives daily so that I can live the life I do over here in the U. S. They risk they're lives so that I can write something like this about a film they may care deeply about. But caring deeply about a subject like The Hurt Locker and elevating it above other films does a disservice to the art of film-making and film-makers when you over-rate a movie based on it's significance in the world today and not on its art.

For me, the top films of 2009 were DISTRICT 9, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS and MOON. Two got a smidgin of notice and one never saw the light of the Oscar ballots. Check those films out before deciding where the awards should've landed for movies made in 2009. Please.

The Cats of Mirikitani (2006)

Amazing Discovery And Rebirth Of An Artist

[10/10 · 7 March 2010]

That man you just passed on the street, the one wearing four layers of clothing and a month's worth of human smell stench? Yeah him. Do you know who he is? Or what his history might be? These are the questions that suddenly plague New York director and documentarian Linda Hattendorf. Seeing one of these nameless faces wandering near where she lived, Linda decided to place her lens on him. His name, she quickly learns, is Jimmy Mirikitani, and his story is almost too much to believe.

A sidewalk artist who's specialty involved drawing Japanese cats and portraits of his wartime experiences, Jimmy is a complex and talented man. And when the 9/11 attacks occur only a few blocks away from Jimmy's normal homeless home-spot, Linda takes him in so that he doesn't have to choke on the dust littering the skies immediately after the collapse of the twin towers. The attacks on the twin towers also begin echoing prejudices against Muslim Americans, a prejudice that Jimmy is far too familiar with.

As Linda's cameras continue to record Jimmy's life, we learn that not only was Jimmy a peace loving man before WW II, but he also was an up-and-coming artist ...until he and his family were forced into Japanese internment camps in California. Everything was stripped away from Jimmy, including (or so he thought) his U.S. citizenship. As Linda tries to help Jimmy both mentally and financially, she runs up against Jimmy's anger and distrust of the government. Jimmy constantly refuses her requests to find out if he's eligible for social security, often sparking outbursts against the U.S. bureaucracy. His anger, it soon become apparent, is due to his internment time, his forced signing of documents relinquishing his U.S. citizen status (even though he was born in Sacramento, California), and the WW II bombing of his beloved Hiroshima (his hometown).

In his 80s, Jimmy also doesn't know what's happened to his family. He soon learns that he has plenty living in California. But opening up to them is not an easy road as his obvious mental illness intrudes upon his better judgement.

It is a poignant and memorable documentary for the simple reason that a person took the time to get to know this homeless man and uncovered a goldmine of information about an incredible person and an artist. His images are strikingly beautiful and haunting, hearkening back to his time in the internment camps and his early career as a hopeful artist.

The story is what really sticks with you, too. As we watch Linda (the documentary maker) uncover layer after layer of this unique man, we don't pity him but, instead, begin to UNDERSTAND him. That's a huge revelation. We understand why Jimmy is so angry. Why he's so reluctant to get close to people. And why, eventually, he comes out of his lonesome cocoon. It is a rebirth worth watching ...and enjoying

Franklyn (2008)

Frank Miller Meets The Dark Knight Meets Brazil

[10/10 · 5 March 2010]

Once in a blue moon, a film comes along that defies genre identification ...and so goes FRANKLYN, a movie that transcends anything you think you've ever seen. A hybrid in terms of style, Franklyn might best be described as Frank Miller (the artist) meets The Dark Knight (Batman) in Brazil (the movie). I say this because none of these items alone help explain the convoluted-ness that is this story, and none should. It goes beyond them. Way beyond them.

Visually appealing on almost every level, Franklyn has two divergent stories that seem to have nothing to do with each other. In one we're privy to a kind of superhero trying to avenge the death of a young girl whom we know nothing about. He chases after "The Individual" in a city known as Meanwhile. Looking, as stated earlier, somewhere along the lines of a Frank Miller graphic mixed with a kind of Dark Knight quality, the story intrigues and makes us cheer on the main character, Jonathan Preest (Ryan Philleppe, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS). I mean, trying to avenge the death of an innocent girl is noble, right? Equally intriguing within the city of Meanwhile are the many religions that flourish, including the Seventh Day Manicurists. Everyone is required to have a religious affiliation ...except our "hero" who is subsequently tracked by highly skilled fighting monks.

In the second story, a woman named Emilia (Eva Green, THE GOLDEN COMPASS) tries to come to terms with her life and her art. She consistently tries to kill herself for the sake of it only to learn that her art just isn't inspiring enough. Also, a man in search of his missing son comes to the psychiatrist who'd been treating him only to learn that his son escaped and is out in the world with a rifle slung over his shoulder.

As the two story lines begin to mesh, reality skews, men and women we thought we knew either don't exist, exist as something else, or are strictly symbols (including a janitor who plays a vital role). The fascination the viewer will feel at the realizations of what is coming will shock, delight and sink their heart. Yes, it's THAT good.

The visuals are what will initially draw you in. You'll be asking yourself "Why?" many times: Why is the city so muted? Why is he wearing a mask? Why are these religious fanatics chasing him? If you pay close attention, everything is answered in one final scene which, in itself, reveals amazing storytelling.

I can't stress enough how closely everything is linked in the film and how paying attention reaps great benefits in the end. Even the names of the characters (Preest, The Individual, Wormsnakes, Pastor Bone) all have relevance.

Made on a paltry $12 million budget, the movie feels much more expensive and expansive. Sadly, it did not get a wide release and suffered because of it. Not many people have ever heard of it. I know I never had until a friend I work with mentioned it. But I'm glad he pointed me in the right direction. This one's a hidden gem. And it's so original that you'll wonder which genre you're watching. I'm still wondering!

Pandorum (2009)

Parts Make Pandorum Better Than You'd Think

[8/10 · 28 February 2010]

Part psychological thriller, part sci-fi, part ALIENS, PANDORUM is a unique hybrid. Although nothing new in terms of things we haven't seen before (encapsulate a group of men/women and see how they react), the film is strung together differently enough to hold your attention. You never really know what's around the next corner.

The story is pretty common: Earth is doomed. Spaceships are sent out to find a habitable planet. One of these ships has been lost in space for some time, and when ship's pilot #4, Bower (Ben Foster, 3:10 TO YUMA), wakes up from a prolonged hyper-sleep, much of his memory is gone or scrambled. Slowly things begin coming into focus as he finds various clues about who and where he's at. And not long after his awakening, another pod opens up and spills out Payton (Dennis Quaid, VANTAGE POINT), a high ranking officer who's memory is just as screwed up.

Bower is chosen to explore the ship, and getting out of their pod chamber is the first challenge since they're locked in for unknown reasons. Like giving birth, Bower squeezes through the canals of the ship's innards and is expelled onto what appears to be a dead ship. But he quickly runs into friends and foes. Some of the crew, it appears, have mutated and are cannibalistic. Others have had to do terrible things in order to fight and survive. All Bower wants to do is reactivate the ship's power systems and get to the bridge.

And that's about as far as I want to go without producing any spoilers....

There are several "jump-in-your-seat" moments that'll surprise the hell out of most viewers. And the darkness of the cold ship makes for some excellent atmosphere. The sound score also added a spooky quality to the production.

Ben Foster has rarely let me down in his choice of roles, and Pandorum was no exception. His embattled and continually challenged character was pitched just right throughout the film. It was also one of the first times I'd seen him as a main character and I was pleased to see it. He's a great young actor.

And I've saved the best for last: the filming. It was pretty amazing. Again, the dark qualities and claustrophobic shots were pulled off without feeling forced or contrived (something I can't say of all films ...like THE DESCENT).

Surprisingly this film got poor reviews and pretty much flopped at the box office (costing over $40 million to make but only grossing $10 million). Shame. It's actually better than you might think.