Movie Real

Hotel Rwanda

2005-04-15T20:29:00.000-05:00

Hotel Rwanda
Directed by Terry George
2004, rated PG-13
5 stars

It is important that we be reminded of the darker side of human nature. Documentaries, dramas, and action films have been made on subjects such as the prosecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany during the Holocaust, the creation of the atomic bomb and the consequences of its deployment on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam, World War I, and any other atrocity in which mass murder has occurred. These films are essential to our understanding of the world, and are made in the hopes that our manner of dealing with similar situations will improve as they arise in present times. One such atrocity imperative to global understanding occurred only ten years ago, and was allowed to continue without any intervention by the world powers. Hotel Rwanda, directed and written by Terry George, tells the story of one man’s heroic efforts during the time of the horrific genocide that occurred in Rwanda in the 1990’s.

Don Cheadle plays Paul Rusesabagina, the manager of a Belgian-owned hotel, Mille Collines, in the small African country of Rwanda, and whose remarkable story is told by the film. The film begins only a few days before the slaughter of the Tutsis by the Hutus. These two groups are barely distinguishable from each other; they share the same ethnic background, the same neighborhoods, the same religions, and the same general political beliefs. All that separates them from one another are their individual ID cards labeling them as either Hutu or Tutsi. These two groups, and the subsequent rift between them, were created by first the German and then the Belgian colonialists who controlled the country in the 1960’s. These European colonialists felt that it was necessary to have a governing body of an elite class, and declared the Tutsi minority to be the more elegant—and thus more favored. These Europeans then separated the people into these two groups using arbitrary guidelines such as the width of noses, height, and skin pigmentation. Although the differences were so minor that the two groups were virtually indistinguishable from one another, the Europeans favored the Tutsis for being taller, and lighter skinned. When these colonialist forces left the country, however, they left an angry Hutu majority in charge. Under an extremist Hutu government, many Tutsis were driven from Rwanda, and those that remained became demonized. As a Tutsi rebel army began to fight its way back into the country, a powerful Hutu radio broadcast went out calling for the eradication of all the Tutsi “cockroaches.” The Hutus erupted, killing nearly a million people, many of them innocent women and children, before the Tutsi rebel forces were able to fight back and halt the genocide. These events were covered on the news by European journalists, and reported to Western-power government officials by the United Nations officers stationed in the country—yet the world just stood by and let it happen, and no intervention force came to these people’s rescue.

As horrific and distressing as this story may seem, Hotel Rwanda carries more a message of hope than of disaster. Over the course of the genocide, Paul Rusesabagina sheltered more than 1,200 Hutu and Tutsi refugees in the Hotel de Mille Collines. It is his story of bravery and humanity that Hotel Rwanda celebrates. When the genocide first began, Paul’s original intention was to protect his family. Though himself a Hutu, his wife Tatiana (Sophie Okonedo) is Tutsi, and thus she, their three children, and her extended family are all in danger. As more and more refugees flock to the UN-protected grounds of the hotel, however, Paul begins to recognize the importance of protecting and saving all of them from the horrific murders taking place just outside the gates. Through the evacuation of all European personnel and complete abandonment of the Rwandans in their plight, and the bargains and bribes required to keep the Hutu militia at bay, Paul’s heroic efforts in the face of so much danger reminds us of the goodness that can be present in human nature.

Hotel Rwanda is absolutely superb. It encompasses every aspect a quality film should—a compelling plotline, excellent acting, quality filmmaking, and a well-told story. Every character in the film is absolutely convincing, and powerful in his and her sincerity. Don Cheadle, especially, gives a simultaneously heartbreaking and heartwarming performance as Paul, though the surrounding characters also contribute to the genuine feel of the film. Nick Nolte, as the UN Colonel Oliver, Cara Seymour as the Red Cross humanitarian worker Pat Archer, and Joaquin Phoenix as the journalist Jack Daglish each give magnificent supporting performances as the minor European—otherwise known as white—roles. Cheadle and Okonedo really carry the film, however, helped by the excellent performances given by Desmond Dube as Paul’s friend and hotel co-worker Dube, Tony Kgoroge as the Hutu-loyal hotel worker and general scum-bucket Gregoire, Hakeem Kae-Kazim as the Hutu supplier of weapons and supplies George Rutaganda, and Fana Mokoena as the Rwandan police official General Bizimungu. Every actor seems to be reaching through the screen and transcending the boundaries between film and reality, giving a powerful sense of how desperate the situation really was, and what actually happened. Though the story is tense, keeping the audience at the edge of their seats the entire time, it does make room for the interspersion of small comedy—which when it comes, brings a sudden relief from the anxiety and tension of the film.

Though genocide is not exactly a light or pleasant subject to be confronted with, Hotel Rwanda carries an important message of what happens when such carnage occurs while the world stands by and watches on the evening news. It also does an outstanding job of juxtaposing the worst side of humanity with the best and most heroic. The audience comes away not with a depressed feeling of despair, but with an uplifting sense of hope for humanity. Although not as widely publicized and well-known as other more famous cases of mass murder and genocide, Hotel Rwanda is just as important as films like Schindler’s List. When confronted with the bravery and heroics of one average man, it is encouraging to think that there is hope, even in the darkest of times.

Robots

2005-04-15T20:28:00.000-05:00

Robots
Directed by Chris Wedge
2005, rated PG
4 stars

There seems to be a growing trend in children’s animated films of personification. For some reason it is just more interesting to see other creatures acting human than it is to see actual humans acting human. First it was toys (Toy Story 1&2), then insects (Antz, A Bug’s Life), monsters and fairy tale creatures (Monsters Inc., Shrek 1&2), and then fish (Finding Nemo, A Shark’s Tale). All of these films are heartwarming and endearing, and all follow the encouraging storyline of the little guy making it big through hard work and honesty. Now the personification has moved to robots in Chris Wedge’s aptly named film, Robots.

Rodney Copperbottom (Ewan McGregor) is a young robot from a small town making his way to the city with his big dreams and ideas. Rodney has been lured to the big apple—creatively named Robot City—by the enticing promises of opportunity offered by Bigweld (Mel Brooks) and his corporation. Rodney has grown up watching Bigweld’s television show, which promises open opportunity to any aspiring inventor who arrives at the corporation’s doorstep. Upon arrival, however, Rodney discovers that the business has been taken over by the fiscally focused, diabolically scheming Ratchet (Greg Kinnear), and that the door is now quite literally closed to any new ideas. With complete control of the corporation, Ratchet, along with his frighteningly psychotic mother, Madame Gasket (Jim Broadbent), has formed a plot to outdate all old and underfinanced robots and to turn these outdated models into scrap metal. Rodney, however, will not stand for it, and with a little help from a strange assortment of friends—who include the voice talents of Robin Williams, Halle Berry, and Drew Carey—sets out to restore the rightful owner and integrity to the corporation he so admires.

The voice cast for Robots is absolutely astonishing in its star-studded brilliance. In addition to the names listed above, other well-known actors make their way into the film as minor roles. Paul Giamatti serves as the voice for the rude little Tim the Gate Guard; Jay Leno has a few lines as a fire hydrant; and James Earl Jones parodies himself as the recorded message for a pay phone. These famous actors do more than add showy names to the cast listings, however. Their voices and intonations are what bring these animated steel beings to life.

Of course, the special effects animation lends a hand as well. With every film, computer-generated animation becomes more life-like and fun to watch. After all, it doesn’t matter if the characters aren’t human, the more real they look, the more the audience can identify with them. And it’s always entertaining to watch human emotions and quirks translated and reflected in the facial expressions and actions of other forms. Robots makes excellent use of this technique, and it translates well, as the robots are of humanoid form, but just different enough to make the transition amusing and available for puns and jokes.

The animation for Robot City is also amazing in its scope and detail. The intricacies of the robot city life not only reflect that of humans, but add to it as well. The cross town journey, for example, more resembles a wild roller coaster bigger than anything at Six Flags more than anything else—although this may be an accurate reflection of how it feels to try to get from one side of a city to another.

Although similar to its predecessors in both plot and style, Robots incorporates much more humor and movement into its plot and storytelling. Constant allusions to current events and other movies keeps the older audience entertained, while the typical puns and gag jokes amuse all age groups. And, of course, the overall moral is a classic, with the hero fighting the good fight for the rights of the underdog. Overall, Robots is entertaining and enjoyable—though Robin Williams occasionally seems to have a few screws loose himself.

The Boondock Saints

2005-04-15T20:26:00.000-05:00

The Boondock Saints
Directed by Troy Duffy
1999, rated R
4 stars

Stories of redemption and vengeance often ignore the moral dilemmas of the situations. Usually, the bad guy gets just what he deserves, and the audience knows he deserves it because we’ve been told and seen all the evil things he’s done throughout the entire film. The righteousness of the revenge of the hero is never questioned, because there is no doubt about whether or not it was the right thing to do. The Boondock Saints, directed by Troy Duffy, addresses this moral conundrum—but in an enjoyably entertaining and humorous way.

Connor and Murphy MacManus (Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus) are Irish twins living in the slums of Boston. Stuck in a dead-end job at a meat packing plant and living in squalor in a one-room apartment, the two still maintain a light-hearted outlook on life, constantly joking and kidding around. Their world, however, is suddenly changed by the unexpected continuation of a bar fight, and the subsequent death of two members of the Russian mafia. Having heard about the terrible crimes this mafia has committed and how the police can do nothing about it, the two decide to take matters into their own hands. Suddenly they realize that their vengeance on the wicked ought to be extended to encompass any committer of evil who crosses their path. With the help of their clueless friend, “Funny Man” Rocco (David Della Rocco), a member of the Italian mafia himself, the duo continues their rampage of redemption.

The Irish joking of the MacManus twins keeps the film upbeat and funny at times when it could turn too dark and depressing. Their playful antics, along with the cluelessness of Rocco, make even the moments one would expect to be dark and serious, such as the shoot-out scenes, absolutely hilarious. Especially entertaining is Willem Dafoe’s performance as Paul Smecker, the federal detective tracking the mysterious cases of the twins. Dafoe’s flippant and arrogant air, combined with his amusingly hyperbolic frustration, make his performance one of the best of the film. Every character, however, is entertaining in his own way, and each works to bring the film together into one harmonious unit. Flanery and Reedus act at times like goofy teenagers, and at others like heroic action figures; Rocco struggles after them like an admiring puppy dog; and Dafoe pirouettes across the screen as if the entire film were his debut ballet performance. Even the minor characters add their own eccentric charm to the whole shebang.

The Boondock Saints incorporates everything good about action films while at the same time adding heart and ambiguity. The shoot-outs are intentionally overdone, complete with big guns, fancy entrances, smoke, dust, blood, and an operatic soundtrack to back it all up. Interesting camera angles and fast cuts add to the chaotic nature of these sequences, but then slows the cuts down for the more relaxed and calmer moments. Dark, moody lighting accompanies seriousness, while brightness and light enhances the more comic moments. Most everything is exaggerated, which keeps the film from sinking to the dark, depressing depths of the moral dilemmas. The film does raise some questions, and raises them well. Unlike other action films that involve vengeance against the wicked, the audience never really sees the evilness of the “villains”; their crimes are mentioned briefly, and then they are gone. Thus the question is raised—is it really right to fight fire with fire? The police are unable to do anything to these powerful criminals, since they always find loopholes to escape through—so is it right that they should be eliminated from society in such a harsh manner?

Perhaps the most effective part of the film is that it doesn’t really take sides. In the end, all opinions are presented, and the audience is left to make up their own minds about the issue. Overall, The Boondock Saints is entertaining, even if you’re not as interested in the moral issues. As an action film it’s excitingly funny, with plenty of humor and bullets. As an analysis of societal morals it’s a little less solid, but still not without merit. And after all, everyone loves the Irish.

The Ring Two

2005-04-15T20:23:00.000-05:00

The Ring Two
Directed by Hideo Nakata
2005, rated PG-13
1 star

There are certain aspects a horror film must have to make it sufficiently scary and worthwhile. Firstly, some aspect of it must defy the laws of nature—ghosts, vampires, demonic dolls, leprechauns, Freddie Krueger—but be set in an area that looks as if it were the house next door. Secondly, it must be dimly lit, with little or no natural lighting, preferably all at night. Finally—and perhaps most importantly—it must be able to generate a sequel. After all, where would we be without Scream 1, 2, and 3, all 7 of the A Nightmare on Elm Street series, all 10 of the Friday the 13th series—not to mention the combination hit Freddy Vs Jason—and the 6 part Leprechaun series—which includes such brilliance in titles as Leprechaun in the Hood, and Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood. Now the immensely popular 2002 horror film The Ring—a remake of the 1998 Japanese version Ringu—can add to this proud tradition with The Ring Two, directed by Hideo Nakata.

Naomi Watts plays Rachel Keller, a journalist newly moved to a small, rural seacoast town from the big city. In the previous film, Rachel and her son Aidan (David Dorfman) only barely escaped from the murderous clutches of a video tape. Actually, it was the ghost of a murdered girl named Samara (Kelly Stables) trapped in the tape. Both in the this film and its predecessor, Samara kills anyone who had watched it after a week—unless they make a copy and pass it on for someone else to watch—by crawling out of a well, out of the TV screen, and drowning them. Rachel and Aidan, in an attempt to put the past behind them, are trying to make the best of their new, small-town life. Rachel has taken a job at the local newspaper and has even met a promising co-worker named Max (Simon Baker)—for where would any film be without the thrill of a love interest? Unfortunately, the Samara epidemic has spread enough to infect even this isolated locale, and Rachel and Aidan become re-involved upon the death of a local teenager who watched the tape. Now that Samara has found the two again, she is determined to escape from her cassette compound and inhabit a real human body. Since she always lacked a mother figure—one of the main issues in the previous film—Aidan seems the ideal person to occupy, with Rachel as the loving mother. What follows is the furious battle between a mother, and the evil impulses that have suddenly corrupted her son.

The Ring Two seems to pride itself on all the twists and turns it manages to cram into the storyline. This film has more complex folds than a piece of ornamental origami, but lacks the elegance and form. Instead of coming out as a graceful swan or crane, The Ring Two more resembles middle school love notes, the convoluted folds used not for form, but to conceal the actual content hidden deep inside. This film just tries too hard. It tries to link too many things together, and ends up either forgetting about them later, or lamely explaining them away. Links to previous seemingly random incidents—such as their car being attacked by a herd of 20 male deer, because there is always deer in the country—are left hanging, or suffer loose attempts at explanations—the deer are explained away by a pile of antlers that Rachel finds in the basement of Samara’s old house, but have no apparent relevance to any of the rest of the story.

Watts gives a mediocre performance as Rachel, and is pushed out of the limelight by her creepy son. Dorfman is definitely the scariest part of this film, his pale skin seeming to glow faintly in the continual darkness of the film. Yet, not even Dorfman and an appearance by Sissy Spacek as Samara’s institutionalized mother could save this film. Not nearly as chilling and frightening as the first, The Ring Two falls severely short of making it as a serious horror film. Next time, just keep the well closed.

Million Dollar Baby

2005-03-20T22:39:00.000-05:00

Million Dollar Baby
Directed by Clint Eastwood
2004, rated PG-13
4 stars

When Clint Eastwood wants to make a film, then Clint Eastwood makes a film. He’s been an extremely successful actor, from the TV series “Rawhide” in 1959, to A Fistful of Dollars (1964) and The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (1966), to the major Oscar winner Unforgiven (1992), right up to Space Cowboys in 2000. Eastwood has also directed several major hits, such as Mystic River in 2003, and produced as well as composed the scores for several of the movies he’s acted in. Thus, it came as a fairly big surprise when his newest idea for a film was initially turned down by Warner Brothers. Apparently, there had been too many boxing films made recently. The Hurricane (1999), Ali (2001), and Girlfight (2000) had already covered the boxing theme, and there just wasn’t room for one more—so thought Warner Brothers. How wrong they were. Eastwood pushed forward with his film, and convinced Warner Brothers to split the cost, and the risk, with Lakeshore Entertainment, went ahead with Million Dollar Baby, and won four Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director, as a result.

Clint Eastwood also stars in the film as boxing manager and trainer Frankie Dunn. Frankie owns a training gym, filled with would-be boxers and punching bags. Frankie’s friend Eddie Scrap-Iron Dupris (Morgan Freeman), a half-blind, once-great fighter, works as janitor at the gym, giving subtle encouragement and kindness to the underdogs who come across his path. Such is the case with Maggie Fitzgerald (Hillary Swank). All Maggie wants is to be a fighter, and to have Frankie be her trainer and manager. After months of persistence and endurance through Frankie’s stiff rejections, Maggie finally convinces him to take her on. Battling her way through younger, fitter, more experienced fighters, and the problems in her family life, Maggie begins to work her way to the top of the boxing world. Frankie’s admiration slowly grows into fatherly love, and he begins to see Maggie more as a surrogate daughter than as a prize fighter.

Swank’s performance as Maggie is excellent. After putting on nearly 20 pounds of muscle for the role and undergoing hours of rigorous training, Swank immerses herself in the role completely, and really deserves the Oscar she won for Best Actress. Her determined stare and calculating approach really brings her character to life. Freeman and Eastman are also good in their own ways, but really only serve as backup for Swank, who completely steals the show. Jay Baruchel also makes a great comic relief as Danger, the hilarious little guy with big dreams.

Eastwood’s boxing-match sequences give him a chance to show off his stuff. With the camera sometimes drawn back to show the whole ring with excited audience, sometimes up close with the boxers’ struggle, and sometimes observant from the side as a member of the cheering fans, each shot draws the audience into that world of sweat and violence. Outside the rink, however, Eastwood tends to be a little heavy-handed with the metaphor. The dark, moody lighting which continually shows only half of any person’s face is so obviously symbolic that it diminishes the effect of the attempted message. It happens so often in the film that it makes you think Eastwood didn’t quite know how to get the stage lights to work.

The theme, although at times fairly typical, has its unique moments, and culminates in a thoroughly surprising twist. The ultimate ending, however, has a rather deflated air, with a weak summary, and blandly ambiguous final shot. Overall, however, the film is enjoyable to watch, with attractions for feminists and boxing fans—or feminist boxing fans—alike. This is Clint Eastwood’s baby, and that’s definitely worth something, if not the full million.

Sideways

2005-03-20T22:34:00.000-05:00

Sideways
Directed by Alexander Payne
2004, rated R
5 stars

The stagnation that occurs during middle-life is not a typical theme for films. Not surprising, considering how difficult it would be to make such a film appealing or interesting. Everyday life tends to be uninteresting; the characters have lost the alluring beauty of youth, and everything has become so routine that any action is just glanced at and promptly forgotten. Yet Alexander Payne has managed to create a film whose plot centers around this theme—not only that, but he has made a good film whose plot centers around this theme.

Paul Giamatti plays Miles Raymond, the perfect prototype of the middle-aged loser who looks back on his life and can see nothing but, well, nothing. As a marriage present to his best friend Jack (Thomas Haden Church), Miles takes him on a tasting tour of California wine country a few days before the big event as a last fling at youth—and for Jack a last gasp of freedom. Jack stands as Miles’s personality opposite. Where Miles is depressed, self-conscious, shy, and whiney, Jack is overjoyed, or at least happily satisfied, with everything, self-confident to the point of complete egoism, and obnoxiously outgoing. Where as Miles had been looking forward to a nice time with his best friend, Jack saw the trip as his best opportunity for freedom—most particularly free sex—before getting tied down. This sexual fixation of Jack’s annoys Miles considerably, as Miles has still not recovered from his own failed marriage and subsequent divorce. On their excursion through numerous vineyards and bottles of wine, the pair meet up with Stephanie (Sandra Oh), a wild, wine-loving, biker chick who hits it off with Jack immediately, and Maya (Virginia Madsen), a more reserved and refined personality who strikes up a more tentative and moderate relationship with Miles.

Perhaps the most interesting, and certainly the most excellently executed, part of Sideways is the multiple layers of meaning present in almost every discussion. As each different type and vintage of wine is tasted and analyzed by each character, so is each personality revealed and developed. The intricacies of taste and smell, and even the process of raising the grapes and making the wines, all stand as extended metaphors for each character. Each actor carries these conversations with such natural ease, its easy to believe that such exchanges are unscripted. Every actor fits into his or her role perfectly. Paul Giamatti portrays the finicky temperament of Miles perfectly, with a moody slouch and refined whine that brings his character to the forefront. Thomas Haden Church gives an excellent performance as Jack, with every cocky facial expression and sexual innuendo piled up so as to form a perfect caricature. Madsen and Oh also do well with their roles, and Madsen has an excellent monologue brilliantly demonstrating the onion-like layers of meaning in every sentence.

On the whole, Sideways is simply filmed, with a few interesting montage sequences thrown in to add color and keep the story moving. However, the grainy, washed colors so characteristic of independent films gives it character, and a more personal feel. The audience feels as if they are getting a personal view into the lives of real people, but on a wholly more believable level than any reality show. These characters are far from perfect, but in all it is their faults that make them endearing to us as viewers. These personality flaws and tics are also what make them hilarious to watch, and it’s easy to laugh at their sometimes goofy and childlike behavior.

Sideways gives an excellent look into the psychological occurrences of middle-age. The main characters are not handsome or even fairly good looking; they have little to offer for redeeming qualities, and yet they act at times just like teenage boys barely past the hormone imbalances of puberty. The film is superb in its acting, layers of meaning, and overall feel, but some audiences may find it slow and slightly tedious to watch. However, it provides wonderful insight into each character’s personality—and you might learn some interesting things about the delicacies of wine along the way.

Constantine

2005-03-15T16:32:00.000-05:00

Constantine
Directed by Francis Lawrence
2005, rated R
2 stars

A recent trend in filmmaking seems to be remaking popular comics into feature length films. Such was the case with Spiderman, Batman, The Hulk, X-Men, Hellboy, The Punisher, Daredevil, and even Elektra. These films typically take after the comics from which they originate, in that they appeal to a particular fan base which finds them absolutely amazing. Based on the Hellblazer comic, Constantine, directed by Francis Lawrence, is the newest addition to this growing genre of comic book tales.

Keanu Reeves stars as the demon-exorcizing John Constantine. Constantine is one of only a few “gifted” people who can see demons, and thus is able to send them back to the inferno from which they came. Due to his sinful past, he cannot be allowed into heaven, although is trying as hard as he can to make himself worthy enough for God’s acceptance. Just as Constantine is trying to get to the pearly gates, Satan (Peter Stormare) is trying equally hard to drag him down into the flames as punishment for all the demons he’s banished from earth back to Hell. In his battle for divine recognition and against demonic forces, Constantine unwillingly finds himself fighting alongside detective Angela Dodson (Rachel Weisz), who believes that her twin sister Isabel was killed by unearthly forces. The two push onward, trying to uncover the mystery surrounding the forces at work, while the angel Gabriel (Tilda Swinton) and evil-minded Balthazar (Gavin Rossdale)—both “half-breeds” allowed on the earthly dimension—try to tip the scales.

Lawrence has done a nice job making Constantine flow just like a comic book. The special effects and CGI make any scene easy to visualize in comic format. Creepy demons and possessed people leap from the numerous shadows, and the weird personages of the paranormal underworld are particularly interesting. Constantine’s methods of defending himself from these monsters, as well as his means of communication with them, are also interesting to watch. The dark, shadowy lighting used, along with the dark scenery and clothing, set the mood wonderfully for each scene. Unfortunately, as with comic books, the plot is fairly base and predictable, and the dialogue choppy and uneven.

Keanu Reeves shows a particular dedication to making his character seem as comic book-like as possible, in the sense that his acting is completely flat and can’t quite seem to reach that third dimension that so many other actors attain with ease. His performance is utterly emotionless, although this is nothing new for Reeves, since this has been his acting style for years. While his character is conceivably supposed to be detached from his surrounding world, Reeves makes the audience begin to wonder if Constantine is perhaps himself a member of the undead. Weisz makes a cute side-kick for him, but her character lacks substance and remains dim and underdeveloped.

Fans of the comic and of the comic book genre may find this film entertaining. Action buffs may also find it enjoyable for the special effects and demon vs. man fight sequences. Just appreciate it for these reasons, and recognize it for what it really is. Constantine lacks plot and decent acting, and even fails utterly with a romantic subplot. But those demons sure are neat…

77th Annual Academy Awards

2005-02-28T21:28:00.000-05:00

The 77th Annual Academy Awards
Hosted by Chris Rock
2005
2 stars

Every year since the first Oscar presentation in 1929, the Academy Awards has celebrated and rewarded the best of the best in film. It is the most prestigious and celebrated awards ceremony in America, and every year is attended by the most recognizable super-stars from all over the world. Millions of people tune in to watch the ceremonies, and listen to the speeches of those lucky enough to win one of the 13 ½ inch, 8 ½ lb statuettes nicknamed Oscar. No one really knows why the award is called Oscar, though rumor has it that Academy librarian Margaret Harrick thought it looked like her uncle, and bestowed his name upon it. Hosts for the ceremonies are chosen for their comic abilities—after all, the ceremony usually lasts about 4 hours, so you need someone who can keep the audience entertained. This year the Oscars were hosted by the notoriously raucous comedian Chris Rock, who promised to be more hilariously insulting and radical than any other host before him.

Unfortunately, this was not the case. Rock started out strong, laying the laughs on thick by making fun of nearly every famous face in his audience. After the first 10 minutes, however, he began to lose his momentum, and started to flounder. In between the awards his wise-cracks mainly revolved around the same theme as his usual comedic routine—that fact that he’s black, and how that is not the same as being white. The planned gags, such as his interlude with Adam Sandler when Catherine Zeta-Jones “forgot” to come on stage, failed miserably, and instead came off as what they were—obviously planned gags that were supposed to keep the audience's interest before the next award. Rock did make one amusing—and good—point about the Oscars by showing footage of himself interviewing random people on the street, asking whether they had seen the top contenders for the year. None had, but all had managed to see White Chicks, and thought it was pretty good, too.

Chris Rock received no help from his surroundings either. The set design appeared to have been borrowed from the early 80’s, with a few garish additions. An enormous screen on the floor flashed hideously distracting close-ups of any famous actor who happened to walk across it, and a gigantic spiral staircase of massive Oscars revolved upwards in the middle of the stage. Perhaps this unsightly mess was the reason why half of the awards were announced and given from the aisles—or perhaps it was just laziness on the part of the actors who announced them. Actually, it was an attempt to save time that inspired the aisle announcements, but either way, giving away the Oscars from the aisles of the Kodak Theater was not a charming effect. Overall, it cheapened the moment, and made those awards seem paltry and unimportant. The ceremony seemed to sneer condescendingly at the “minor” awards, such as those for visual effects or sound editing, either emphasizing the category’s insignificance by holding the announcement in the aisle, or making the nominees line up on stage like prisoners at a public execution.

For the audience, the real execution, however, came with the musical performances. Apparently the Academy is low on funding—it seems that they could only afford one major “musician” this year. Beyoncé, a former third of the now-defunct Destiny’s Child, sang three of the five songs nominated for Best Original Song, with a complete costume and makeup change for each one. The first song, Vois Sur Ton Chemin from the French film Les Choristes, should have been sung by a boy soprano, and there was no excuse for not having it so, as she had an entire boy’s choir in the background for backup. Beyoncé’s pop-star tones just don’t fit with the operatic style of the song, and as the next song (Learn To Be Lonely from The Phantom of the Opera) had a similar style, it was also a flop. This mistake, again, could have been avoided by having the original singer perform the song. A similar mistake was made when Antonio Banderas was asked to perform Al Otro Lado Del Río from The Motorcycle Diaries. Banderas just lacked the melodious tones needed to carry the tune, and not even having Carlos Santana accompany him on guitar could save the performance. In fact, when Al Otro Lado Del Río won the award, Jorge Drexler accepted the award by singing the song himself to make up for Banderas’s botched efforts.

Drexler’s acceptance speech was by far the best, just the song and two words—“Thank you.” Hilary Swank, who won the award for Best Actress for her performance in Million Dollar Baby, also wins the award this year for longest acceptance speech. Swank thanked everyone she ever knew—individually, by name—and not even two attempts to cut her off with the ending music could stop her. Jamie Foxx, who won Best Actor for his role in Ray, wins for most moving speech, as his tearful and heartfelt thanks to the real Ray Charles moved everyone in the audience.

There were no real surprises in the awards given this year, as Million Dollar Baby (4 awards) and Aviator (5 awards) snagged most of the Oscars. Perhaps the one surprise was that Martin Scorsese in his fourth nomination for Best Director still didn’t receive the award. Overall, while the ceremony is always fun to watch, this just wasn’t one of the best. Better luck next year.

List of Awards

Best Picture: Million Dollar Baby
Director: Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby
Actor: Jamie Foxx, Ray
Actress: Hilary Swank, Million Dollar Baby
Supporting actress: Cate Blanchett, The Aviator
Supporting actor: Morgan Freeman, Million Dollar Baby
Adapted screenplay: Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, Sideways
Original screenplay: Charlie Kaufman, Michel Gondry and Pierre Bismuth, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Art direction: The Aviator
Cinematography: The Aviator
Costume design: The Aviator
Visual effects: Spider-Man 2
Film Editing: The Aviator
Sound mixing: Ray
Sound editing: The Incredibles
Original score: Finding Neverland
Original song: Al Otro Lado Del Rio from The Motorcycle Diaries
Makeup: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
Foreign film: The Sea Inside (Spain)
Animated feature: The Incredibles
Documentary feature: Born Into Brothels
Documentary short: Mighty Times: The Children's March
Live-action short film: Wasp
Animated short film: Ryan

Wimbledon

2005-02-19T14:08:00.000-05:00

Wimbledon
Directed by Richard Loncraine
2004, rated PG-13
3 stars

Winter is the perfect time for a sunshiny, feel-good movie. The light-hearted humor will clear the dreary clouds away, and leave you feeling better about life in general. What better place to look for such a movie than the genre of Romance? Romance movies, otherwise known as chick-flicks, are a sure-fire way boost your mood and help you rise above the winter woes. These films are often characterized by their weak plot and mediocre acting, but adorably cute characters that you just can’t help falling in love with. They mainly appeal to women, and thus also require a lovable male protagonist. Such is the case with Richard Loncraine’s tennis-love flick Wimbledon, starring the wonderful epitome of a good English bloke, Paul Bettany (A Knight’s Tale, A Beautiful Mind).

Peter Colt (Paul Bettany) is a swiftly-falling, British has-been in the world of tennis. Once ranked 11th in the world, as he constantly likes to remind people, he has now fallen from grace, and has decided to end his career with one last tournament at the tennis championship of Wimbledon. His direct opposite is the spunky, American rising-star Lizzie Bradbury (Kirsten Dunst), known for her ruthlessness on, and off, the court. Their two separate worlds collide in a chance meeting, throwing these two extremes together. What starts as a little “unwinding” before a match quickly shoots into a full-fledged romance, staunchly unapproved by Lizzie’s father. As the tournament continues, however, and tensions rise, the ironic relationship develops new obstacles that must be overcome in order for the pair to survive as a couple.

The plot, of course, is not at all ponderous, nor does it try to be. Wimbledon isn’t trying to make its audience think, it’s trying to make its audience love, or at least like. As such, everything is kept nice and simple, with the occasional eye candy for the viewers. There is no complicated, mind-boggling, cinematographic feats performed here, but there are some nice touches that make the film enjoyable and entertaining. Some close-ups and volleying between tennis matches keeps the audience’s attention, and the occasional freeze-frame with voice-over gives insight to the characters’ thoughts and makes them all the more loveable.

Bettany is excellent as humble, romantic Colt, turning on the charm full-blast. His adorable looks of adoration for Lizzie, together with his pain-filled expressions of exhaustion make him wonderful to watch, and his character easy to love. Dunst, on the other hand, seems determined to make her character the true opposite of Bettany’s. Her vapid stare and plastic expressions make her look more like a Barbie doll prancing across the screen in her little tennis skirt than anything else. Even when she’s angry, you can’t quite believe it, and her violent little mood swings and temper tantrums make her seem like a petulant child, and a little too young for the more mature moods of Bettany. Bettany’s brilliance, however, makes up for Dunst’s dullness, and his performance is really what carries the film.

Obviously not a film for deep thinkers, Wimbledon is still an enjoyable flick for a relaxing winter evening. This film is great for romance lovers, or anyone else who needs a little break from heavy plotlines. Love & Basketball this is not—but tennis is almost as good.

Primer

2005-02-13T17:10:00.000-05:00

Primer
Directed by Shane Curruth
2004, rated PG-13
4 stars

The chronological sequence of a film is very important, both in respect to style and comprehension of the plot. Several films have been made that warp or completely discard the audience’s sense of time and order of events. Memento, in which the entire plot is played backward, and Magnolia, where events and characters are continually switching and overlapping, are two excellent examples of such films. When the chronology of films is played with like this, it is often left up to the audience to piece the puzzle together, pulling in all the loose strands to form the coherent, comprehensible whole. Primer, a small independent film which won the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival, written and directed by Shane Curruth, is the newest, brilliant addition to these mystifying puzzle-films.

Two workaholic engineers, Abe (David Sullivan) and Aaron (Shane Carruth), spend their free time tinkering with patent-potential inventions in their garage, in the hopes of making a little extra money on the side. Their newest invention, however, proves to be more than it first appeared. Constructed from a myriad of random objects—stolen car mufflers, old refrigerator parts—this new machine appears to be able to diminish the weight of any object placed inside it. Repeated trouble with stability leads to continual frustration, until Abe notices something strange about the objects they place in the box. A common fungus, one that normally takes several years to accumulate, grows profusely on any object placed in their machine. Suddenly, the duo realizes what could be happening. Creating a larger box, large enough to fit a human inside, they test their theory, only to discover that they have created a machine capable of time travel.

This part may sound a little hokey at first, but this is not your typical, science-fiction time travel. This is no Back to the Future, Timeline, futuristic ideal. This is simple physics—well, simple if you happen to be an engineer—and is utterly mind-numbing in its genius. This time travel is only for small jumps, such as going back to the beginning of the day, or back a couple hours. The implication is that every hour spent in the box is an hour back in time. Abe and Aaron soon learn to use this to their advantage, playing the stock market easily with the pre-obtained knowledge of which stocks will yield the greatest returns at the end of the day. The two also brush aside and simply ignore the moral and physical paradoxes generated by such a creation. Eventually, however, the possibilities become too considerable for human nature to handle, and Abe and Aaron, along with the audience, are quickly sucked into a vicious downward spiral of confusion.

Since the two main characters of the film are engineers, it follows that much of the explanations are in mathematic and scientific jargon—and essentially gibberish to any layman. However, the moral implications still stand strong, and even if the specific words and phrases don’t make much sense, it’s still fairly easy to get the gist of what’s going on. Hearing the complicated explanations just makes you listen and think harder—a good sign for any film. The confusing part comes with the shifting of time, and therefore the shifting of events. Trying to wrap your mind around these impossible concepts, while listening to confusing dialogue, and attempting to organize events in sequence, easily creates chaos—the pleasing chaos of mystery and intrigue.

For a film created on only $7,000, Primer is remarkable. The grainy, washed colors typical of low-budget, independent films just makes the story seem all the more real. It’s hard to cram so many ethical paradoxes and engineering conundrums into one coherent plot, but Primer manages to fit it all in, and with enough twists and turns to thoroughly intrigue and captivate an audience. Not only that, but it does so in just 78 minutes. However, this is more than sufficient, as your brain is working as hard as it can for every one of those minutes just to try to keep up. So don’t worry if you’re utterly and completely confused at the end of this film—this is normal, you are supposed to feel this way, this is a good thing. The only cure is to see it again—and maybe by the 7th or 8th time it will actually make sense.

Shaun of the Dead

2005-02-07T20:50:00.000-05:00

Shaun of the Dead
Directed by Edgar Wright
2004, rated R
3 stars

Of all the many horror film subjects, zombies are arguably the most popular. These resurrected, flesh-eating, stiff-limbed, groaning fiends who stalk the earth in search of living bodies to devour are constantly captivating viewing audiences, and haunting the dreams of the more impressionable. Zombie films range from the deadly serious and scary, such as Dawn of the Dead, to classics such as Night of the Living Dead, to series films like Zombie 1, 2, 3, and 4. Some series regarding the walking dead begin seriously, but quickly degenerate into ridiculous parody. Such was the case with the Evil Dead trilogy, a cult classic loved for its outlandish last installation. These parodies are the inspiration for other parodies, the latest of these hailing from the UK. Shaun of the Dead, directed by Edgar Wright, and obviously playing off the similarly-titled Dawn of the Dead, is a completely hilarious zombie parody, replete with dry British humor and flesh-eating fests.

Shaun (Simon Pegg) is an embodiment of the term “loser.” With a dead-end job, pathetic social life, and no ambition, the only thing that keeps him going is his long-term girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield). Slightly more pathetic than Shaun is his roommate Ed (Nick Frost), who spends all day playing video games and trailing after Shaun—usually to the local pub. As Shaun flounders through his daily routine of monotony, he begins to notice strange things. Firstly, Liz breaks up with him, having decided that she’s wasted enough time being attached to such a loser. Then, Shaun notices that the people around him are acting rather strangely, but as he is too lost in his own world of self pity over Liz, he doesn’t waste too much time on this. The next morning, however, Shaun and Ed awaken to find that the people around them have turned into ravenous, cannibalistic automatons, who can only be stopped by a whack to the head. Seeing this as the perfect opportunity to get his girlfriend back, Shaun takes control, and formulates a plan for survival. Armed with a cricket bat and a shovel, Shaun and Ed head bravely into the mass of moaning dead.

Pegg, Frost, and Ashfield make the best of their roles. Armed with the knowledge that their characters and acting will win them no awards, they still forge onward, forming each character into an obvious hyperbole of reality. Each character is amusing in itself, and perhaps the most unexpected is that of Shaun’s “evil” stepfather Philip, played by the excellent Bill Nighy (Love Actually, I Capture the Castle, Underworld), so sardonically derisive, it’s hard to tell if he is a zombie or not.

What really makes this film hilarious, however, is its soundtrack. Each song is humorously placed, with lyrics fitted to each scene. This, along with the utter absurdity of the film itself, makes for a completely amusing flick.

Obviously not the most sophisticated of films, Shaun of the Dead gets its charm from the dry—but completely unsubtle—humor which is spattered throughout the film. Everything from the soundtrack to the random, yet amusing, one-liners form the timbre of each scene. The film obviously does not take itself too seriously, and doesn’t intend for the audience to either. This is not the greatest of films by a long shot, and unless you happen to be the type of person who enjoys this kind of mindless entertainment, you might want to skip this one. On the other hand, if you’re worried about being attacked by zombies, this movie could offer some helpful hints.

House of Flying Daggers

2005-01-30T18:21:00.000-05:00

House of Flying Daggers
Directed by Yimou Zhang
2004, rated PG-13
5 stars
Mandarin Chinese with English Subtitles

China is a country of beauty—beautiful landscapes, beautiful culture, and beautiful people. With this in mind, Chinese films that have done well in the US focus on these aspects to create films that are more artistic than plot driven. Such was the case with Ang Lee’s Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, where people flew majestically through the air, and alighted atop the delicate branches of a vibrant green bamboo forest. Such entrancing colors were also used in Yimou Zhang’s Hero, where each layer of meaning took on a different hue. In House of Flying Daggers, Yimou Zhang has created another stunning visual masterpiece to captivate any audience.

As with both Crouching Tiger, and Hero, House of Flying Daggers takes place in China’s distant past, where swords, arrows, and martial arts are still the main tools of combat, and where political tensions smolder. Jin (Takeshi Kaneshiro) and Leo (Andy Lau) are both captains of the police, serving under the current ruler of China. Their main task is to destroy the government’s most formidable foe, a band of dangerous assassins tired of the blatant government corruption who call themselves the Flying Daggers. In their scheme to uncover the group’s new leader, the young, handsome, ladies’ man Jin rescues and attempts to seduce the beautiful, blind Mei (Ziyi Zhang), a suspected member of the group. Jin, however, not only succeeds in his amorous attempts, but also falls in love himself, and finds himself in conflict with another who has fallen in love with the mysterious Mei.

Though this may seem like the typical love triangle, and in some ways it is, it provides new twists to the archetypal tale. Yimou Zhang tries hard to make the story center solely around the characters, and the powerful emotions each is struggling with. As such, the film makes no judgments on which side is bad and which is good. The film remains completely neutral, refraining from creating bias either politically, or in respect to Mei’s two lovers, who find themselves in fierce competition over the affections of Mei. This ambiguous nature allows the audience to focus completely on the beautiful simplicity of the story line, while inwardly marveling at the difficult intricacy of human emotions. Even in the end, after all the utterly surprising twists and turns, it is still hard to take sides.

The splendor of the scenery, of course, mirrors the beauty of the story. Such is Yimou Zhang’s extraordinary talent and marvelously artistic eye, that each scene is more poetically stunning than the last. There is not a single unattractive shot in the entire film. Though not as solidly colored as Hero, House of Flying Daggers still erupts with moments of breathtaking color. The spectacular scenery is complimented directly by the colorful nature of the costumes, elaborate creations of embroidered silk, which can serve far more deadly purposes than simple elegance (in one scene, Mei uses her incredibly extended sleeves as graceful weapons).

And of course, where would such a film be without the fascinatingly complex choreography of the fight sequences? Unlike Crouching Tiger, or Hero, no one supernaturally flies in this film. Although the mysterious “flying technique” is mentioned, it is never obviously used. In fact, the only objects that fly are the daggers of the title. Without this aerial scope of combat, the fight sequences are much tighter, more realistic, and in some ways more improvisational. Since everything has already been done in the air, Zhang has expanded on what may be accomplished from the ground.

House of Flying Daggers is one of the most astoundingly artistic films of the year. The glorious magnificence displayed in every scene alone is reason enough to see this film. Added to this is the excellent plot and story line, and actors with beautiful faces and incredible fighting skills. Don’t be scared off by the subtitles either—the brilliance of the story makes for easy reading. The closest you could get to this exquisiteness is actually going to China—but Flying Daggers is the next best thing, and a little less expensive.

A Clockwork Orange

2005-01-23T13:31:00.000-05:00

A Clockwork Orange
Directed by Stanley Kubrick
1971, rated R
4 stars

Stanley Kubrick has had an impressive filmmaking career. From 2001: A Space Odyssey, to Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick has created films that illustrate defining moments in society. Kubrick has made all kinds of films—crazily amusing political commentaries such as Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket, historical thrillers such as Sparticus, horror flicks, with The Shining, and even science fiction, as he formed the concept for A.I. Artificial Intelligence, which Steven Spielberg then took over. Kubrick’s films always stand out, sometimes for creative reasons, sometimes for pure shock value. His 1971 adaptation of the Anthony Burgess novel A Clockwork Orange is both extremely creative and extraordinarily shocking.

The story centers around the experiences of teenage hoodlum Alexander de Large (played by a very young, and extremely excellent Malcolm McDowell) who also serves as narrator. Alex and his gang of “droogies” have a nightly ritual of mischief and mayhem, which often includes robbery, rape, and the beating of unsuspecting citizens. Kubrick emphasizes the separation between Alex’s day and nightlife by placing the characters on strange sets in strange locations. The bar that Alex and his gang frequent, for example, looks as if it were taken out of the mind of Salvador Dali. He and his gang all dress in white, and carry walking canes, which they often use for violent purposes. Alex enjoys these nightly pursuits, and the power he has as the leader of his gang, immensely. As a whole, the character of Alex is portrayed as one without any sense of morality. In fact, he seems to be consciously rejecting the moral regulations established by society, openly mocking its rules and breaking down the proverbial walls that surrounds him.

On the surface, his actions may seem disgusting and repulsive, as the sex and violence is rather graphic, and this is exactly the reaction the audience is supposed to have. Although graphic sex and violence is often displayed in films, that represented here is a different type, and is horrible to watch not because it is explicit, but because of its nature. Some may be too appalled by this vulgarity to be able to see past it, and this too is another reaction that Alex’s character is meant to invoke. Kubrick also goes to great lengths to accentuate the absolute offensiveness of these actions. From costumes to sets to camera angles, nearly everything in Alex’s secret night life is made to be surreal, emphasizing the metaphor of the story. Everything is a constant battle between youth, represented by Alex, and the adult society which he must eventually become a part of. Even the language he uses is a direct defiance of his surrounding society. At times almost Shakespearian, his slang becomes almost like a completely separate language, where everyone is addressed as “oh, my brother” and even simple phrases or words become twisted and distorted—words such as “apologies,” which when spoken by Alex turns into “appy polly logies.”

While Alex’s disdain for civilized society is apparent in the offensiveness of his exploits, his character is made more complex with his love of beautiful music, namely Beethoven, which he listens to ceaselessly. This love of music gives another side to his character, by granting him the ability to appreciate beauty in some form. Alex’s endless battle against society, representative of youth’s battle against their elders, is heightened and extended when he is finally caught and placed in prison. When the reforms which prison attempts to instill in him fail to change his behavior, he is used as a test subject for a new program which “cures” the impulse for violence and sex by creating an overriding reaction of disgust. However, during this treatment, while the doctors are ridding Alex of his ability to “do evil,” they also accidentally rid him of his ability to appreciate beauty, in that they also apply this reaction of disgust to when he hears Beethoven. Alex as a person has now been destroyed by a society bent on “fixing” him, trying to force him to conform. He is left a helpless puppet, fully open and vulnerable to the inevitable abuse of his character.

As the film progresses the roles of reliance are constantly switched. At times, society seems to revolve around Alex and his world view, while at others the table is turned, and it is Alex who is now helpless and completely reliant on society and its rules. Kubrick’s artistic abilities have given the story a whole new dimension and meaning, and the impact and message have not diminished in the 33 years since the film’s production. And while it may be difficult to watch at times due to the graphic nature of the sex and violence, the overriding metaphor is timeless. So if you’re looking for a film that’s just completely different, and that will blow your mind, A Clockwork Orange would be an excellent choice…oh my brothers.

The Bourne Supremacy

2005-01-23T13:29:00.000-05:00

The Bourne Supremacy
Directed by Paul Greengrass
2004, rated PG-13
3 stars

The days are hot, the nights are short, and summer is almost over. This is a time for rest, leisure, relaxation, wild car chases, and massive explosions. The last two apply of course to summer movie flicks, the fabulous entertainment we all enjoy, because we enjoy not having to think too much once in a while. Summer is absolutely filled with action films that mainly consist of beautiful women, hunky men, fast cars, little or no plot, and explosions galore; without these movies, it just wouldn’t be summer. This season is no exception, and neither is the recent addition to this genre, The Bourne Supremacy, based on the book by Robert Ludlum.

Matt Damon returns as the exceptionally talented, amnesiac CIA hit man Jason Bourne. Bourne cannot remember anything from his former career at the CIA, except for what he remembered in the last movie, The Bourne Identity—which isn’t much. Hiding away in India with his girlfriend, he suddenly gets thrown back into the fray when framed for a murder 3,000 miles away in Berlin, Germany. Bourne jumps into action, whipping out his mad assassin skills to battle and evade those who would dare attempt to eliminate him. When not in full action, Damon makes for a brilliantly deadpan, emotionless Bourne—perfect for this part considering the protagonist’s past and unusual training. What Damon lacks in this movie is a female counterpart. Unfortunately, his girlfriend and costar of the previous film only appears for the first fifteen minutes of this one. Throughout the rest of the film, Damon struggles from scene to scene, location to location, still managing admirably, and able to give a fine show nonetheless. While Joan Allen gives a satisfactory performance as Pamela Landy, the head of the CIA operation that’s trying to track Bourne down, she’s too old and not an interesting enough character to match Bourne. Julia Stiles also gives a good performance as Nicky, the young girl who passed the orders to the assassin agents. She has a slightly larger role than before, but it’s still too miniscule to balance Damon’s overwhelming lead. Perhaps this lack of a love interest is what makes this film slightly less satisfying than its predecessor.

What the movie lacks in love, however, it makes up for in action—awesome stunts, colorful explosions, and absolutely amazing car chases, all helped by excellent cinematography and perfectly chosen music. Most of the movie is filmed with a handheld camera, with quick, shaky movements that echo the entire nature of the film. This technique helps to add frantic action to some scenes, while providing a more personal, intimate feel to others. During the fast-paced, fantastic car chases, the cinematography reflects the frenzied action, with a rapid switching between close-ups of the people, cars, or parts of cars, to shots that encompass the whole of the action—whether that be careening off the side of an underground tunnel, or plunging off the side of a bridge. The well-chosen music also adds to the timbre of each scene, and keeps the film’s tempo and flow. While the score varies according to scene, the music is all very rhythmic, with heavy drum beats, and steady melodies. This helps the movie by pacing it in some places, and adding to the rush of the action in others.

While perhaps not quite as outstanding overall as the first film, The Bourne Supremacy still has its merits. It is an entirely enjoyable summer film, and has some of the best car chases ever. Damon makes for a splendid Bourne, with or without a female sidekick. The ending even sets things up for another sequel, as Bourne is still without his entire memory: he now remembers his very last mission, and his very first mission, but there are still plenty in between for endless future summer entertainment. So, for enjoying the thrills of summer, this movie fits the genre. Time to whip out those mad assassin skills!

Elephant

2005-01-23T13:28:00.000-05:00

Elephant
Directed by Gus Van Sant
2003, rated R
4 stars

Summer is often a time for Hollywood to suck in the big bucks by pumping out the typical formulaic movies geared toward a teenage audience with nothing better to do. Explosion filled action flicks devoid of plot, fluffy, romantic chick flicks, and of course, the typical high school drama, so stereotypical and standard, you already know the whole movie, even before seeing the previews. So, if you’re sick of this mindless catering to the high school age group, tired of giving your money away to Hollywood junk out of pure boredom, but you don’t want to have to resort to watching some overly sophisticated Jane Austin adaptation, maybe it’s time for something a little different. Elephant, written and directed by Gus Van Sant, is about as far away from the basic Hollywood as one could hope to get. Elephant, a small, independent film, won both the Palme D’or and the award for best director at the 2003 Cannes film festival. While definitely geared toward teens, this film completely does away with conventional plots. Although some may find this film a little slow and a bit confusing, it’s perfect if you need an escape from the typical mindless entertainment of summer flicks.

Elephant’s title refers to the analogy of there being a problem so large it is like an elephant, but everyone continues to ignore its existence. In this case, the problem results in a Columbine-like school shooting. Many may be turned off upon hearing this plotline; I was. I figured that a movie that readdressed the Columbine issue was unnecessary, and would be presumptuous and uninteresting. How wrong I was. Elephant treats the issue of school shootings as if it has never happened before, and puts it into context in an everyday setting. The way this film is done, the audience really feels like they are at this high school, observing the everyday occurrences of high school life. The movie makes more of a statement about the workings of teenage society than about school shootings, as each character lives in their own little island world, occasionally brushing against one another.

The film has very little dialogue, and as a result, effectively mirrors real-life interactions. Conversation between characters is often simply brief exchanges, and the use of teenage jargon is so complete, the interactions don’t seem scripted at all. The movie’s characters cover a wide range of personalities, from your typical jock to your quiet nerdy girl, the relaxed photo guy to the group of Barbie-like girls. Although they may sound stereotypical, the film presents these characters in such a way that they are easy to identify with; we all know people like this. These characters are not the usual one-dimensional stereotypes, and each are concerned only with their immediate problems. So concerned, in fact, that they don’t see the larger problem growing around them.

These individual worlds are cleanly demonstrated through the excellent cinematography. Most of the time, the camera is following one character or another through the halls of the school, just a step or two behind them, observing their interactions and habits. The scenes jump from one character’s point of view to another, and several scenes are repeated from these different view points. These repeated scenes give an excellent exhibition of the character’s focus, as the viewer notices different things each time from the various views. As this constant switching tends to break with a clear time line, the film first follows one distinct character, John Robinson, through his day, and then uses him as a reference point for all the other characters. While the camera changes from close and intimate to distant and aloof according to the timbre of the scene, the viewer always feels as if they are on the outside, simple observers and bystanders, which allows for an objective feeling to the movie. Unlike most movies, the audience is allowed to make up their own minds about each character, and even the killers are given several dimensions. Each character is a distinct person, not a simple cardboard cutout like so many movie personas. And while some scenes do drag a bit, with long, quiet scenes with not much action, this is another technique the film uses to give the feeling of real life, because in real life, there are quiet, secluded scenes. Even background music is rare, and when it does occur it is quiet and mellow, so as not to detract from the actual film, although some may become annoyed at the repetition of Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata” and “Fur Elise.”

Yet, if you happen to be a plot driven, action addict, this is not your film. Elephant does take patience at times, and some may have a hard time following the different character and time changes. Don’t expect a solid resolution either—there is none. The film offers no solutions, and ends even before the shootings are over. It’s completely up to the audience to decide. But for some, this may be a welcome reprieve from the typical summer flick, which usually discourages thought of any kind. So if you happen to be in a quiet, thoughtful mood, Elephant would be a great movie to consider. Then you can go back to the mindless entertainment of Gigli...

Good bye Lenin!

2005-01-23T13:26:00.000-05:00

Good Bye Lenin!
Directed by: Wolfgang Becker
2003, Rated R
In German, English subtitles
4 stars

Here in America we movie goers are accustomed to the glitz, glitter, and grandeur of Hollywood’s sleek, shiny films. Once in a while it is good to step outside of the safety zone of major American film making, and take a look at what the rest of the world is doing. While for some this may mean watching the 30 second clips that the Academy Awards show for best foreign film, I recommend a better alternative. Good Bye Lenin! a German film, directed by Wolfgang Becker offers a refreshing break from the plastic glamour of the typical Hollywood film.

Enter the world of communist East Germany. Alex Kerner (Daniel Brühl) is faced with a difficult situation. His mother (Kathrin Sass), a devoted socialist and dedicated member of the communist party, collapsed into a coma right before the fall of the Berlin Wall. When she awakens eight months later, Alex is told that any shock to her system could prove fatal; Alex realizes that his mother wouldn’t be able to handle the news of the collapse of her beloved system. In order to protect his mother, Alex creates a fantasy world around her to keep her believing that nothing has changed.

Perhaps the best aspect of this film is its subtlety. Instead of directly explaining every small detail, the audience is instead often left to infer meaning from the actions of the characters. Delayed camera shots and facial expressions are allowed to fill the natural gaps in dialogue, and can actually imply meaning in a more satisfactory way than an unnatural, blunt explanation would. As a result, the dialogue and interactions are more natural and fluid—not forced. The restrained, soft music aids this tone, and also helps keep the film flowing. Along with the natural subtlety also comes a natural comedy. The comic lines are stated with deadpan brilliance, making them all the more amusing for their restraint. This, of course, can only be accomplished by excellent acting. Brühl and Sass fit perfectly into their respective characters, and are aided by the other talented actors around them. Chulpan Khamatova as Alex’s wonderfully charming, activist girlfriend, and Maria Simon as his sulky older sister Ariane complete the film.

Cinematographically, this film is no masterpiece. It has moments of brilliance, but is inconsistent in maintaining its artistic appeal. The opening scene is spectacular, with old photos of the East German republic overlaying onto each other, piling up just like the lies of that system did. Color is also used extremely well, in this opening sequence, and throughout the film; red is used noticeably as the color of passion, and also as the representative color of the communist party. While the cinematography may not be incredible, however, what Wolfgang Becker manages to do best is demonstrate the good and evil of both societies, east and west. While we laugh at the ridiculous lies told by the communist party, we also understand the attachment to the system felt by Alex and his mother. Their devotion to the system is comprehensible, if slightly fanatical. Becker does an excellent job of showing the emotions connected with the downfall of a system, and the complete change of a society. While Alex is overjoyed at certain of his new freedoms in a united Germany, there is also a strong sense of nostalgia for the old system, and his previous way of life. The devotion he shows to his mother mirrors her devotion to the system, and similarly, the lies he surrounds her with are the same as those of the system.

Overall, this film provides an excellent insight into the complicated politics and emotions of that country at that time, as well as offering a wonderful reprieve from the glitzy plastic of Hollywood filmmaking. So, auf wiedersehen.

Hero

2005-01-23T13:25:00.000-05:00

Hero
Directed by Yimou Zhang
2002, rated PG-13
4 stars
Chinese with English subtitles

Martial arts films have always been popular in American film culture. Actors like Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee built their careers on America’s love of Asian fighting. More recently, films like The Matrix and other American action flicks have used sequences and choreography based on martial arts fighting styles. The year 2000 saw a rebirth of martial arts films centered on and originating from Asia, with the immensely popular Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which incorporated fantasy and myth into its beautifully choreographed fights, giving its characters the ability to fly. In 2002, another such film was created, focusing again on the beauty of choreography and imagery. Hero, directed by Yimou Zhang, originally released in China in 2002, has only recently opened in American theaters.

Everything about this film is beautifully done. Everything is artful and striking, from the scenery and the costumes to the manner in which the story is told. The story takes place in ancient China, when the country was split into seven separate warring nations, and centers around a nameless warrior, played by Jet Li. The king of one of the seven nations (played by Daoming Chen) is determined to conquer the other six and form one unified country. This goal, however, has made him the target of many assassination attempts from individuals who wish to defend their countries from invasion. Nameless (Li) has been invited to this king’s palace as an honor for defeating the three most dangerous assassins to the king: Sky (Donnie Yen), Broken Sword (Tony Wai), and Flying Snow (Maggie Cheung). As Nameless begins to tell his story of how he defeated these three masters, the story begins to unfold in beautiful layers of color and meaning.

Color is the most important part of Hero and is used to define everything from emotions to levels of truth. The story of Nameless’ victory over the three assassins is told in three different ways, each with a different level of truth, and each heavy with distinctly diverse emotions. The first story is the most embellished and untrue, with amazingly choreographed, but wholly unbelievable fight scenes—it is in this first story that the characters do most of their flying. Nameless, when telling this story, also gives its characters passionate and violent emotions. He invents a love triangle between the three assassins, and makes them out to be wildly jealous and emotionally impulsive. Consequently, the characters are all dressed in a bright, stunning red, reflecting their passion, and also, being the brightest color used, reflecting the blatancy of the lie. They are placed in brightly colored settings as well, like forests with deep orange autumn leaves. The next story is told by the king, who does not believe Nameless’ lie. The king gives the assassins more tranquil and controlled personalities—although the story is still embellished some with flying and such, since it is only a guess on the part of the king. Thus, the characters are now in brilliant blue, and set under blue skies, and next to clear blue lakes. The final story revealed is the truth, with the characters in white, to reflect the purity and truth, and also their pure intentions. This white also serves as a contrast against the king and his armies—at the palace, literally millions of black-robed courtiers gather to advise and counsel the king, and similarly, his army is comprised of rows upon rows of fierce, black-armored, terracotta-like warriors.

The film is simply beautiful to watch. The fight sequences are fascinating, beautifully choreographed and artfully filmed, with creative camera shots coming from under water, on top of high buildings, or just framing the scene with a well placed budding branch. Some parts of the film do go a little over the top, with the previously mentioned flying, and candles that can sense a murderous intent. In some ways the film even seems a little like Chinese propaganda in the conclusion. However, the amazing martial art sequences and overall beauty of the film completely make up for these slight shortcomings. Unlike Neo in The Matrix, these guys really do know Kung Fu.

I, Robot

2005-01-23T13:14:00.000-05:00

I, Robot
Directed by Alex Proyas
2004, rated PG-13
4 stars

Several sci-fi, robot-type, futuristic movies have been made in recent years. Some of them have failed, such as Steven Spielberg’s and the late Stanly Kubrik’s surprisingly dull AI, and others have flourished, such as the immensely popular and much copied Matrix, which spawned two sequels. This summer sees the release of yet another of these action-filled future flicks. I, Robot, directed by Alex Proyas, however, is more than your average mindless summer flick. With an interesting plot, twists and turns, good acting, and excellent graphics and cinematography, this movie rises above the typical stereotype sci-fi.

As with most movies, the opening sequence sets the tone of the movie. The movie opens with the three laws of robotics, around which the whole of the film revolves. These three laws basically state that 1) no robot can harm a human, 2) a robot must obey an order by a human, as long as it doesn’t violate the first law and 3) a robot must act to save itself, as long as the action doesn’t violate the first or second laws. This forms a perfect circle, completely fool-proof in its safety. Although these laws are repeated frequently throughout the film—about every 5 minutes, just in case we forget—this sequence showing the three laws really sets the stage for the film. The rest of the movie is just as artfully composed as the commencement. While audiences have grown accustomed to computer-generated stunts and images, the effects in this movie are truly stunning. From the dramatic high-speed chases down to the minute details of subtle robotic facial expressions, it’s easy to forget that it’s all digital. Audiences will enjoy the dizzying effect of a thousand-robot army standing in perfect formation, or the spectacular sight of a multitude of evil robots swarming up the side of an immensely tall sky scraper. In this computer-generated masterpiece, there is never a dull or aesthetically unpleasant moment.

As Del Spooner, a homicide detective, Will Smith returns to his typical role of the bring-em-down, underappreciated, cocky, average-guy cop. But if Smith has already overplayed this role, it can be excused, because in this film it fits; Smith has this act down to perfection. This cowboy cop has a serious chip on his shoulder toward the overly helpful, utterly logical, and perfectly safe multitude of artificially intelligent robots that roam the streets acting as servants and good Samaritans to the human race. Why Smith has this icy attitude toward these robot friends is part of the intrigue and moral of the plot, and gets fully explained later in the film. As Smith follows the trail of clues left for him by the death of robotics designer Dr. Alfred Lanning (James Cromwell), he encounters the logical psychologist Susan Calvin (Bridget Moynahan). Moynahan’s acting can turn rather robotic at times; whether this is intentional or not is not revealed in this film. But where Moynahan lacks spark and charisma, Smith makes up for it in excess. Her lack of surprise or emotion is mirrored by his overabundance. These two extremes work, however, and the film still moves along nicely.

While the premise of the plot is intriguing, the way it was developed left something to be desired. Which is not to say that it was uninteresting. The concept of a flaw in apparently “perfect” logic could have been fascinating, had it been more thoroughly explored. What the movie seemed to explore more, however, was the threat of artificial intelligence, and the theme of evil robots taking over the human race has just been overdone in recent years. While the plot may not have been ultra deep or intellectually stimulating, the use of foreshadowing and the ultimate red herring was masterful. With thrilling images of robot dominance and not-so-subtle hints, the plot moves along at a pleasantly fast pace, and keeps the audience interested from one clue to the next, right up to the truly surprising twist at the end.

Overall, this is a thrilling summer movie that any audience could find enjoyable. The action-packed, sci-fi intrigue and the occasionally thought-provoking premise make for an extremely pleasurable summer film. Go get ‘em, Will.

Maria Full of Grace

2005-01-23T13:13:00.000-05:00

Maria Full of Grace
Directed by: Joshua Marston
2004, rated R
5 stars
Spanish with English subtitles

Most movies about the drug trade concern themselves solely with the drugs and the effects that they have on the people who use them. Films like Requiem for a Dream, Blow, and Traffic all focus on the issue of drug use, in connection with the drug trade. This year sees the release of a film that concentrates specifically on the drug trade, and more specifically, on the innocent people who get ensnared by it. Maria Full of Grace, directed by Joshua Marston, centers on the young Colombian women who are used as “mules” to import illegal drugs into the United States. The story is so focused on these women and their stories that not once in the entire film does any character actually use the drugs that are transported.

Maria Alvarez, perfectly played by Catalina Sandino Morena, is a seventeen-year-old Colombian girl working a dead-end job in an industrial rose plantation. Maria’s meager earnings help subsidize her family, consisting of her grandmother, mother, sister, and her sister’s illegitimate baby. Maria’s strong-willed personality, however, soon gets her into trouble with her boss, resulting in her quitting her job. Finding herself pregnant with the child of a boyfriend with whom she has no intention of remaining, and with the growing family obligations and pressure that surround her, she becomes tempted by the substantial amount of money that being a “mule” would promise. She accepts the extremely dangerous job of swallowing 60 or more 10-gram pellets full of heroin and transporting them to the United States. Her new boss, played superbly by Jaime Osorio Gomez, soothingly instructs her on the conduct required and rules to follow on the venture, appearing for all the world as a caring paternal figure—until he gently reminds her that should any one of the pellets go missing along the way, then he would be forced to pay a very ungentle visit to her family. Despite Maria’s protests, her best friend, Blanca, played by Yenny Paola, also takes a job as a mule. What sounded like such a simple plan in the mild words of their boss soon turns into a nightmare of an experience when the girls reach New York City. As one of the other girls disappears, the terrified Maria and Blanca decide to take the pellets and run. Not understanding a word of English, the only person to whom they can turn is to the sister of the missing girl. Carla, (Patricia Rae), who lives in New York City, but whom the two girls have never met, is skeptical at their insistence that they were close friends of her sister, but eventually allows them to stay in her tiny apartment. Through Carla they encounter friendly figures, such as the genuinely paternal Don Fernando (Orlando Tobon), who offers to find them reasonable work and an inexpensive apartment. Their experiences give them a glimpse of the possibilities of America. Each girl weighs the decisions carefully and in the end, each chooses a different path.

The compelling story is truly what makes Maria Full of Grace so captivating. The film doesn’t clutter itself with unrealistic action or dramatic suspense. It presents the girls’ story in as simple, believable, and utterly realistic manner as possible. Nothing is glamorized or seems at all false. Everything from the acting to the cinematography is as natural and real as if the audience were simply looking through a window, catching a glimpse of another, largely unknown part of life. The sharp contrasts made between the poverty and third-world nature of the Colombian city of Bogotá and the crowded, skyscraper-filled, busy-ness of New York are astounding, and the audience can really feel both the alienation and alluring appeal that both girls feel in their new environment. This glance at the difficult decisions that must be made, and the realization that the type of extortion presented in the film actually happens, makes the story incredibly interesting and absorbing. Here is the real reality… and it’s much more interesting to watch than Survivor.

L'auberge Espagnole

2005-01-23T13:10:00.000-05:00

L’auberge Espagnole
Directed by: Cédric Klapisch
2002, Rated R
5 stars
French/Spanish/English
English subtitles

Coming of Age is a popular theme in film, and has been played out in many different ways. Often, this type of film is geared toward those who are, or will be, coming of age—namely teenagers and young adults. The most frequent and easily recognizable manner in which this theme is carried out is in the typical mindless high school/college teen flick. The plot of these movies is so generic and unrealistic that it almost buries the moral message the film may be attempting to convey. The assumption apparently is that teenagers are so completely brain-dead that only the most basic of storylines could keep us entertained for any amount of time. There is one film, however, that is geared toward teenagers, but maintains the complexity of a quality film—go figure it’s from another country. L’auberge Espagnole, directed by Cédric Klapisch, does not just cover one perspective from one foreign country; it covers the universal concerns which challenge young adults everywhere.

Produced by a French company, the main character, Xavier (Romain Duris), is French. However, the film takes place in Spain, where Xavier is an exchange student. The apartment in which Xavier finds himself is also inhabited by: an Italian, Alessandro (Federico D’Anna); a German, Tobias (Barnaby Metschurat); two Danes, Lars (Christian Pagh) and Isabelle (Cécile De France); a Brit, Wendy (Kelly Reilly); and a Spaniard, Soledad (Cristina Brondo). So, in this one small apartment, essentially all of Europe is gathered together. The film then, of course, often jumps between the multitude of languages: French, Spanish, English, Italian, German, and even Flemish. The apartment, therefore, stands as a metaphor for the European Union which Europe is attempting to form, with each individual country coming together to form a whole, cohesive unit, while at the same time still maintaining their own separate identities and culture. This concept of identity and the required respect toward it also comes into play in the relationships between the two sexes. While a certain amount of comfort is reached in the apartment between the men and women, there are also moments when the stereotypical differences arise between them. As Wendy desperately attempts to force her male roommates into helping with the housework, the guys decide to block out their problems by sinking into a constant state of vegetation in front of the television.

The film mainly follows the thoughts and actions of Xavier, exploring through him the complicated emotions involved in that stage of life. Xavier’s confused thoughts are demonstrated by the overlapping voiceover that serves as narrator throughout the movie. At times, just following Xavier gives the film a documentary-like style, which then mocks itself by comically altering the speed of otherwise uninteresting interactions between characters. At times scenes can turn slightly chaotic, trying to follow too many people at once, but Klapisch deals with this by splitting the screen into smaller sections in order to show each character’s progress, effectively breaking down the chaos into smaller, easier-to-handle pieces.

The comical interactions between characters, coupled with the conflicts that arise between the difference of sexes and nationalities come together to create a masterful montage of images and emotions. On all levels L’auberge Espagnole is a wonderful film. On the surface it is witty, comical, and interesting. And under all this lies important messages regarding identity, tolerance, and the ever popular morals of the coming of age story. So sit down, and prepare yourself for this globally European experience. Olé!

Ocean's 12

2005-01-22T16:42:00.000-05:00

Ocean’s 12
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
2004, rated PG-13
4 stars

Sequels have a long, sad history as some of the worst films ever created. Hardly ever is there a sequel that does justice to its predecessor, or even comes close. For some unknown reason, Hollywood film makers keep thinking that if a movie has done well, then the best course of action to take is to create a horrible successor, often with little or no plot, that relies completely on the success of the first. These cheap knockoffs are painful not only to the audience that gets duped into watching them, but also for the original film, which risks losing its charm in the shadow of the dismal effect of its sequel. However, sometimes a rarity occurs, and a sequel actually does justice to its precursor. Since this happens at about the same frequency as a UFO landing, it makes the film seem all the more remarkable and entertaining. Ocean’s 12—Steven Soderbergh’s sequel to his 2001 hit Ocean’s 11—is one such sequel.

The original cast is back, with all the famous faces and names, along with the excellent performances, and with a few excellent additions. The Ocean’s 11 team of Danny Ocean (George Clooney), his wife Tess (Julia Roberts), organizing master Rusty (Brad Pitt), the engineering geek brothers Virgil (Casey Affleck) and Turk (Scott Caan), “grease man” Yen (Shaobo Qin), smooth dealer Frank (Bernie Mac), explosives expert Basher (Don Cheadle), amateur pickpocket Linus (Matt Damon), old-time conman Saul (Carl Reiner), paranoid computer nerd Livingston (Eddie Jemison), and financial backer Reuben (Elliott Gould) come back together to face a new, huge problem. Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia), whom the group stole from in the last film, now wants his money back, and will do anything to get it. Having tracked down each member of the crew, Benedict gives them all exactly 2 weeks to return the cash, much of which they don’t have. As such, the group must now go on a thieving binge to steal back everything they’ve spent. They decide to hit Europe, planning a series of robberies that will provide enough to pay off their debt. Everything is thought out and planned perfectly. What they didn’t plan on, however, was the existence of an amazing rival-thief called “The Night Fox” (Vincent Cassel), who is bent on showing them up at every turn and foiling all their plans. Rusty’s old girlfriend, detective Isabel Lahiri (Catherine Zeta-Jones) also appears, and is determined to track them down and arrest them all.

These characters have lost none of their original charm. Each is as excellently amusing as they were in the first film. Rusty maintains his cool composure and sometimes cryptic speeches, Linus is still as insecure and desperate to please (perhaps sometimes even a little too much so), and Yen—perhaps the most enjoyably intriguing character in the film—still speaks only in Chinese with no subtitles to help out the audience, and fits himself into impossible positions for incredibly extended periods of time.

As in the previous film, Ocean’s 12 spends a lot of time on the specific maneuvers required to pull off each incredible stunt. These explanations, done with creative camera angles and set to fast-paced, rhythmic music, are an excellent way of keeping the audience informed while not losing the film’s momentum. However, while Ocean’s 11 was a sleek, polished, Hollywood-style film, Ocean’s 12 takes on a slightly different look. The film begins with the grainy appearance and washed-out colors more common with independent films. Also, in the beginning, the camera work is shaky, with rough cuts and scene changes. As film progresses and the team regains its former composure, so does the film, and towards the end it relapses to the Hollywood shine of its predecessor. The plot often resembles that of Ocean’s 11 as well, but with a few more twists and turns. So many new pieces have been added, in fact, that the film takes on a labyrinthine quality which may leave some a little dazed and confused.

While confusing at times, the film does clarify itself in the end, sort of. You have to pay pretty close attention to everything that’s going on, and watching it a second time might prove helpful. The film is immensely entertaining, and incredibly good as a sequel. Just as long as they don’t go for lucky 13.

Pi

2005-01-22T16:40:00.000-05:00

Pi
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
1998, rated R
5 stars

When people think of black and white, they most likely think back to the days of the playful antics of Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton. In modern films, black and white footage is typically reserved for dream-like flashback sequences, or odd moments in Quentin Tarantino films. A full-length, modern, black and white film is very rare, and usually regarded as too independent to receive much attention. This is unfortunate, as Darren Aronofsky’s 1998 film Pi is an astonishing piece of artistic and mathematical genius.

Done completely in polarized black and white footage, Pi follows the twisted inner workings of mathematical genius Max Cohen (Sean Gullette). Reclusive, and utterly committed to his daily habits, Max reveals to his audience his quest to find a pattern in the chaotic ups and downs of the stock market. Max also suffers from acute headaches that sometimes result in severe, and frightening, hallucinations. As Max struggles day after day to find a mathematical solution to life’s complicated disorder, he pays regular visits to his ailing teacher and mentor Sol (Mark Margolis). This aged, sage-like mathematician warns Max of the tolls his work may eventually take on his body and psyche. Max, meanwhile, has been receiving pestering calls from the aggressive business shark Marcy Dawson (Pamela Hart), who offers him hefty amounts of money and powerful computer components in exchange for the information he believes he can uncover. A chance meeting in a coffee shop also puts Max in contact with Hassidic Jew numerologist Lenny Meyer (Ben Shenkman), who convinces him to take an interest in the search for a mysterious code hidden in the Torah. As Max reaches new breakthroughs in his research, these characters adopt foreboding, semi-threatening attitudes, though since Max is obviously in a state of mental anguish, it is difficult to distinguish between his perceived paranoia and actual occurrences.

While Max’s quest for a mathematical revelation may not seem overwhelmingly fascinating at first, the compelling mystery of the situation, coupled with the continual questions concerning Max’s mental health eventually suck the audience in. The math is complicated, no doubt, but director Aronofsky goes to great lengths to ensure that every step in the convoluted process is made relatively clear to the audience. The continuous examples of mathematical patterns in nature, coupled with the black and white footage and grungy, real-life settings give the film an aesthetically pleasing artistic air. Despite the lack of color—or perhaps due to it—the audience is forced to pay close attention to every detail and every fact presented. The plot is so enthralling, in fact, that as it progresses the lack of color stimulation is completely forgotten as the audience revels in the enigmatic nature of the film.

A mathematical thriller may not seem the most exciting setting for a film, but Aronofsky works wonders with what he has. With a pitifully low budget, help from his friends, and a lot of hot glue, Aronofsky created a film that stands far above many other such independent films. Awarded the Directors Award at the prestigious Sundance Film Festival, and gathering numerous other awards from a myriad of other festivals, this film is definitely worthy of consideration and high praise.

Even if you aren’t completely sold by the praise for Pi, it is still worth a look. Only 84 minutes in length, it is not a difficult or time-consuming film to sit through. Mathematicians and scientists, as well as complete laymen, can enjoy this film, as it covers all bases. Mystery buffs, thriller fanatics, or simply anyone wishing to further their mathematical education can find enjoyment in this film. So give it a try before making a judgment—after all, not everything is so black and white.

Romeo + Juliet

2005-01-22T16:38:00.000-05:00

Romeo + Juliet
Directed by Baz Luhrmann
1996, Rated PG-13
5 stars

The name “Shakespeare” tends to conjure either images of ridiculous costumes and unfathomable language or memories of tedious hours spent in school, struggling through the “thee’s” and “thou’s” of some unnecessarily monotonous play like Julius Caesar. When confronted with a Shakespearian work, many cringe at the antiquated language of the Elizabethan era. It is mainly due to this that many do not enjoy Shakespeare, and in some cases avoid it at all costs. Director Baz Luhrmann, however, in his adaptation of one of Shakespeare’s most famous and adored plays, breaks through this language barrier to bring forth the true essence of this celebrated tragedy. Romeo + Juliet takes place in a modern setting, while still maintaining the original wording of Shakespeare. While other directors have attempted this feat with severely disappointing results—such as the recent remake of Hamlet starring Ethan Hawke—Baz Luhrmann has managed to create a masterpiece of art and cinema which effectively renders the language of Shakespeare completely comprehensible. Even though the dialogue is of a different time, the meaning still shines through.

Cinematographically, this movie is beautifully done. Luhrmann uses color and background action to create a wonderful montage that blends the old with the new. The opening sequence is the perfect example of this, where, as in the real play, a prologue is given. Luhrmann handles this by creating a mixture of news footage and flashes of action, while using the original Shakespearean dialogue. While at first it may seem strange to hear Shakespeare but see modern action, this opening assuages all fears, and in the first fifteen seconds the audience realizes that although this is Shakespeare, it can be understood. In this film, Luhrmann has done an excellent job molding the old and the new, not just with the dialogue, but with the settings and characters as well. In the bustling metropolis of Verona, where we lay our scene, huge corporate skyscrapers surround ancient cathedrals. Luhrmann turns the two dueling families, the Montagues and the Capulets, into two corporate rivals, to fit better with the modern times. Even the introduction of characters blends the Shakespearean with the modern American. When Luhrmann introduces the two rival gangs from the different houses, for example, the audience immediately understands their opposing personalities by Luhrmann’s use of costume, music, and action. While the Montague boys are rowdy and playful, an image helped by their upbeat, raucous music, the Capulets are serious and sinister, accompanied by cold, menacing harmonies. This is also shown in the fight scenes between the two gangs, which, besides setting the characters, give excellent action to the film, complemented by a western-shootout-esque score. The Shakespearean sword fights have been replaced by shootouts, using guns with “Sword 9mm,” “Dagger,” and “Long Sword” written down the sides. The allusion to the Elizabethan weapons continues as the characters are rarely seen without their guns at their sides, just as a man of importance in the 17th century would rarely be seen without his sword. Luhrmann goes further to use costumes to set the tones for the different scenes of the films. As in his other works, color plays a major role. In the first half of the film, with happy, upbeat music and bright, cheerful lighting, the brilliant colors give a positive and upbeat feel to the scenes. As the mood of the film darkens, however, so does the music and lighting, and the colors which once seemed so jovial now appear garish, serving as a kind of mockery to the lightheartedness of before.

Luhrmann has also assembled the perfect cast for his film. The skill of these actors is the main key to this movie, because it is up to them to make the prose seem natural—and they do, exceptionally well. The best of them all, surprisingly, is Leonardo DiCaprio as Romeo. DiCaprio fits into this role perfectly, and Shakespeare’s words roll out in a seamless stream, filled with emotion, and completely in line with his character. DiCaprio’s acting in this film is flawless. His young good looks and boyish complexion make the ideal Romeo, and the emotions he’s able to convey through his actions and facial expressions are phenomenal. He handles Romeo’s temperament expertly, from pensive moodiness to giddy joy, utter astonishment to excruciating pain, DiCaprio shows it all and more, and lets the audience feel it as well. He is equally balanced by Claire Danes’ wonderfully innocent Juliet. As with DiCaprio’s Romeo, Danes fits into her role flawlessly. Her flowing soliloquies are delicate and sweet, and provide an excellent contrast for her helpless desperation later on. DiCaprio and Danes make the perfect pair of young lovers, and carry the difficult dialogue so naturally, it’s easy to forget that it’s Shakespeare. While these two flow together superbly, another pair clashes fantastically. John Leguizamo, as Juliet’s cousin Tybalt, and Harold Perrineau, as Romeo’s best friend Mercutio, make magnificent enemies. Their characters conflict as opposites, with Leguizamo making an excellently evil villain and Perrineau as a fun-loving party god. As with DiCaprio, Perrineau is able to capture the subtle moods and facial expressions of his character, and his “Queen Mab” speech is one of the most memorable parts of the film, if perhaps a bit hard to follow. Other more minor characters complete the film, with Dash Mihok as Romeo’s cousin Benvolio, the hilariously self-absorbed Diane Venora as Juliet’s mother Gloria Capulet, and a splendid performance by Pete Postlethwaite as the Father Laurence.

In every respect this movie is a masterpiece. Through artful cinematography, excellent techniques for blending the past and the present, and superb acting, Luhrmann has created a wonderfully deep, moving, and brilliantly Shakespearean film, perfect as an introduction to Shakespeare, or simply for fantastic entertainment. So don’t avoid it just because it’s Shakespeare. After all, what’s in a name?

Saved!

2005-01-22T16:36:00.000-05:00

Saved!
Directed by Brian Dannelly
2004, rated PG-13
3 stars

Teen movies are an ever-popular, ever-expanding genre. Relying on the overall difficulty of teenage angst, film makers have dutifully paid homage to this large section of movie-goers. Love stories, dramas, horror flicks, and even Shakespeare have been adapted to a high school setting. Some end up as cheesy chick-flicks, others go for the disgusting humors that make them appealing to 12-year-old boys. Saved!, directed by Brian Dannelly, covers a slightly different version of the pains of teens. In addition to covering all the bases when it comes to the typical teenage storyline, the film also covers some difficult current issues, centering around religion.

Jena Malone plays Mary, a nice Christian girl, who goes to a good Christian school, is part of an elite Christian clique, and has a great Christian boyfriend, Dean (Chad Faust). Her life is going along perfectly, and she is absolutely content in her knowledge that she is doing God’s work. However, nothing gold can stay, and her perfect Christian life is suddenly disrupted by a secret of Dean’s that goes against much of their religious dogma. Convinced that she can save his soul, Mary decides the best way to “cure” him is to go against her Christian ideals in the most drastic way. Unfortunately for both of them, this brilliant plan fails, and Dean is shipped off to a Christian clinic to be “saved”—or at least removed from view to preserve the image of perfection in the “Christian” community.

Saved! addresses all aspects of Christian fundamentalism, the good and the bad, but all from a teenage point of view. As Mary goes through her life, attending Christian rock concerts, picketing abortion clinics, and conversing with her group of friends, it is easy to find the faults and guess at how the plot will turn out. As with any teen flick there is the one gorgeous popular girl, so convinced of her superiority that she is bent on destroying anyone who threatens her position at the top. The fact that she is Christian in this film makes her no less evil. Hilary Faye (played ironically by pop star Mandy Moore) spends most of her time praising herself for her good Christian deeds, such as parading her crippled brother Roland (Macaulay Culkin) around so as to demonstrate her generosity. Opposite her is Cassandra (Eva Amurri), whom Hilary Faye and her groupies have dubbed “the Jew,” although gothic is more fitting to Cassandra’s rebellious style. In the middle lies Patrick (Patrick Fugit), the pastor’s son, who has to deal with his own beliefs and how they clash with his father’s, and also with the difficulty of falling in love with Mary. These characters circle around each other as Mary’s perfect world disintegrates. Knowing that her current group of friends would only revile her should they discover her secret—actually they attempt to perform an exorcism on her, convinced that she has been inhabited by the devil—she turns to the unlikely personage of Cassandra, who shows her more Christian charity than any of her previous friends.

Along with the Christian theme there is, of course, the overriding subject of the teenage life, full of confusion, misery, angst, and, occasionally, happiness. Through all the difficulties of their teenage lives, the characters still manage to fall in love with each other. As Hilary Faye desperately attempts to secure the new heartthrob Patrick, more for a trophy than out of true affection, Patrick does everything to capture the attention of Mary, who is convinced that he will despise her and shun her once he finds out the truth. The rise and fall of social circles is also present, as it must be in any film that takes place in high school, with new cronies rising up to fill the space left empty by Mary’s desertion from Hilary Faye’s simpering clique of Barbie-like fans.

The film raises some interesting questions concerning the reevaluation of religion, what happens when reality does not fit in with the perfect ideal, and what truly classifies as Christian behavior. The plotline is rather predictable, however, and the film is not deep enough to be even close to Oscar material. As an interesting and enjoyable movie, however, it certainly passes.

Shark Tale

2005-01-22T16:33:00.000-05:00

Shark Tale
Directed by Bibo Bergeron, Vicky Jenson
2004, rated PG
4 stars

Gone are the days of Cinderella and Snow White, simple, two-dimensional characters drawn completely by hand, and simply aspiring to a wondrously better life. It all began with some toys, when Disney/Pixar created the inspired hit Toy Story in 1995. Then the competition began between Pixar and DreamWorks, with Pixar’s A Bug’s Life, and DreamWorks’ Antz in 1998. These toys and little insects started a landslide of computer-generated animation, which hit the mainstream hard in 2001 with DreamWorks’ incredibly humungous sensation, Shrek. Now computer animation is here to stay, moving the children’s feature films industry into the new age of digitalization. The newest addition to this collection comes from DreamWorks Studios, and takes off with the underwater theme begun by Pixar last year with Finding Nemo. Directed by Bibo Bergeron and Vicky Jenson, Shark Tale is just as amusing and entertaining as its predecessors in this animated field.

In Shark Tale, DreamWorks continues with its habit of giving the animated characters the faces of their real-life counterparts. DreamWorks first began this technique in Antz, and uses it brilliantly, highlighting and exaggerating the physical features, much like a caricature cartoonist would, that make the famous faces so recognizable. While the youngest in the audience may not associate the large bushy eyebrows of the blowfish Sykes with the voice and face of Martin Scorsese, the older segment of viewers may, and will be able to appreciate the humor in the association. This connection between characters and cast continues throughout the film, from character to character, as the cast is comprised of excellent and well-known actors. Will Smith takes the lead as the fast-talking, street-smart, dirt-scrubbing Oscar, a small fish with high aspirations. His leading lady, or fish rather, Angie, is played by the always superb Renée Zellweger, although Angelina Jolie, as the shimmering, gold digger Lola, does attempt to steal the limelight. The above-mentioned Sykes (Scorsese) is Oscar’s blowfish boss, with two Rastafarian jellyfish cohorts, voiced by Ziggy Marley and Doug E. Doug. Offsetting this school of smaller fish is Robert De Niro, in a fantastic allusion to The Godfather, as the mob boss shark, Don Lino. Finally, the ever-hilarious Jack Black ties it all together as the contentedly different, but slightly insecure, son of the mob boss, Lenny.

The plot is generic and predictable, and presents the same typical morals, but is rescued by endless stream of puns and gag jokes inserted seamlessly into the story line. Practically every sentence uttered is one kind of joke or another. These gags range from the obvious potty-humor kiddy amusement, to the more “sophisticated” humor appreciated by the older audience. This is the trick of an excellent children’s film—namely that it doesn’t just appeal to the kids, but also to the parents who accompany them. Shark Tale leaves no age group unamused, as the constant flow of jokes covers all areas. This busyness in the script is reflected in the animation as well, and the film moves quickly to capture this rushed sense of the underwater city life. Billboards flash, lights flicker, and multicolorful fish dart continually across the screen. Every stereotype is personified, and no identifiable group is left untouched, right down to the frustrated shop keeper in the understandably deserted sushi bar.

Amid the myriad of color in the kaleidoscope of different fish swimming busily to and fro throughout the film, and the rush of the non-stop gags, there are a few quiet moments in the film during which the audience can catch its breath and either reflect, or prepare itself for the next attack. In these pauses the mushy heart of the plot may be glimpsed, but as they are kept short and sparse, they fortunately leave no time for boredom. So, take your kids, take your parents, grab your friends, or go on your own. This is truly a fun family film, Capice?

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

2005-01-22T16:30:00.000-05:00

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Directed by Kerry Conran
2004, rated PG
4 stars

Computer Generated Images (CGI) are fairly commonplace in movies now. Aliens, scenery, and even stunts are now created completely on computers. Gone are the days when Jackie Chan actually jumped off buildings to fall three stories down onto a tiny balcony across the ally way. Now audiences must content themselves with watching a computer-generated Toby Maguire swing himself around a digital New York City on a pixilated web. Sometimes it’s easy to spot which scenes in movies are digitally imposed, and which are real, and usually if it is this easy to tell, it means that those generated images appear false, and can disrupt the flow of a film. But what if everything you see—the scenery, the props, everything—is computer generated? How does one react to a film where literally everything except for the few main actors has been produced by a computer? Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, directed by newcomer Kerry Conran, is the film to address these pressing issues.

This entire film was created on a computer, based on a six minute clip and a storyline created by Conran. The actors were then filmed against a gigantic blue screen, and given very few props to work with. This in itself might explain why the acting is a little dead at times. There aren’t many characters, but the few that exist are played by recognizable Hollywood names. Gwyneth Paltrow takes the female lead as the investigative journalist Polly Perkins; Jude Law plays beside her as the dashing Joe ‘Sky Captain’ Sullivan; Giovanni Ribisi and Angelina Jolie both carry the minor roles, as a geeky mechanic and daring captain, respectively. Even Sir Laurence Olivier makes an appearance as the maniacal doctor genius who plots the destruction of Earth. While the cast may be dazzlingly star-studded, however, the actors at times seem out of their elements. Paltrow, especially, falters in her imaginary world, and seems to require something a little more concrete than the debonair gaze of Jude Law.

Jumbled acting aside, the actual mechanics and visual effects of the film are fun to watch. It begins with the interesting lighting employed throughout the film, a very film noir effect. At times it seems as if the film should be in black and white—it’s an interesting feat to make color appear colorless. This film noir overtone is rather heavy handed in the first part of the film, and shows in both the acting and the surroundings. Conran then seems to jump from movie to movie, almost resembling “Name That Tune,” except with movie titles. Besides the obvious film noir allusion, Godzilla, Indiana Jones, Wizard of Oz, and even Jurassic Park, to name a few, make appearances in one way or another. Fans of Japanese anime will recognize the nod to Metropolis as well. Even the music seems borrowed, sounding most like a John Williams copy, overly dramatic and ostentatious. Still, it’s fun to watch and identify parts from old favorites, and in one sense Sky Captain is like a compilation of the best parts from the best action movies. Amongst these not-so-subtle hints of other movies, however, also lie not-so-subtle gaps in the fabric of the film itself. While the CGI scenery, for example, is stunning at times, it appears that the climate changes from location to location are too much for the actors to keep up with, as they can appear absolutely freezing in sunny New York City, but warm and toasty in the howling winds of snowy Siberia. Similarly, the evil giant robots, complete with eye-lasers, that attack New York are delightfully constructed, but then one has to wonder at the amazing technology gap that allowed the enemy to develop these ten-story-high fighting machines while the good guys appear to still be stuck using the simple ruler and compass. And as our heroes struggle with these antiquated tools, their base is being attacked by what appear at first to be flying toasters, which proceed to wreak havoc and terrify the daylights out of all the little computer-generated people.

Despite these apparent holes and minor acting flaws, the movie is rather enjoyable as a fun, non-serious action flick. While for some audiences the gaps and faults may be too much to overcome, others may find the way the movie was made interesting enough to hold the film together. Look there, in the sky! Is it a bird? A plane? No! It’s a… flying toaster?

Team America

2005-01-22T16:28:00.000-05:00

Team America: World Police
Directed by Trey Parker
2004, Rated R
5 stars

When one thinks of cartoons, Disney usually comes to mind. Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, all the classics. Perhaps one might also think of the Saturday morning kid shows, or even the Cartoon Network channel. These types of shows and movies are mainly geared toward children. Then came The Simpsons, Family Guy, and perhaps the most off color and hilarious of them all: South Park. The creators of South Park proved to the world that cartoons do not only have to be cute, but that they can also be politically incorrect, at times disgusting, and still be hysterically funny. Now the creators of South Park have turned to another form of entertainment. Trey Parker’s new film, Team America: World Police, is done completely with marionettes. That’s right—it’s a two hour long puppet show for adults.

Team America holds nothing back. Nobody goes unnoticed, meaning everybody gets jabbed. Every ethnic group is stereotyped, every profession is picked on, every world leader, every political group, everything distinctly American, everything is hit upon. Most of the jokes are aimed at America, and its stereotypical ignorance and arrogance when it comes to world affairs. Whenever a scene is set in a different country, the information on the screen not only informs the audience of the name of the country, but also its distance from America, satirizing the American notion that we are the center of the universe. The team of ace fighter marionettes that form Team America also have no respect for the cultures or national treasures around them. They are only concerned with the destruction of terrorism, because, of course, the terrorists hate everyone in America, because we are free, and the terrorists hate freedom. Therefore, the terrorists will stop at nothing to kill all Americans, or anyone else who is free, because that is what terrorists do! Team America firmly believes in this ideal, failing to recognize that in their quest to eradicate terrorism, they themselves may really become the terrorists.

Team America doesn’t just make fun of America, however. Nearly every country, or at least every ethnic group, is satirized in one way or another. The voice cast is small, and most of the voices are actually done by Trey Parker. This provides a great opportunity for making fun of languages. The botching of dialects is in fact one of the funnier parts of the film. Middle Eastern languages, when spoken in the film, mainly consist of “Jihad jihad!! Mohammed! Djerkajerka!!” while Spanish is reduced to “no me gusta, no me gusta!” But perhaps the funniest handling of foreign affairs comes with the portrayal of Kim Jong Il, the tyrannical dictator of North Korea. Kim Jong Il is actually a major character in the film, and even gets the only solo musical number. When he talks, he speaks in English, but with the stereotypical Asian language mistake of replacing l’s with r’s. His despotic practices are also embellished and flaunted, as well as his egomaniacal personality. So when Hans Blix of the UN comes to warn him that the United Nations will send a nasty letter if Kim Jong Il will not stop marketing nuclear weapons, Kim Jong addresses him as Hans Brix, and dumps him into a shark tank.

While all these parodies and not-so-subtle jabs are hilarious in themselves, what really makes this movie is the music. The lyrics of each song cover almost as much as the film in humor when regarding American attitude. The songs range from country western to bad 80’s style theme songs, but listen closely to the lyrics—they’ll make you laugh even more than the jerky antics of the mishandled puppets.

Team America covers all the bases. Along with world leaders and national figures also come political activists, like Michael Moore, and well-known Hollywood actors, like Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, and Matt Damon. The marionettes are surprisingly expressive, sometimes even more so than the celebrities they’re meant to portray. Warning, however: if you are easily offended by any of the above mentioned, this is not the film for you. The R rating is well earned with violence, sex, and bad language. The sex scene, although done with anatomically inept puppets, almost earned the film an NC-17 rating. On the other hand, if you have an open mind and a good sense of humor, then this is an excellently hilarious film. No strings attached.

The Incredibles

2005-01-22T16:26:00.000-05:00

The Incredibles
Directed by Brad Bird
2004, rated PG
4 stars

Everyone loves superheroes. We love to read about them in comics, and we love to watch them perform spectacular feats on our televisions. Films about superheroes such as the recent Spiderman, and X-Men, (and their sequels) have been enormous hits. Everything about superheroes is fascinating, from their powers to their secret identities. Pixar’s newest computer-animated film, The Incredibles, directed by Brad Bird, concerns itself with not one superhero, but an entire family.

Bob Parr (voiced by Craig T. Nelson) was once Mr. Incredible, saving the world, performing daring deeds, and working for the greater good of mankind, alongside the other famous superheroes of his day. However, after a series of unfortunate law suits, and a sudden turn of public favor, all the supers had to go underground and live their lives as simple, ordinary, everyday people. This has proven especially hard for Bob—he just can’t kick the habit of saving people. As his wife Helen (Holly Hunter), formerly Elastigirl, tries to get him to pay attention to his new life and growing family, Bob struggles with his disappointing job and feelings of futility. Even his best friend Lucius (Samuel L. Jackson), formerly Frozone, encourages him to just accept it and move on with his life. Bob is then thrown a suspicious twist when invited back into action by a mysterious employer. As Bob stumbles into what anyone else would have recognized as a trap, Helen, and their stow-away children, rush to the rescue.

Although the plotline is somewhat predictable, it’s the little things that make this film worthwhile. For example, the superpowers of each superhero are impressive, and perfectly placed. Bob has any man’s wish of incredible strength, while his wife Helen has amazing power to stretch herself into any shape imaginable—a physical representation of the already astounding ability of most moms. Their children have equally stunning talents. Their son Dash (Spencer Fox), in relevance to his name, can run at superhuman speeds, and their daughter Violet (Sarah Vowell) disappears at will, and can also create impenetrable force fields—any teenage girl’s dream. Perhaps the best character of all, however, is not even a superhero—at least, not in the typical sense of the word. Edna “E” Mode (voiced by Brad Bird), is a famous designer with a short stature, big personality, and fast mouth. She is overall the most entertaining and commanding character of the film, and thoroughly steals every scene she’s in. Her fast talking, quick witted, demanding dialogue, combined with her hilarious figure, shape her into the epitome of rich famous designers, accustomed to having everything her way.

As with most computer-animated films, one of the best features, besides the characters themselves, is the skillfulness with which the images are created. In The Incredibles, the scenery, and overall scenes, have been constructed with wonderfully entertaining mastery. The volcanic island which Bob gets duped into going to reveals amazing inner workings, unfolding like a paradise theme park. Bob’s workouts as he attempts to get himself back into super shape take place at a railroad junction where he lifts individual railroad cars and pulls entire trains down the tracks in the dramatic orange lighting of late afternoon. The film opens with an interesting sequence of “old” interview footage, showing the superheroes in their prime, discussing their work and plans for the future. This sets the film up nicely, and serves as a good introduction to the super characters and their personalities. Other techniques and stunts throughout the film prove to be entertaining as well, with explosions large and frequent enough for any die-hard action fan, as well as amusing sequences involving everyday life.

The Incredibles sends the predictable morals every Disney movie must, and has a fairly typical storyline. However, the little things mean the most, and while many computer-animated films focus mainly on the glitz and special effects made possible by this style, this film has added some heart. While the plot may be formulaic and rather basic, it has enough thrown in to still make it entertaining and thoroughly enjoyable for any age group or fan base. Perhaps it’s not incredible, but it is definitely super.

The Return

2005-01-22T16:23:00.000-05:00

The Return
Directed by Andrei Zvyagintsev
2003, Unrated by USA
4 stars
Russian with English subtitles
On video and DVD

A quality film is one that makes the audience think about what they have just seen. It gives clues and hints toward a deeper meaning, leading and coaxing the viewer to reflect and analyze the film to find what’s below the surface. This type of thought process is what makes a good film interesting—standing above the other shallow films in its depth and perception. The Return, a Russian film directed by Andrei Zvyagintsev, fits this description of a quality film. While far from obscure, the simplicity of the acting, setting, and plot thinly disguise the more important psychological significance of the film.

The film itself is completely symmetric. Images and phrases from the beginning are repeated toward the end, sometimes serving as a contrast, and sometimes simply allowing for a recollection of the reasons and manners by which the characters had come to a particular point. The opening scene is actually the ending, and from these two extremes, the film works toward the middle symmetrically. It is broken up by days, and follows through one week, with Wednesday being the line on which the film reflects.

Throughout the film, The Return maintains a complete level of simplicity. While this may have been due to the exceptionally low budget, it gives the film an excellent air of mystery and seclusion as nothing else would have. The actors, while few, are perfect for their parts, fitting together and playing off each other naturally. The story centers around two brothers. The younger, Vanya, played by Ivan Dobronravov, seems moody and secretive, while his older brother, Andrei (Vladimir Garin), is eager to be liked and regarded as a man. The world of these two adolescents is shaken by the sudden, unexpected appearance of their father (Konstantin Lavroneko) whom they only know through a single photograph. While Andrei is eager to gain his father’s love and approval, and accepts his presence unquestioningly, Vanya is doubtful and sullen, and unwilling to acknowledge this man as his father. Since their father’s disappearance twelve years prior, the two boys have had no male influence in their lives. They live with their mother and grandmother, and the only other people they seem to come in contact with are the boys who are Andrei’s friends. Because of this lack of a role model, both boys seem very immature—not in the usual raucous, juvenile sense of the word, for both boys are very serious and quiet, but in that they are irresponsible and emotionally young. As such, they are completely unprepared for the harsh, demanding way in which their father treats them. While taking them on a camping trip out to an island in the middle of nowhere, their father requires them to take responsibility and enter the world of adulthood. While at times overly harsh and violent, their father can also be kind and gentle. Throughout the film, however, the audience questions the real motive for their father returning. He seems completely unattached, and at times almost apathetic to the feelings and emotions of his sons, and appears only concerned with his mysterious and unexplained work which requires him to make frequent enigmatic phone calls and dig up buried boxes whose contents remain unknown. While Andrei tries to push his father’s lack of interest in them aside, Vanya can’t let it go. He questions his father’s motives repeatedly, and at times even questions the possibility of him really being their father. As Vanya, Dobronravov’s excellence as this moody character really shines, and throughout most of the film he takes the center stage. The twist in the end, however, brings Garin, as Andrei, to the foreground, and allows him to lead—and lead he does, quietly, and with a radiating power.

Despite the minimal budget, Zvyagintsev manages to create some very nice effects using camera angles, lighting, and color. Much of the film is very dark and colorless, with many dark blue, grey, and black hues. It is often raining, or threatening to rain. These techniques help set the serious mood, and perhaps also serve as a metaphor for the emotions brewing under the outwardly simple surface. With the camera, Zvyagintsev uses interesting angles and techniques to accentuate the emotions he wants the audience to feel in certain scenes. Top angles make dizzying heights all the more real, panorama shots give a sense of isolation, and even the focus of a conversation between characters can be changed, using a literal change in focus with the camera. Throughout the film, though, everything remains simple and low key. Even the music is sparse and quiet—haunting melodies that add to the melancholy mood.

The one flaw of the film is that it is rather heavy handed when it comes to foreshadowing and imagery. Different typical metaphorical images and phrases with the same connotation are placed heavily throughout the film—trapped animals, locked boxes, sunken objects, and the like—contrasting with the overall simplicity and sparseness present in the rest of the film. Throughout, many questions are presented to the audience. However, don’t expect them to all be answered in the end—they’re not. One of the best things about this film is being able to think it through and figure out what it means on your own. You may want to watch it over and over to sort out all the meanings. Turning it back in to the video store may be hard—you won’t want to return The Return.

The Village

2005-01-22T16:20:00.000-05:00

The Village
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan
2004, rated PG-13
2 ½ stars

Imagine a society where the leaders control the public using fear, where red is the representative color of terror, where one is safe as long as one does not leave or question the leaders, as danger lurks just beyond the border. Sound familiar? No, this is not a political commentary by Michael Moore. This is The Village, the new film by M. Night Shyamalan, writer and director of the popular suspense films Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs. While this newest film continues the level of quality storyline shown in his past work, it unfortunately lacks the general flow and suspense needed to make it a really good film.

Despite the star-studded cast, the acting in The Village is considerably wanting in merit. This is surprising, considering the cast includes such acting greats as Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt, Joaquin Phoenix, and the Academy Award-winning Adrien Brody. Some of these actors do give a great performance, others have moments of brilliance, but some are just downright awful. Phoenix is excellent in the role of Lucius Hunt, a young man who would dare to venture out of the community’s little circle of safety and confront the abominable creatures of the forest, but who is too insecure to speak publicly without a pre-written script to read from. Phoenix carries this role well, his deadpan awkwardness sparking moments of hilarity. Although in the beginning it seems as though he should be the main character, toward the end he appears too seldom to really hold that title. Bryce Dallas Howard, as Lucius’ blind girlfriend Ivy Walker, takes over instead, and gives a decent performance in the process. Unfortunately, her character isn’t developed enough in the beginning to give her the scope and dimension she really needs to take the lead. As a result, the audience is left in doubt as to who the protagonist is, or if one even existed to begin with. The one consistently brilliant actor is Adrien Brody, as the mentally disabled Noah Percy. Brody’s performance is, as always, excellent. He submerges himself into his character so completely that it wasn’t until the credits started rolling that I even realized who it was. Sigourney Weaver, as Lucius’ mother, and William Hurt, as the main town governor Edward Walker, are immediately recognizable, however. Weaver has her moments, but is disappointing overall, though this may be due to the abysmal dialogue. Hurt, however, is just plain terrible. His acting alone may be the scariest part of the movie. While other actors do their best to make up for the obvious script problems, Hurt just flounders uncomfortably from scene to scene, unable to adapt to the wording or language which Shyamalan attempted to employ. This dialogue problem is enormous, as it dams up any flow the film might otherwise have had. Much of the time it just doesn’t seem natural or real, and the audience is left unable to be fully absorbed into the world of the film, as they should be. It’s difficult after all to be truly frightened when the monsters who are supposed to be so scary are referred to as “those we do not speak of,” conjuring distinctly un-frightening images of Harry Potter. Often the dialogue is whispered as well, and whether this is to cover up the general awkwardness of what is being said or to add some unknown effect to the film, it is utterly ineffective.

Although in his previous films Shyamalan used his cinematographic techniques to further the suspense, in this film, the cinematography is rather bland and uninteresting, and at times even choppy or clumsy. The scene changes are jumpy and uncoordinated, and as a result the film lacks cohesive flow, and seems rough and halting. Shots of random objects such as chairs or fields are spliced in haphazardly during the film, and though this may have been a vague attempt at emphasizing the bucolic lifestyle of the characters, the result is one of confusion and boredom. Shyamalan isn’t even consistent in his techniques—at one point he uses slow motion in an apparent attempt to heighten the suspense, but really achieves the opposite, and as a result it seems misplaced and even cheesy. The choice of music, like the cinematography, is unremarkable. Orchestral and symphonic, the music is entirely un-notable.

At times the film seems to be making a subliminal political statement. The use of red to represent the evil monsters of terror, and the town leaders using this fear to control the people seems to hit a little too close to current events to be coincidence. This, however, may be the only frightening thing about this film, aside from the shoddy acting, of course. So if you really enjoy being scared out of your pants, don’t expect much from this film. It takes more than this Village to raise a scream.

The Graduate

2005-01-22T16:19:00.000-05:00

The Graduate
Directed by Mike Nichols
1967, rated PG
4 stars

While The Graduate is a familiar name in film lore, not many really seem to know much about it. What people mostly remember is that famous picture of a young Dustin Hoffman looking awkward over a woman’s leg in the foreground. While the film moves slowly at times—often due to the sparse yet annoyingly redundant Paul Simon music—director Mike Nichols has created a wholly entertaining and, occasionally, thought provoking piece.

While this classic includes many fascinating aspects, such as the apparent symbolism, the superb acting, or the fascinating cinematography, perhaps the most intriguing quality is the plot itself. Set in sunny picturesque California, Dustin Hoffman plays Benjamin Braddock, freshly out of college. The question repeated to young Benjamin throughout the film is the typical “so what are you going to do now?” to which Ben constantly replies in his infamous monotone “I do not know.” This lost character, although common in many films, is played flawlessly by the then-young Dustin Hoffman. Hoffman’s wooden, deadpan portrayal brings the character to life in a way that nothing else could, easily and naturally demonstrating Ben’s innocent, awkward unease. Mike Nichols’ excellent choice of casting continues with Anne Bancroft as the seductive, self-assured Mrs. Robinson. Bancroft’s performance cleanly contrasts that of Hoffman, creating a unique tension between the two characters that really makes the film believable. Hoffman’s stuttering dead-pan dialogue accentuates his character’s innocence when placed next to Bancroft’s smooth, sensuous commands. Bancroft and Hoffman work as a team throughout the film, playing off the other’s opposing character, yin and yang; these two carry the film.

Inspired casting and superb writing aside, director Mike Nichols also makes many excellent dramatic decisions that aid in setting the seriously humorous tone and feel for each scene. One doesn’t need a doctorate in English to recognize the water as a symbol of escape and a time of transition throughout the film, and Nichols’ cinematographic choices accentuate the different feelings of the movie. At times when Ben feels pressured and semi-claustrophobic due to his surroundings, the audience gets the same feelings with close, tight camera shots, jumping from one face to the next. Similarly, the seduction scene with Mrs. Robinson is heightened by the sensual shots taken through her legs, over her legs, under her legs, or wherever else her legs may be. Ben’s confusion is shown not only through Hoffman’s stuttering grimaces, but also through erotic flashes of flesh and body; with these flashes, one really senses Ben’s conflicted feelings on whether or not to look at the naked beauty before him. At times the cinematographic sequences may leave the audience dazed and rather confused, as in the rapid time changes where Hoffman flops from frame to frame, simultaneously in his pool at his house and with his married mistress in bed. However, once one realizes what is happening, all becomes clear and the audience can sit back and enjoy the perhaps slightly heavy-handedness of the transitions.

The Graduate is appealing not only as a mirror for conflicted youth. Although it’s possible to analyze the movie in many profound ways, this film can also be enjoyed purely for its comedic value. Comical lines combined with Hoffman’s hilarious acting make for memorable quotes. Who, for example, could ever forget the look on Hoffman’s poor, confused face when he declares “you’re trying to seduce me!” but immediately remembers his insecurity and questions pathetically “…aren’t you?” In some ways the film could be classified as a “romantic comedy.” With Ben falling in love with the daughter of his married mistress, and effectively disrupting her wedding to another man, many who love romance flicks will find this film highly amusing and Hoffman’s performance of Ben irresistibly adorable. Although, beware, don’t expect the stereotypical riding-off-into-the-sunset type ending, as the film ends on a slightly deeper note, giving the audience some room for thought, if they so desire. This movie is not just for hopeless romantics, however, and anyone who enjoys classic comedy will love this film. So, here’s to you Mrs. Robinson.

Titanic

2005-01-22T16:13:00.000-05:00

Titanic
Directed by James Cameron
1997, rated PG-13
1 star

Most people have seen the movie Titanic; after all, it did win 14 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, and Best Supporting Actress. Pretty surprising, considering the film is probably the biggest block of cheese ever created. Why it isn’t in the Guinness Book of World Records under this category is one of the world’s great mysteries. Over three long hours, shoddy acting and sappy dialogue, coupled with a syrupy, over-dramatic, repetitive soundtrack form the whirlpool of an empty-headed love story; appealing only if you happen to be a 12 year old girl, or fan of bad supermarket harlequin romance novels.

As in most films, the opening of Titanic sets the stage for the movie to come. Disjointed images flash onto the screen, seemingly without purpose. The rest of the film is much like this opening sequence, with romantic sunset shots on the ocean spliced in at random moments among the random pictures of the boat on the water. We all know about Titanic from our school lessons. Yes, the boat is big, yes, it’s on the ocean, yes, the first couple shots were neat and gave the scope and dimensions of the grandiose and size of the ship, but as there are about 50 million of these same shots over and over at random times throughout the film, it gets just a little boring. The cinematography is so disjointed and messy it can barely hold itself together, let alone help develop the atrocious romantic plot, as it is supposed to. The film finishes with the same sort of incoherent image bungling that occurred at the beginning, and actually, all through the film. Well, at least it was consistent. From start to finish, this film is a cinematographic mess.

Yet, while the cinematography was bad, the acting was even worse. This film has too many characters, if “characters” is what you can call them. Numerous, under-developed, one-dimensional, and obnoxious, each is worse than the last. Leonardo DiCaprio is just too much of a pretty boy to play the rough and tumble Jack, and as a result his character is awkward and wooden, not smooth and street-smart as he is supposed to be. This guy is supposed to live by the seat of his pants—he won his ticket onto Titanic in a card game moments before the ship departs—but DiCaprio’s pouting, pensive acting makes Jack too pretty; he fits into the upper class so nicely, it’s almost impossible to believe he’s a street rat. Kate Winslet plays an unbelievably sappy Rose, a spoiled rich girl who wants out of her restrained upper-class life, and therefore falls hopelessly, and unconvincingly, in love with Jack. Had the script not been so horrible, Winslet might have done a good job, but in this case the viewer will find her character completely unrealistic and almost plastic. And how can you not be plastic with lines like “I saw the iceberg, and I see it in your eyes.” The same dialogue problem haunts the character of old Rose, played by Gloria Stuart, who has classically disgusting lines such as “a woman’s heart is a deep ocean of secrets,” and many will cringe at her book-like narrative while she tells the story of her affair, and makes random sounds which resemble those of a trodden on mouse more than anything else. Kathy Bates plays a sufficiently loud and annoying Molly Brown, a “new money” aristocrat whom the audience is supposed to identify with, but instead just wishes she’d shut up. Billy Zane is a cool smooth fiancé Cal, but his character is so one-dimensional, it’s hard to appreciate his ability as an actor. Finally, Bill Paxton is obnoxious as the deep-sea explorer/ grave robber who opens this whole can of worms. Paxton’s performance is so irksome and false, the audience will cringe whenever his voice is heard, either in this movie or anywhere else.

The bad acting may have been due in part to the absolutely horrible script. The dialogue is stiff and unrealistic. Lines are repeated in an attempt at humor, which fails miserably. When old Rose begins the narrative of her love story, it sounds more as if she were reading cue cards with excerpts from a poorly written, and rather boring, romance novel, and as her narrative continues as a voice-over, the audience is left annoyed, rather than enlightened. This voice-over technique does not even carry through the entire movie; rather, director James Cameron seems to completely forget about it at times, and then suddenly remember it with a guilty jump back to the present. The dialogue just tries too hard to be dramatic, and comes off as cheesy and stupid. The soundtrack doesn’t help at all either. Hearing Celine Dion’s “My Heart Will Go On” about 50 times, in various themes, is roughly equivalent to the infamous Chinese water torture. Spliced in with that repulsive song is a large, loud, overly-dramatic orchestral score, which contributes to the movie’s sappy drama. The attempt at drama is so badly over-done, one may be prone to Mystery Science Theater-like comments throughout the three hours of this unbearably long movie. The plot is so thick with romantic muck, and so formulaic in its baseness, it leaves no room for suspense. Everyone already knows the end—hey, guess what, the boat sinks—and almost everyone will be able to guess the outcome of the romantic plot. Nothing is left for the audience to speculate, and suspense is completely killed by the abysmal dialogue, and heavy-handed, cluttered cinematography. Over all, this movie is more like deep-fat fried Twinkies, or caramel coated cotton candy— sickeningly sweet and without substance. So unless the 12 year old girl in you is just screaming to get out, avoid this movie at all costs. Goodbye Jack! Goodbye!

National Treasure

2005-01-22T16:11:00.000-05:00

National Treasure
Directed by Jon Turtletaub
2004, rated PG
3 stars

The theme of adventure in film has a long and glorious history. The older classics such as the Indiana Jones series, and Romancing the Stone have always been favorites, and more recently The Mummy and the Tomb Raider series have made their marks at the box office. The theme is always the same—a courageous, dashing history buff must find and protect a hidden treasure of great historic importance before the enemy (who would, of course, use it for some evil cause, typically world domination) does. What separates these films from one another are the variations on this theme: the treasure in question, the malevolence of the villain, and also just how exciting the story can be made. Some fail, and fall into film obscurity, and others succeed and become favored classics. National Treasure, directed by Jon Turtletaub and funded by Disney, most likely will not become a classic. While passably entertaining, the film lacks the excitement it needs to measure up to its predecessors.

Nicolas Cage plays the treasure-hunting Benjamin Franklin Gates, whose entire family has been seeking a treasure hidden by the Founding Fathers of America. This treasure has a long and rather incredible history, beginning with the Knights Templar, and involving the Free Masons’ secret society. The story begins when Ben finally finds the clue for which his family has been searching through successive generations. Suddenly betrayed by a teammate, Ian Howe, played by Sean Bean, who becomes the feared opponent, Ben begins a frantic race to be the first to uncover the treasure. In this mad dash to the finish line, Ben picks up several sidekicks, including the young and lovely National Archive Director Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger), and the whiney computer guy, Riley Poole (Justin Bartha), arguably the best character in the entire movie.

When it comes to cinematography, the film has its moments, but overall it is fairly basic. While some scenes which might otherwise have been slow and uninteresting are sped up and decorated with fast, flashy shots, the rest is fairly simple, relying on the plotline and acting to carry the film forward. Unfortunately, this is, at times, where the film fails. While the inserted odd facts concerning American history may be interesting at times, there just isn’t enough to keep the plot flowing. To make up for this lack of animation, every so often there is a sudden climax of action, making the stagnant story line peak abruptly. There are so many of these mini-climaxes that drawing out the plot on a line would probably look something like a heart monitor on the fritz.

The story, however, is not the only aspect of the film that seems to be on the fritz. The acting, as well, is at times a little off. Cage is generally a decent actor, but for some reason in this film he just can’t seem to fit into his role. He drifts awkwardly between a geeky history nerd and an adventurous, fast-paced explorer, never seeming to find a place where he can be comfortable. His antagonist, Ian, also fails in that he’s just not evil enough to be a worthy opponent. After all, Indiana Jones fought against the Nazis, and next to them, Bean looks about as frightening as Mr. Rogers. The actor who really carries the film is Bartha, the perfect comical know-it-all stiff, as Ben’s sidekick Riley. Bartha’s performance is what keeps the film moving, and what keeps the audience laughing.

This film is obviously geared toward a younger audience. Unlike most films in the adventure genre, National Treasure has no swearing, no nudity, very little actual violence, and only one big explosion. The attempt was for a wholesome family adventure film. When regarded as such, the film hit its mark. It would be a great flick for say, a seven to twelve-year-old. Audiences more accustomed to the harsher, fast-paced thrills typically found in adventure films of this sort, however, may find themselves a little bored. Unless you happen to be an American history major.

Vanity Fair

2005-01-22T16:06:00.000-05:00

Vanity Fair
Directed by: Mira Nair
2004, rated PG-13
4 stars

Well-done adaptations of literature are difficult in general. A director must attempt to combine his or her own interpretation of the work with the audience’s possible interpretation, while at the same time making the film appealing to those who are not familiar with the original text. This problem emerges with everything from Harry Potter to Shakespeare, with varying levels of complexity. Adaptations of Victorian era literature, however, reach an entirely different degree of intricacy. There have been many adaptations of Victorian literature in recent years—Emma, Sense and Sensibility, The Importance of Being Ernest, An Ideal Husband, several different versions of Pride and Prejudice, including the modern interpretation, Bridget Jones’ Diary—and the latest addition to this collection is no less complicated and involved than its predecessors. Vanity Fair, directed by Mira Nair, follows the rise and fall of its socially ambitious characters on so many levels, it’s sometimes hard to tell when a particular character is up or down.

The film quickly develops its characters, categorizing them immediately as either rich or poor, and more specifically within those two classes, contented or unhappy. Reese Witherspoon plays the lead as Becky Sharp, a fitting name for the street-smart, head-strong, aspiring young woman. Sharp is determined throughout the film to rise above her poor station by any means possible, and as a woman, the best and only option open for her to achieve this is marriage. As she begins her almost ruthless pursuit of a wealthy husband the finer points of her character come more clearly into focus. Witherspoon confronts every obstacle presented to her with a sarcastic smirk, fitting perfectly with her quick-witted character. She is accompanied by an excellent cast, including two superb performances by Gabriel Byrne as the odiously wealthy Marques of Steyne, and Romola Garai as Becky’s best friend Amelia. The ability of the actors in this movie is vitally important, since each depends greatly on all the others. There are many major characters, and sometimes it’s difficult to keep them straight, especially on their rollercoaster rides through the different levels of societal classes. The acting is also important for filling the gaps sometimes left in the swift moving plot. Since there is only so much one can cram into a two hour film, some aspects are slightly underdeveloped, and the audience is left to guess at certain motives or sudden changes in decision. The ability of the actors smoothes over these wrinkles and keeps the film flowing.

Vanity Fair opens with an interesting sequence mainly revolving around peacocks and unfolding rose petals. While a bit obvious and heavy handed, this imagery really does accurately represent the film. Nair carries these metaphors throughout the film, clothing her characters in sometimes absurdly colorful costumes to emphasize their strutting, peacock-esque manner. Nair uses color all through the film to convey the meaning of a scene, such as when Becky Sharp, dressed all in black, must confront and infiltrate the closed society of the female elite, all nearly identical in matching white. Nair’s imagery is not subtle, but while this could diminish the effectiveness in another context, the plot of Vanity Fair is so complicated in its twists and undulations that it’s nice to have some aspect of the film be clear and obvious.

The film also provides a nice recreation of old London, and places a nice emphasis, in respects to architecture and cinematography, on the contrast between the very wealthy and the very poor in this time period. So, if you enjoy a plot with many twists and turns, and especially enjoy Victorian adaptations, this film is excellent. Or if not, at least the costumes are pretty.

Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

2005-01-12T22:05:00.000-05:00

Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Directed by: Wes Anderson
2004, rated R
1 star

Films typically have a purpose. Usually there is some point the filmmaker is trying to get across, some driving force, even a moral, that the film attempts to convey to its audience. This overriding theme is what drives the plot, makes the film exciting and worth going to, or at least makes it enjoyable to watch. Without this crucial message, a film is meaningless, worthless. Filmmakers realize this, and as such, even the basest, crudest horror flick has at least some cheesy side story about romance, and how it can save everything. Wes Anderson, however, seems to be one director who has completely missed this tiny detail of purpose. His newest film, Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, is a 118 minute shapeless mass of pointlessness, which occasionally molds itself into the form of famous, recognizable faces.

The cast for Life Aquatic is similar to that for Anderson’s last film, the delightful, deadpan comedy The Royal Tenenbaums. Returning with their normally excellent talents are Bill Murray as the title lead of Steve Zissou, Anjelica Huston as Zissou’s haughty wife Eleanor, and Owen Wilson as Zissou’s secret son Ned Plimpton. Joining these Anderson veterans are Cate Blanchett as the pregnant and assertive reporter Jane, Willem Dafoe as the jealous German deckhand Klaus, and Jeff Goldblum as Zissou’s archrival, and Eleanor’s former love affair, Alistair Hennessey. After listing such an impressive cast, it would be customary to make a quick overview of the plot. Life Aquatic, however, doesn’t seem to have one. The characters wander aimlessly about the film, occasionally stumbling into short scenarios that seem like the beginnings of a story, but in reality are only ruses meant to trick the audience into thinking there might be a point to the film after all. The premise for the film is Steve Zissou’s zeal for wildlife, and more specifically marine, documentaries. With the helpful funding from the family of his wife, he travels the seas in search of adventure and aquatic discoveries, filming as he goes in a direct parody of the famous Jacque Cousteau. At the premier of his newest film he is confronted by his son Ned, born from a past affair. Zissou readily accepts this unexpected development, urges his son to change his name completely, and sets off on a mission to avenge his former colleague who had recently been digested by a mysterious new breed of killer shark. The firmly self-assured reporter Jane joins them on their voyage across the seas, setting the scene for some type of love affair.

Though this may seem like a promising beginning, the film slowly drowns in Anderson’s whirlpool of attempted stoicism. Each character seems trapped in a world where emotion doesn’t exist, and although they may speak words of passion or anger, any facial expression has been utterly forbidden. As such, they move stiffly across the screen, and their interactions with one another more resemble the interactions between skillfully crafted marionettes than real people. Judging from Anderson’s previous films (Rushmore in 1998, and The Royal Tenenbaums in 2001) this lack of any discernable emotion was probably a main goal. While in the other films it was amusingly fitting, in Life Aquatic it is carried out to a point of ridiculous tedium. Even the slightly more exciting action sequences—such as raiding the personal supplies of the rival Hennessey, or the sudden attack from pirates—the characters remain unfazed in their Botox-like ennui, successfully preventing every scene from rising to the point of climactic excitement.
In addition to these critical plot and acting flaws, the cinematography and special effects sink to new levels of pathetic. Anderson attempts the grainy look of an ancient documentary, but instead achieves only an appearance of poverty. The quality is so poor, it looks like the type of thing a teenager might make with inexpensive equipment, very little computer effects experience, and a budget of about $50. The fantastic creatures which Zissou discovers don’t even pretend to look real, and rather seem to be directly stolen from the mind of Salvador Dali.
While I typically enjoy a film that breaks the mold and strays from the common herd, Life Aquatic is just too far adrift to have any practical purpose as a film. The audience will leave the theater feeling empty and confused, and perhaps a little angry at just having been cheated out of a good $6. So if you like pain, or are suffering from insomnia, perhaps this would be a good film to see. If not, I would suggest something more enjoyable, like clipping your toenails or banging your head against a wall, repeatedly.

Life Aquatic official movie site

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2005-01-10T10:17:00.000-05:00

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Directed by Michel Gondry
2004, rated R
5 stars

Screen writer Charlie Kaufman has a knack for creating extremely strange, mind-bending, completely genuine and unique story lines, which of course make for strange, mind-bending, and sometimes utterly confusing films. His first two major hits, Being John Malkovich, and Adaptation, were equally bizarre and delightful. Being John Malkovich centered around John Cusack’s discovery of a doorway leading into the mind of John Malkovich. Adaptation told of the fantastically eccentric difficulties of writing a superior screen play. Kaufman’s newest brain child, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is just as unusual as these other two. Kaufman’s gift for the obscure, coupled with director Michel Gondry’s artistic aptitude, together create a stunning montage of emotions and images that leave the viewer astounded.

Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson) has created a company called Lacuna Inc. which has formed a procedure in which certain memories can be erased from a person’s mind. This procedure, Dr. Howard assures his patients, is essentially harmless, and painless, and completely wipes a person’s memory of unpleasant events, or of people whom they would rather forget. Such is the case with Joel Barish, played by a surprisingly—but excellently—serious Jim Carry, and Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet). Clementine is impulsive and spontaneous—her wild personality reflected in the ever-changing vivid colors of her hair. Joel, on the other hand, is her complete opposite—cautious, organized, and safe. After a relationship of almost two years, Clementine decides that she has had enough, and decides to get Joel erased. When Joel discovers what she has done, he takes his revenge on her by having the same procedure performed on himself. Halfway through, however, he realizes that some of his memories of Clementine are too precious to lose. What follows is a frantic race through his labyrinthine psyche.

As the semi-comatose Joel attempts to evade the erasure of his memories, a whole subset of intrigues occurs on the surface. A whole world of subplots, involving the quirky staff of Patrick (a wide-eyed Elijah Wood), Stan (an excellent Mark Ruffalo) and Mary (a glossy-eyed Kirsten Dunst) evolves, providing ever increasing layers of interest to the entire story. These subplots give contrast, parallel, and foils to the main plot, adding insight into the complex and baffling nature of memory and love.

While the storyline may seem a little obscure, it is truly the work of a genius. Kaufman has managed to reform and retell the classic love story in new and astonishing ways, addressing the issues of true love and fate along the way. His reach into the nature of human consciousness is also quite astonishing and revealing. While this story stands out as completely unique, it is the astounding beauty of the cinematography that propels the film to even greater heights. Gondry’s artistic eye blends perfectly with Kaufman’s story, using unique camera angles and techniques to give dimension and feeling to Kaufman’s exquisite obscurity. As each memory crumbles and fades from Joel’s conscious, so too does the scenery, in a very real and literal sense. Buildings, cars, shops, and even faces become distorted, diminished, and deteriorate, falling to pieces around the characters, right before our very eyes.

As the characters race from memory to memory, working backwards in their relationship through the boredom and animosity of a stale relationship to the passion and innocence of a new love, the audience is drawn deeper and deeper into their emotions and lives. For audiences who have seen and enjoyed Kaufman’s previous films, Eternal Sunshine is bound to please. For those not accustomed to his particular brand of controlled confusion, this film is an excellent introduction. The film is, however, as beautifully made as it is named, and only slightly more mystifying.

Eternal Sunshine official movie site

Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events

2005-01-07T11:52:00.000-05:00

Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events
Directed by: Brad Silberling
2004, rated PG
In Theaters Now
3 stars

Converting children’s books into feature films can be difficult. If the book is popular, a director must consider the backlash when the inevitable changes occur. If the book is a series, the director must choose whether to make a series of movies, or to make only one. And, of course, the director must create a movie that is appealing, not only to the specific age group for whom the books were intended, but to a wide range of audiences and children. Such adaptations have been attempted with C.S. Lewis’ Narnia series, and more recently with J.K. Rawling’s Harry Potter best-sellers. Now Daniel Handler’s Lemony Snicket tales have joined the list, with Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events, directed by Brad Silberling. The delightfully gloomy film has its ups and downs, while including a truly brilliant cast of well-known actors.

The film, which covers the first three books of the Snicket series, centers around the three Baudelaire orphans, Violet (Emily Browning), Klaus (Liam Aiken), and baby Sunny (Kara and Shelby Hoffman). These three children are also rather extraordinary. Each has a special talent—Violet is the best 14 year-old inventor there is, her younger brother Klaus reads voraciously, and Sunny has a rapacious tendency to bite things. The lives of these three children are abruptly upset by sudden destruction of their home by a mysterious fire, which also took the lives of their parents. The adventure begins when the orphans are shuffled from guardian to guardian, all the while desperately trying to avoid the greedy and evil Count Olaf (Jim Carrey) and to uncover the mystery surrounding their parents’ demise. While the premise sounds promising, if morbid, the film leaves some rather large holes which the plot tends to fall through. Toward the end, especially, the flow seems to suffer, and eventually just trickles off into a weak attempt at mild cheerfulness. Up until that point, however, the film is captivating and interesting, and made all the more so because of its shady nature.

The film is narrated by the enigmatic figure of Lemony Snicket himself (Jude Law), in gloomy and depressing tones. In fitting with the title, the entire film is done in dark, ominous shades, with nearly every character dressed in black. When color is used, it either seems unnatural, or is used as a foreshadowing of dismal things to come. Fog and murky water nearly always surround the characters, and dark music in minor keys accompanies the children everywhere. A morbid fascination with strange deaths also haunts the film, adding to the overall darkness that shadows every scene.
Jim Carrey returns to his typical role of the comic character, contorting his features into strange positions for the brilliantly evil role of Count Olaf. As Olaf dons disguises in attempts to catch the children unawares, Carrey changes roles with marvelous hilarity, relatively convincing, but still maintaining the grim, ominous malice of the Count. His consistent malevolence is countered by the other guardians who attempt to care for the unfortunate children. Billy Connolly plays the snake-obsessed herpetologist Uncle Monty, a caring and wonderful, but sadly temporary, guardian. Meryl Streep plays the hyper-phobic Aunt Josephine, whose nervous habits conceal an astonishingly adventurous past. All of these good guardians leave clues as to the puzzling circumstances of the Baudelaire’s deaths. As the three children struggle to find happiness, battling the ever-present Count Olaf at every turn, they also decipher these clues in an attempt to unravel the mystery.

Lemony Snicket, as suggested by the title, and emphasized throughout the film, is not a particularly jolly tale. Very young children may find it too frightening and dark. Older children, however, as with the books, will find the film delightful in its shadowy gloom, and may also be charmed by the creativity of the Baudelaire children, who rely on their intellect instead of special super-human powers. For once it is useful, and even cool, to have read books, or to be at all intelligent. And as much fun as it is to watch Jim Carrey prance across the screen in all his foolishness, or to watch your favorite serious drama actors play ridiculously silly parts, it truly is the children who carry the film. Even if the series of events that they find themselves involved in do happen to be rather unfortunate.

Lemony Snicket official movie site

Donnie Darko

2005-01-05T19:56:00.000-05:00

Donnie Darko
Directed by: Richard Kelley
2001, rated R
5 stars

After seeing a film for the first time, most people have a strong first reaction. Sometimes the reaction can be favorable, and the audience is left feeling deeply satisfied. Other times this reaction is one of disappointment, or regret at having wasted viewer’s money. My first reaction after seeing Richard Kelley’s Donnie Darko was just “whoa.” By the time the credits started rolling I was still trying to sort out what had just happened, and what it all meant. Personally, for me this is a sign of excellence in films—when the audience is actually required to think about what has just been presented to them. In this respect, Donnie Darko is perfectly excellent.

As the film’s themes are rather complex, good acting is key. Jake Gyllenhaal takes the title lead of Donnie Darko, meshing perfectly with his troubled character. Gyllenhaal portrays Donnie’s moods flawlessly, easily jumping between the extremes necessary to the character; at times he appears slightly evil and lunatic, at others he’s just a goofy high schooler. His comic lines are delightfully placed, and handled with such natural ease that the audience is caught pleasantly by surprise. Gyllenhaal’s talent is complemented by the characters around him, especially that of Frank (James Duval), Donnie’s commanding imaginary friend in a giant demonic bunny suit. Frank has a powerfully frightening character, not just due to his appearance and voice, which are alarming by themselves, but also in his supernatural presence and knowledge of things to come—he prophetically predicts the end of the world, and orders Donnie to commit acts of vandalism to guide him through the labyrinth of Frank’s master plan. The other surrounding actors are equally talented, with Mary McDonnell as Donnie’s mother Rose Darko, Patrick Swayze as the ridiculous self-help guru Jim Cunningham, and Jena Malone as Donnie’s girlfriend Gretchen. These and other characters collide to create the kaleidoscope of Donnie’s surreal, but at the same time typical, teenage life.

Even before the stunning plotline is introduced, Donnie Darko is just enjoyable to watch. Interesting cameral angles and alteration of pace keep the movie flowing and provide insight to the jumble of images in Donnie’s world. Each new set of characters is introduced by means of a montage of sorts, where the different people and different aspects of each new setting are established. This technique is used to introduce Donnie’s home life and family, and again with his high school and life there. The music chosen to accompany these sequences, and the rest of the film for that matter, fits brilliantly, setting the tone of each scene with gentle, quiet melodies, dramatic operatic scores, or choice 80’s rock songs. Director Richard Kelley also makes some excellent editing decisions, with cuts and splices that add either to the darkly comic nature or to the more sinister aspect of the film. Donnie Darko also includes some interesting special effects, mostly as a demonstration of the odd theories regarding space and time travel.

Along with being an impressive film regarding cinematography and acting, Donnie Darko also raises some interesting philosophical and theological questions. Although in one scene Donnie insists that the spectrum of human emotions cannot be lumped into the two simple categories of Fear and Love, that is often what this film does. Each character and each action is shown as an extreme of one of the two emotions, and the closing sequence shows this perfectly, with shots moving from one character to the next, showing their emotions, each one in a state of extreme fear or extreme love. This philosophy of a fear-love trajectory is not the only thought-provoking issue addressed in the film, however. Christianity and the search for God is also a major theme, with Donnie emerging as a Christ-like figure. Along with raising questions about the necessity of the search for God, the film also raises questions about morality. When Donnie burns down the house belonging to a man who truly seems to deserve it, the question arises, was it then right or wrong to burn down the house? This act of arson exposes crimes which could otherwise have gone unpunished, but the act was still illegal and dangerous. These moral questions arise often throughout the film, keeping the audience actively involved in the development of the plot and storyline. Along with these theological and moral issues also appears the philosophical dilemma of time travel and the problems which arise from the choices that would be possible. All these questions weave together to create a perplexing story, with an excellently enlightening twist.

Donnie Darko has been hailed by many as the first cult film of the new generation. A low-budget film, and having been released shortly after 9/11, the movie received little attention from major audiences. It made its debut instead through midnight showings and word of mouth. Now that the film’s popularity has grown, a director’s cut is being re-released in theaters, and will be showing throughout the country this coming year. So if you appreciate a certain amount of the bizarre and weird, and also enjoy being able to think about a film after you have seen it, Donnie Darko is the perfect film. Donnie Darko—sounds like some sort of superhero… but then, how do you know he’s not?

Donnie Darko official site