68 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/01/07 4:00am)
e become different people throughout our lives. We are different people at age 25 than we are at age 15. The people who best witness this change are our siblings, who understand and notice the significant ways in which we have changed. Yet siblings bicker, fight and interact almost exactly the same way at 25 as they do at 15, or even 5, for that matter. That is what is interesting about sibling relationships; the roles we play out with our brothers and sisters are consistent. We rarely change in our behavior toward them, even though we change in our behavior toward the rest of the world. Wes Anderson's "The Darjeeling Limited" gets that concept and does an incredible job of capturing that dynamic on film. It lacks focus, however, with its wandering plot.\nThe story is told in typical Anderson fashion. His characters' dialogue is blunt, quick, offbeat and often unsettling. He makes extensive use of the colors orange, blue and red, and the main narrative centers on a key group of people and their familial problems. \nThe main characters are brothers Francis, Peter and Jack, played with appropriate quirky humility by Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartzman, respectively. After their father died, the three had a falling-out and have not spoken for a year. The eldest son Francis has a car accident that has left him bruised and bandaged, prompting him to question the meaning of life and inspiring him to reunite the trio via a spiritual journey through India. He makes plans for them to take a train through the countryside, stopping along the way to visit holy sites. A series of meandering and seemingly pointless events follow, culminating in the sons' reunion with their mother, now a nun who runs a convent at the foot of the Himalayas. \nThis movie presents a problem for me for several reasons. Anderson's "The Royal Tenenbaums" was a great movie; this is practically indisputable. "The Life Aquatic" was not quite as good, but there was a method to its madness, and it was at least a well-made film. "The Darjeeling Limited" is so much like its predecessors in broad ways and stylistic techniques that it can't avoid comparison. Anderson uses the same devices over and over (artistically, narratively, visually), and it begs the question: If you're telling the story in the same way you told the one before it, aren't you just telling the same story with different people in different places, saying different things? If you're being something just to be, then there is no point in being at all.
(09/13/07 4:00am)
With his striking features and deep, penetrating gaze, Cillian Murphy has cut quite a memorable screen image over the last few years. However, it wasn't until I saw the Irish film "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" that I truly revered him as an actor. \nRecently released on DVD, a belated gift for American audiences, this film won the 2006 Golden Palm award at the Cannes Film Festival for its legendary director, Ken Loach. Loach has been known for his quiet, reserved style and observant camera, a relief from the overly frenetic camera shake in independent films of late. His approach to cinema is simple: Let the camera tell the story, let the actors have the freedom to be spontaneous. The effect is realism that is calm, rational and often jarring.\n"The Wind that Shakes the Barley" is a violent film, but it is much more about its characters than its action sequences. It opens with a scene that is innocuous enough, a group of men playing a game of hurling on a field in the Irish countryside. When the game has ended, we meet our hero, Damien (Murphy) a young doctor on his way to London to work in a famous hospital. \nIt is the year 1920 and Ireland is in the midst of an unofficial war with England over the right to be an independent nation. British officers, called Black and Tans, roam the country freely, taking what they want and often brutalizing Irish citizens with no repercussions. The soldiers disrupt the quiet of the opening sequence with their boisterous swagger and break up the gathering, as there is a law against public assemblies. What follows is both shocking and difficult to watch, but it sets the tone of the film well, and we witness the beginning of what will become a conflict that rages in Ireland to this day. \nDamien soon joins his brother in the Irish Republican Army (the earliest faction, a guerilla group that shouldn't be confused with the terrorist cell that still exists today.) Teddy (Padraic Delaney) is a headstrong militant with natural leadership abilities whom Damien both loves and fears. The resistance group begins fighting violence with violence, acquiring arms and training a citizen army that gradually takes back control of the country. \nThough the story is fictional, it is a representation of factual events, and the brothers in the story may well have existed during this time. The treaty of 1921 is negotiated by Republican Irish leader Michael Collins, a treaty that provides for a "Free Irish State," but retains control of six counties in Northern Ireland and forces Irish citizens to swear an oath of allegiance to the British crown. While Teddy accepts this peace accord and joins the "Free Staters" -- the new Irish military -- Damien refuses to accept the compromised peace without actual Irish sovereignty. And here we've arrived at the crossroads, the civil war that would divide Ireland and literally pit brother against brother in a conflict that would eventually claim more lives than the war with the British. \nIn the special features on the DVD, a documentary on the films of Loach features an interview with screenwriter Paul Laverty, who said the film is indeed divisive because it forces the viewer to take sides. Such "political" films of today are generally so staunch in their opinions that this narrative maneuver is a rare treat. Other DVD features include an illuminating commentary with historian Donal O'Drisceoil and Loach, who talks mainly about the technical approach to the film. A special treat is interviews with nearly every lead actor Loach as worked with over the years, including Peter Mullan, Ian Hart, Brian Cox and Robert Carlyle.
(07/05/07 4:00am)
In the hands of Stephen Daldry, "The Hours" was one of the best films of 2002, and is remembered as having some of the best performances of the last seven years. "Evening" was written by the same person, but in the hands of Lajos Koltai is nothing more than passing and trite melodrama masquerading as something more profound.\n It has been marketed to women and is advertised as featuring "some of the best actresses of our time." That isn't an understatement. Legends Meryl Streep and Vanessa Redgrave join Eileen Atkins, Natasha Richardson, Toni Collette, Glenn Close and Mamie Gummer in performances that are all top-notch. Each one seems to have tried very hard to do something more interesting with the badly written roles they were given. Alas, you can't make a good movie out of a bad script. \n As the lead, Claire Danes is both limited and 2-dimensional, a far cry from her nuanced "shopgirl" of 2005. It isn't all her fault though. After all, how are you supposed to act when you're character is painted as the perennial eclectic outsider when you're really a glorified lounge singer turned housewife? \n The narrative concerns a dying mother of two (Redgrave) named Ann who floats between clarity and hallucinatory visions of the past, mostly reliving memories of an evening that changed her life some fifty years before. Her daughters are Nina and Constance (Collette and real-life daughter Richardson), who sit at her bedside looking distraught and occasionally meander over their seaside mansion to have sisterly arguments where the "perfect" daughter lectures the "bad girl" on how to be a better person. The lengthy flashbacks concerning this evening all those years ago take up the bulk of the running time, and are punctuated frequently with the daughters fighting, "bad girl" Collette abusing her faithful boyfriend, Redgrave hallucinating angels that take the form of her night nurse, and one short cameo from Streep who comes to see her friend in her final moments. She is just in time for them to share a sweet, nostalgic conversation about how their lives didn't turn out the way they expected.\n The flashbacks of Ann's evening have to do with the wedding of her best friend Lila. She shows up to be the maid-of-honor and we discover that she is also close friends with Lila's brother Buddy, who might be the most sympathetic character in the film if he weren't drunk the ENTIRE time he's on screen. Buddy is in love with Ann, but she's too stupid to notice, and immediately falls in lust with Harris, Buddy's best friend the doctor, also the object of bride-to-be Lila's affection. \n Meryl Streep's future Lila says of Harris "We were all in love with him." The end of that sentence should be "for no explicable reason." Patrick Wilson has a thankless role which basically amounts to sitting around in a tux looking pretty when he's not naming stars for Claire Danes on some moonlit stroll through a forest aglow with fireflies.\n Tragedy ensues, people cry, A LOT at different points throughout the film. It's more like something from the deadly romantic pen of Nicholas Sparks than a serious meditation of the lives and loves of a group of complex women, which was the lasting contribution of "The Hours," Cunningham's beautiful early work.
(04/12/07 4:00am)
"Volver" is a Spanish word that literally means "to return" but is used here to mean "coming back." Indeed, this whole film is a kind of coming back for its makers; Pedro Almodovar returns to his roots as a man of La Mancha, and Penelope Cruz returns to the cinema of her origin where she is obviously most at home. \nAlmodovar's films are often lively, celebratory visions of the world. He is noted for his liberal use of the color red and his subtle object metaphors that give silent clues to the motivations of his characters. (Watch for Cruz's use of knives.) Perhaps most importantly, he is known for his deep, empathetic understanding of women.\nWith "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown," "All About My Mother," "Talk to Her," and now with "Volver," Almodovar has consistently written roles for strong, complex women who can often be as flawed as they are impeccable. Penelope Cruz's Raimunda, the main character of "Volver," is just such a woman.\nThe film revolves around Raimunda and the dramatic and sometimes ridiculous events that afflict her life over the course of just a few months. Early in the film, she comes home from work to find that her daughter has just killed her father for fear of being raped by him. Almost methodically, Raimunda cleans up the blood of her slain husband and stashes the body away. \nThough she is noticeably shaken, her instinct to protect her daughter is so strong that she feels she has no choice but to hide the body and move on with her life as if her husband has just left her. She caters for a restaurant, deals with the death of a beloved aunt and copes with rumors of her dead mother's ghost appearing in her home village. One of the funniest and best-written sequences in the film has the supposed ghost of Raimunda's mother, played by the incomparable Carmen Maura, stowing away in her daughter Sole's car and talking her into letting her dead mother hide out in her apartment. \nAlmodovar uses locations well, and the production design is beautiful. La Mancha, a flat expansive area of Spain, is the backdrop for much of the film. Almodovar was raised there and has said that he felt the villages produced so many artists because there is nothing to look at, so you can use the vast plains as a canvas, painting your fantasies and stories on the landscape between the land and the horizon. \nIn the audio commentary and an interview with Almodovar, the director discusses how that folklore and spirituality played a large role in his childhood. Besides the commentary with Almodovar and Cruz, the DVD features some good behind-the-scenes footage and in-depth interviews with the director and lead actresses. Take a look at the trailers as well; there are some films that are worth looking for. In addition, the DVD features photo and poster galleries that make it a cut above your average DVD release.
(03/22/07 4:00am)
Swear off fast food. Swear it off now. The stuff is poison. That being said, are there really still people out there who haven't been made aware of the deteriorating health effects of fast food on the human body? \nThe fictionalized film version of the nonfiction novel by Eric Schlosser came out on DVD this week. I could have imagined a pretty interesting fictionalized account of the book for film, unfortunately, director Richard Linklater has not.\nHe is known for his meandering dialogue and slow, measured pacing. Strangely, he thought that this approach would be the right one for "Fast Food Nation," which ends up being more focused on the conversations that the characters are having about the fast-food industry than on the fast-food industry itself. \nA host of characters and their interactions make up the body of the running time. Greg Kinnear plays a marketing director for "Mickey's," and is developing a new burger when he is made aware of the high amount of fecal content in some burger samples. This is disturbing enough but underplayed. There was a real opportunity for some dramatic nuance in a storyline that involved two immigrant workers played by Catalina Sandino Moreno ("Maria Full of Grace") and Wilmer Valderrama. Their working conditions are less than tolerable, and there is something bittersweet about their situation. They work in questionable circumstances out of economic necessity, no doubt a sad truth for many of the low-level factory workers who handle raw chunks of beef day in and day out for little pay. Alas, though the actors themselves are interesting, the segment is flawed by its own dull pacing and poorly written dialogue. \nThe DVD extras are actually more hit than miss. There is a decent commentary (missing from DVDs as of late) featuring both Linklater and Schlosser. Also, there are some flash-animation cartoons looking at meat production that are especially entertaining, along with the obligatory making-of featurette.\nThe main problem is really with the basis of the film. They seem to think they are demystifying something when really all they're doing is taking what we already assume to be true and making it more specific. It is doubtful that any viewer will first discover that the Big Mac with special sauce they've been enjoying since the rosy days of childhood is, in fact, made of animal flesh. This movie is all missed opportunities, screenplay and character-wise.
(03/07/07 5:00am)
Emma Thompson's character in "Stranger than Fiction" has an interesting habit. She is a veritable chain smoker but is never seen snuffing out a cigarette in any way that could be considered traditional. She spits into a napkin, then rolls the cigarette butt into the paper, carefully twisting it around the cigarette and then putting the used napkin in her pocket. She won't flick the ash or put the cigarette out on the ground because she is conscious and has no wish to disrupt her environment. It took me three viewings of the film to figure out the habit. My point? Though this habit is never verbally explained in the film, it has the incredible benefit of providing needed depth and intricacy to a minor character. Specificity and subtlety this well-used is rare, even in the best-written movies.\nThe movie's main character, Harold Crick (Will Ferrell), is one of those people who instinctively knows the distance of six yards without needing any frame of reference. He is practically made of numbers; he counts tiles and stairs and mentally corrects odd angles to run perpendicular in his surroundings. Crick is the unwilling hero of the film whose all too predictable life is turned upside down when he starts hearing an omniscient voice that narrates his life as though he is the main character in a novel. As it turns out, he is the main character in a novel by recluse author Kay Eiffel, played brilliantly by Thompson. The problem is, she is about to kill him off.\nThe film could have been a race against the clock, could have followed Harold as he frantically searched for the author, attempting to halt the inevitable. Screenwriter Zach Helm is too smart for that, however, and knows Harold's story is worth telling well. We watch as Harold develops relationships, solidifies friendships and falls in love with a smart, warm girl played by Maggie Gyllenhaal. \nDirector Marc Forster has a pitch-perfect ability to match strong directorial skills with the collaboration of his crew. He leaves the stamp of the auteur on his films, and yet they are so different from each other. From the eerie moodiness of "Monster's Ball" to the fanciful "Finding Neverland" to the comedic and nuanced "Stranger than Fiction," Forster is shaping up to be one of the most prolific directors of his generation. Populating the film with talented actors, Forster creates an imaginative character tapestry. Will Ferrell's beautifully underplayed performance is the key to the success of the movie; he plays Harold straight and this has the end result of pairing comedy with quirkiness. \nThe DVD has some special features worth mentioning. It contains several small featurettes on the making of the film. The best one is a surprisingly in-depth look at the use of GUI (Graphic User Interface), a kind of on-screen graphic technique that further explores the mathematical precision of Harold's world. However, like so many DVDs of late, it suffers from a lack of commentary or any original features that might make it a more worthwhile buy. And those obligatory marketing devices used in the "previews" section are just an annoying ploy to get people to buy more DVDs.\n"Stranger Than Fiction" was one of the 10 best films of last year, sadly overlooked by audiences and critics in favor of epic-style dramas with blood and shock value. Each set is a work of art, the characters are wonderfully specific, and the writing is refreshingly original.
(01/26/07 5:00am)
Living in Scotland in the 1970s, a new young doctor decides to spin a globe with his eyes closed and make a new life for himself wherever his finger happens to point when the globe stops spinning. "The Last King of Scotland" is partly about choice and partly about fate. It is fate we witness when Dr. Nicholas Garrigan's finger lands on Uganda, and it is the choices he makes that concern the rest of the film.\nWith so much being said of Forest Whitaker's remarkable performance as Ugandan Dictator Idi Amin, it is unfortunate that James McAvoy, as the disillusioned young doctor Garrigan, has failed to receive the praise he deserves for his part, which is after all, the lead. Every scene that involves Whitaker involves McAvoy; the film is meant to show you the dictator through his eyes. \nThe film follows Garrigan as he joins a mission in Uganda, determined to make a difference in the world and determined to rebel against his father's idea of an austere, professional doctor. On the day of his arrival, the newly minted president has assumed control of the government, the result of a coup sponsored by the British. \nGarrigan meets Amin in a village after the president wounds his hand and the two share a few interesting, almost romantic moments discussing Scotland and the new Uganda. Garrigan is offered a job as Amin's personal physician and quickly becomes indispensable to the president. He is so caught up in his newfound power, social status and wealth that he is blinded to the escalating turmoil in the world around him. \nIt is this relationship, and Garrigan's spiral into the dark underbelly of Amin's reign, that Director Kevin Macdonald chooses to focus on. He looks inward at the implosive reality of Amin's private world instead of outward at the political upset and genocide that engulfed the country during his rule. His maddening charm seems at times to overpower his actual madness in the public eye. Indeed, the historical fact of Amin's perpetuated genocide and virtual eradication of all political opposition isn't really revealed until three-fourths of the way through the film.\n"The Last King of Scotland" has numerous strengths, most notably Jeremy Brock's impressive screenwriting and Macdonald's intricate camerawork. These strengths are hindered by a few noticeable weaknesses -- specifically the choice to focus on the relationship between Garrigan and Amin, which leaves the viewer to wonder why history remembers Amin as such a bad guy. \nCloaking the reality of the genocide may have seemed like the best way to show the madness of Amin's personal life to the viewers, but it is clear the filmmakers were mistaken in this decision when the film devolves into a sort of thriller toward the end. \nWeaknesses aside, the film has its accomplishments as will undoubtedly be noticed throughout awards season, especially for Whitaker's performance. It's refreshing to see a character study this involving -- especially one that features Africa for a change.
(01/26/07 1:15am)
Living in Scotland in the 1970s, a new young doctor decides to spin a globe with his eyes closed and make a new life for himself wherever his finger happens to point when the globe stops spinning. "The Last King of Scotland" is partly about choice and partly about fate. It is fate we witness when Dr. Nicholas Garrigan's finger lands on Uganda, and it is the choices he makes that concern the rest of the film.\nWith so much being said of Forest Whitaker's remarkable performance as Ugandan Dictator Idi Amin, it is unfortunate that James McAvoy, as the disillusioned young doctor Garrigan, has failed to receive the praise he deserves for his part, which is after all, the lead. Every scene that involves Whitaker involves McAvoy; the film is meant to show you the dictator through his eyes. \nThe film follows Garrigan as he joins a mission in Uganda, determined to make a difference in the world and determined to rebel against his father's idea of an austere, professional doctor. On the day of his arrival, the newly minted president has assumed control of the government, the result of a coup sponsored by the British. \nGarrigan meets Amin in a village after the president wounds his hand and the two share a few interesting, almost romantic moments discussing Scotland and the new Uganda. Garrigan is offered a job as Amin's personal physician and quickly becomes indispensable to the president. He is so caught up in his newfound power, social status and wealth that he is blinded to the escalating turmoil in the world around him. \nIt is this relationship, and Garrigan's spiral into the dark underbelly of Amin's reign, that Director Kevin Macdonald chooses to focus on. He looks inward at the implosive reality of Amin's private world instead of outward at the political upset and genocide that engulfed the country during his rule. His maddening charm seems at times to overpower his actual madness in the public eye. Indeed, the historical fact of Amin's perpetuated genocide and virtual eradication of all political opposition isn't really revealed until three-fourths of the way through the film.\n"The Last King of Scotland" has numerous strengths, most notably Jeremy Brock's impressive screenwriting and Macdonald's intricate camerawork. These strengths are hindered by a few noticeable weaknesses -- specifically the choice to focus on the relationship between Garrigan and Amin, which leaves the viewer to wonder why history remembers Amin as such a bad guy. \nCloaking the reality of the genocide may have seemed like the best way to show the madness of Amin's personal life to the viewers, but it is clear the filmmakers were mistaken in this decision when the film devolves into a sort of thriller toward the end. \nWeaknesses aside, the film has its accomplishments as will undoubtedly be noticed throughout awards season, especially for Whitaker's performance. It's refreshing to see a character study this involving -- especially one that features Africa for a change.
(11/02/06 5:00am)
At one point in Augusten Burroughs' life, he went to see a Lina Wertmüller film festival and commented on how odd it was that in French films, a clown shows up crying while an erstwhile heroine lays in the foreground. "I don't get it," he says, "Not yet, anyway." The genius of Burroughs' book is that there always seems to be something semi-normal going on in the foreground, while an odd and out-of-place clown seems to be crying the whole time in the background.\nBurroughs' off-kilter life was recounted for the first time in 2002 in his bestselling memoir "Running With Scissors." I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the recent film adaptation fails to pay the book its proper due. Director/screenwriter Ryan Murphy manages to get most of the laughs and quite a few of the heartbreaks into the film version. Sadly, he comes short of success by managing to only scratch the surface of Burroughs' truly fascinating life. Too often, he puts taut moments of melodrama in place of actual moments of truth in order to "clean-up" the narrative, making a genuinely atypical story standard for the sake of convention. \nJoseph Fiennes is convincing as the intense, obsessive Bookman. Brian Cox and Jill Clayburgh are believable as Finch and Agnes, both having been cast well. Gwyneth Paltrow is almost non-existent as the eldest daughter, Hope, barely coming to life as the complex and intriguing character she is meant to be. Annette Bening's performance is brilliant as usual -- no doubt the best of the adult roles in the film.\nIt is Joseph Cross and Evan Rachel Wood who steal the show as Augusten and Natalie, two smart and sad children trying desperately to create sanity for themselves in a world that is terminally insane.\nThe last 15 minutes of the movie are a trip into fantasy land, where sad and pivotal conversations take place and lead characters "find themselves" on the road to normalcy. Almost all of what happens is divergent from the book. Those who haven't read the memoir probably won't mind though.
(11/02/06 3:53am)
At one point in Augusten Burroughs' life, he went to see a Lina Wertmüller film festival and commented on how odd it was that in French films, a clown shows up crying while an erstwhile heroine lays in the foreground. "I don't get it," he says, "Not yet, anyway." The genius of Burroughs' book is that there always seems to be something semi-normal going on in the foreground, while an odd and out-of-place clown seems to be crying the whole time in the background.\nBurroughs' off-kilter life was recounted for the first time in 2002 in his bestselling memoir "Running With Scissors." I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the recent film adaptation fails to pay the book its proper due. Director/screenwriter Ryan Murphy manages to get most of the laughs and quite a few of the heartbreaks into the film version. Sadly, he comes short of success by managing to only scratch the surface of Burroughs' truly fascinating life. Too often, he puts taut moments of melodrama in place of actual moments of truth in order to "clean-up" the narrative, making a genuinely atypical story standard for the sake of convention. \nJoseph Fiennes is convincing as the intense, obsessive Bookman. Brian Cox and Jill Clayburgh are believable as Finch and Agnes, both having been cast well. Gwyneth Paltrow is almost non-existent as the eldest daughter, Hope, barely coming to life as the complex and intriguing character she is meant to be. Annette Bening's performance is brilliant as usual -- no doubt the best of the adult roles in the film.\nIt is Joseph Cross and Evan Rachel Wood who steal the show as Augusten and Natalie, two smart and sad children trying desperately to create sanity for themselves in a world that is terminally insane.\nThe last 15 minutes of the movie are a trip into fantasy land, where sad and pivotal conversations take place and lead characters "find themselves" on the road to normalcy. Almost all of what happens is divergent from the book. Those who haven't read the memoir probably won't mind though.
(10/26/06 7:18pm)
The three films of Lodge Kerrigan invariably deal with two major themes: mental instability and yearning for the love of a child. On the surface, these two themes don't seem to intersect at all. Masterfully, however, Kerrigan has found ways to make them intertwine in his oft-disturbing, surreal and constantly brilliant films. \nHis debut feature "Clean, Shaven" was first released in 1994 and has recently been released in a fully enhanced DVD format by the Criterion Collection. Criterion has cleaned up the audio transfer and enhanced the image, clearing away hundreds of particles of debris that littered the original print, all under the watchful supervision of Kerrigan himself.\nKerrigan's films have a way with the audience not because they are obsessed with keeping your attention the way mainstream movies are, but because they are so visually and aurally fascinating. "Clean, Shaven" has barely any dialogue at all, allowing the viewer to be absorbed into the world of the film based on its visual and aural merits. The lead character, a paranoid schizophrenic named Peter Winter, speaks less than 20 lines throughout the entire run.\nKerrigan's specific avoidance of having his main character speak serves to pull the viewer closer to his unbalanced mental state. Instead of keeping you at a distance by making Peter a conventional movie lead that talks often and is constantly manipulating his circumstances, Kerrigan places you inside the mind of his protagonist, a frightening and disorienting place.\nThe story follows Winter, played uncannily well by Peter Greene, as he spends days searching for a daughter that was given up for adoption when he was put into a mental institution. Many critics, essayists, theorists and even psychologists have attested that "Clean, Shaven" is the best exploration of schizophrenia ever put on film.\nThe camera follows Winter as he roams from hotel room to hotel room, never letting up on its suffocating close-ups. The score by Hahn Rowe is a tour-de-force, combining eerie, off-kilter piano music with the constant droning of an out-of-tune radio. We never hear specific sounds, just indiscernible and ever-shifting voices amidst a blaze of white noise. The point of the "audio assault," as Criterion essayist Dennis Lim put it, is to bring the viewer into a visceral understanding of what Winter hears every second of every day.\nOn the commentary track, famed auteur Steven Soderbergh engages in a dialogue with Kerrigan about the techniques he used to set up these various conclusions. Though he expands on his intentions, he never gives any proof of what the answers may be, preferring instead to let the film speak for itself.
(10/26/06 7:11pm)
It is a long-standing idea that the participants of World War II, and the people who lived in that era, are "The Greatest Generation." Their heroism is legendary, their lives were noble and their cause was just. At least, that is the way history has been written. At the heart of Clint Eastwood's adaptation of the novel "Flags of Our Fathers" is a questioning of that assertion, and a recreation of the merits of war exploring who we hold up as heroes. \nIn the late 90s, a middle-aged James Bradley embarked on a painstaking journey to discover the truth of his father's early life. John Bradley was one of the six men who raised an American flag on Mount Suribachi at the Battle of Iwo Jima - the fiercest battle in the history of World War II. The moment was captured by Pulitzer Prize winning photojournalist Joe Rosenthal, and has been hailed as the most iconic image of 20th century America. James Bradley deconstructed the mythic status of the photograph's subjects in "Flags of our Fathers." The film follows suit in a more condensed but compelling way. The film's main characters are the six men who raised the flag at Iwo Jima, three of whom survived: two marines, Rene Gagnon and Ira Hayes, and one Navy soldier, John Bradley.\nOf the three leading men, actor Adam Beach brings an authenticity and almost poetic tragedy to the life of Ira Hayes. Unwilling to allow himself a moment's peace, his character is dogged by the guilt of having been plucked out of the battle while many of his comrades were still being killed. Beach is an indomitable actor whose career has been marked by serial typecasting as "the American Indian." Though he is playing a Native American here, there is no trace of any former character is his role; his performance is the best of the film.\nJesse Bradford does a decent job with the charming and spotlight-craving Gagnon, who uses his new hero status to advantage. Ryan Philippe's John Bradley is far less mesmerizing, his understated style evoking a brooding -- guess who -- Clint Eastwood. Their performances are adequate, but leave something wanted in their stand-offish manner, as if they were afraid to really get their hands dirty.\nThough melodramatic at times, and certainly flawed, the major themes of "Flags of Our Fathers" are brought out expertly by Eastwood and screenwriter Paul Haggis of "Crash" fame. These are three men who did not ask for fame or hero status, but have had it thrust upon them in order to satiate the will of an overzealous American propaganda machine. \nIf one simple icon brings some measure of comfort to a grieving woman, like a story the mother of a fallen soldier shares, then who is to say it's wrong to have mythic heroes? The film does not provide an easy answer to that question, it simply posits it. In a day and age when war itself has no popular support, no war heroes emerge and cynicism finds its own place in American iconography. "Flags of Our Fathers" explores the meaning of heroism, but it also champions it in a softer, more intriguing way.
(10/26/06 4:00am)
It is a long-standing idea that the participants of World War II, and the people who lived in that era, are "The Greatest Generation." Their heroism is legendary, their lives were noble and their cause was just. At least, that is the way history has been written. At the heart of Clint Eastwood's adaptation of the novel "Flags of Our Fathers" is a questioning of that assertion, and a recreation of the merits of war exploring who we hold up as heroes. \nIn the late 90s, a middle-aged James Bradley embarked on a painstaking journey to discover the truth of his father's early life. John Bradley was one of the six men who raised an American flag on Mount Suribachi at the Battle of Iwo Jima - the fiercest battle in the history of World War II. The moment was captured by Pulitzer Prize winning photojournalist Joe Rosenthal, and has been hailed as the most iconic image of 20th century America. James Bradley deconstructed the mythic status of the photograph's subjects in "Flags of our Fathers." The film follows suit in a more condensed but compelling way. The film's main characters are the six men who raised the flag at Iwo Jima, three of whom survived: two marines, Rene Gagnon and Ira Hayes, and one Navy soldier, John Bradley.\nOf the three leading men, actor Adam Beach brings an authenticity and almost poetic tragedy to the life of Ira Hayes. Unwilling to allow himself a moment's peace, his character is dogged by the guilt of having been plucked out of the battle while many of his comrades were still being killed. Beach is an indomitable actor whose career has been marked by serial typecasting as "the American Indian." Though he is playing a Native American here, there is no trace of any former character is his role; his performance is the best of the film.\nJesse Bradford does a decent job with the charming and spotlight-craving Gagnon, who uses his new hero status to advantage. Ryan Philippe's John Bradley is far less mesmerizing, his understated style evoking a brooding -- guess who -- Clint Eastwood. Their performances are adequate, but leave something wanted in their stand-offish manner, as if they were afraid to really get their hands dirty.\nThough melodramatic at times, and certainly flawed, the major themes of "Flags of Our Fathers" are brought out expertly by Eastwood and screenwriter Paul Haggis of "Crash" fame. These are three men who did not ask for fame or hero status, but have had it thrust upon them in order to satiate the will of an overzealous American propaganda machine. \nIf one simple icon brings some measure of comfort to a grieving woman, like a story the mother of a fallen soldier shares, then who is to say it's wrong to have mythic heroes? The film does not provide an easy answer to that question, it simply posits it. In a day and age when war itself has no popular support, no war heroes emerge and cynicism finds its own place in American iconography. "Flags of Our Fathers" explores the meaning of heroism, but it also champions it in a softer, more intriguing way.
(10/26/06 4:00am)
The three films of Lodge Kerrigan invariably deal with two major themes: mental instability and yearning for the love of a child. On the surface, these two themes don't seem to intersect at all. Masterfully, however, Kerrigan has found ways to make them intertwine in his oft-disturbing, surreal and constantly brilliant films. \nHis debut feature "Clean, Shaven" was first released in 1994 and has recently been released in a fully enhanced DVD format by the Criterion Collection. Criterion has cleaned up the audio transfer and enhanced the image, clearing away hundreds of particles of debris that littered the original print, all under the watchful supervision of Kerrigan himself.\nKerrigan's films have a way with the audience not because they are obsessed with keeping your attention the way mainstream movies are, but because they are so visually and aurally fascinating. "Clean, Shaven" has barely any dialogue at all, allowing the viewer to be absorbed into the world of the film based on its visual and aural merits. The lead character, a paranoid schizophrenic named Peter Winter, speaks less than 20 lines throughout the entire run.\nKerrigan's specific avoidance of having his main character speak serves to pull the viewer closer to his unbalanced mental state. Instead of keeping you at a distance by making Peter a conventional movie lead that talks often and is constantly manipulating his circumstances, Kerrigan places you inside the mind of his protagonist, a frightening and disorienting place.\nThe story follows Winter, played uncannily well by Peter Greene, as he spends days searching for a daughter that was given up for adoption when he was put into a mental institution. Many critics, essayists, theorists and even psychologists have attested that "Clean, Shaven" is the best exploration of schizophrenia ever put on film.\nThe camera follows Winter as he roams from hotel room to hotel room, never letting up on its suffocating close-ups. The score by Hahn Rowe is a tour-de-force, combining eerie, off-kilter piano music with the constant droning of an out-of-tune radio. We never hear specific sounds, just indiscernible and ever-shifting voices amidst a blaze of white noise. The point of the "audio assault," as Criterion essayist Dennis Lim put it, is to bring the viewer into a visceral understanding of what Winter hears every second of every day.\nOn the commentary track, famed auteur Steven Soderbergh engages in a dialogue with Kerrigan about the techniques he used to set up these various conclusions. Though he expands on his intentions, he never gives any proof of what the answers may be, preferring instead to let the film speak for itself.
(09/28/06 4:00am)
I recently re-watched "A Civil Action," a taut legal drama penned by Steven Zaillian whose other impressive credits include "Gangs of New York" and "Schindler's List." In the company of these beautifully written and well-studied dramas, I am shocked that his adaptation of Robert Penn Warren's "All the King's Men" was as blandly bad as it was. \nZaillian adamantly pronounced that instead of turning to the Oscar-winning 1949 version of the famous American novel for inspiration, he wrote straight from the source material, opting instead to be more faithful to the novel than its previous film adaptation. Unfortunately, Zaillian should've taken a page from the book of writer/director Robert Rossen, whose version is not only more engaging but astonishingly better-acted. \nThe plot centers around a corrupt Louisiana politician and follows the arch of his career as he makes a successful bid for governor, then proceeds to quash all of his enemies in a brazen and obvious pursuit of power. But the lust for power, which was the successful center and character study of the original film version, is only one of the many muddled plot threads that inhabit the film.\nPlayed somewhat ludicrously by Sean Penn, Governor Willie Stark is brash, uncontrollable and downright silly. Waving his arms about, inciting huge waves of raucous cheers and steadily pumping a vein in the upper left of his forehead, Penn's performance is not unlike old footage of Adolf Hitler rallying his countrymen. Every time the camera panned over to Stark's entranced minions, I winced painfully, feeling sorry for the many overzealous extras they hired to foam at the mouth for drama's sake. \nAs the film is told through the eyes of one of Stark's cohorts, the second most important performance belongs to Jude Law as journalist Jack Burden. In the novel, Burden is a complex narrator, fretting constantly over his ambiguous morality and making difficult decisions for the sake of his idol Willie Stark. I've never been a big fan of Jude Law, and his performance here further proves that a pretty face does not equal quality acting abilities. Normally an over--actor, Law underplays his character here, mumbling constantly in an indiscernible and foolishly bad southern accent. \nThe normally effervescent Kate Winslet gives an uneven and shoddy performance as Jack's old flame, now ensconced in a torrid love affair with the governor. Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of the morally incorruptible Judge Irwin is decent, as is James Gandolfini's performance as Stark's longtime enemy Tiny Duffy. Mistakenly, the film relies heavily on the names and award nominations of its cast to lend the story any kind of authenticity. Unfortunately, Zaillian trusted them a little too much, neglecting to properly direct his actors, and instead focusing on lush period accuracy and cinematography.\nLike the phenomenon "Citizen Kane," "All the King's Men" is a fictional story based on a real-life politician, former Louisiana governor Huey Long. Long was charismatic, prolific and stomped over many of his enemies in his Machiavellian rise to power, only to be assassinated for his cruel tactics. The difference between Orson Welles' true-to-life masterpiece and this overly slick retread of a great novel could not be more obvious: Style does not equal substance.
(09/28/06 2:43am)
I recently re-watched "A Civil Action," a taut legal drama penned by Steven Zaillian whose other impressive credits include "Gangs of New York" and "Schindler's List." In the company of these beautifully written and well-studied dramas, I am shocked that his adaptation of Robert Penn Warren's "All the King's Men" was as blandly bad as it was. \nZaillian adamantly pronounced that instead of turning to the Oscar-winning 1949 version of the famous American novel for inspiration, he wrote straight from the source material, opting instead to be more faithful to the novel than its previous film adaptation. Unfortunately, Zaillian should've taken a page from the book of writer/director Robert Rossen, whose version is not only more engaging but astonishingly better-acted. \nThe plot centers around a corrupt Louisiana politician and follows the arch of his career as he makes a successful bid for governor, then proceeds to quash all of his enemies in a brazen and obvious pursuit of power. But the lust for power, which was the successful center and character study of the original film version, is only one of the many muddled plot threads that inhabit the film.\nPlayed somewhat ludicrously by Sean Penn, Governor Willie Stark is brash, uncontrollable and downright silly. Waving his arms about, inciting huge waves of raucous cheers and steadily pumping a vein in the upper left of his forehead, Penn's performance is not unlike old footage of Adolf Hitler rallying his countrymen. Every time the camera panned over to Stark's entranced minions, I winced painfully, feeling sorry for the many overzealous extras they hired to foam at the mouth for drama's sake. \nAs the film is told through the eyes of one of Stark's cohorts, the second most important performance belongs to Jude Law as journalist Jack Burden. In the novel, Burden is a complex narrator, fretting constantly over his ambiguous morality and making difficult decisions for the sake of his idol Willie Stark. I've never been a big fan of Jude Law, and his performance here further proves that a pretty face does not equal quality acting abilities. Normally an over--actor, Law underplays his character here, mumbling constantly in an indiscernible and foolishly bad southern accent. \nThe normally effervescent Kate Winslet gives an uneven and shoddy performance as Jack's old flame, now ensconced in a torrid love affair with the governor. Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of the morally incorruptible Judge Irwin is decent, as is James Gandolfini's performance as Stark's longtime enemy Tiny Duffy. Mistakenly, the film relies heavily on the names and award nominations of its cast to lend the story any kind of authenticity. Unfortunately, Zaillian trusted them a little too much, neglecting to properly direct his actors, and instead focusing on lush period accuracy and cinematography.\nLike the phenomenon "Citizen Kane," "All the King's Men" is a fictional story based on a real-life politician, former Louisiana governor Huey Long. Long was charismatic, prolific and stomped over many of his enemies in his Machiavellian rise to power, only to be assassinated for his cruel tactics. The difference between Orson Welles' true-to-life masterpiece and this overly slick retread of a great novel could not be more obvious: Style does not equal substance.
(09/21/06 4:00am)
I have not, unfortunately, seen "L'Ultimo Bacio," the Italian film upon which the recently released "The Last Kiss," starring Zach Braff, was based. I am sure, however, that the original foreign film is better than its successor. Directed by Tony Goldwyn, "The Last Kiss" tries hard to be poignant, succeeds frequently, but fails in the grand scheme.\nThe film follows a group of late 20-something professionals as they struggle with the realization that they are growing older and their lives have few "surprises" left in store for them. Braff's character Michael and his commitment fears are at the center of the plot. Revolving around him are Casey Affleck's domestically bedraggled and beleaguered character Chris, and Michael's girlfriend's parents, played beautifully by Blythe Danner and Tom Wilkinson. Danner is the best thing about the movie but is sadly under-used in favor of exhausting the storyline of the far less interesting Michael and girlfriend Jenna.\nFor the most part, the film seems more like a cautionary tale for the urban upwardly mobile than a thorough portrait of the state of modern relationships. I cannot imagine this film striking a chord with anyone outside of that class set, which is its ultimate failure. It disregards the underlying truths inherent in all human relationships in favor of dramatizing disputing couples and friends, sadly believing that is what passes for good fiction. I've seen this film praised for its "reality," and I suppose if we're defining "reality" here as being the five minutes of shouting and screaming that follows the moment when you first realize that your mate isn't perfect, than "The Last Kiss" has that in abundance.\nOut of the many plot threads, Braff's is the most prominent. Michael has just found out his girlfriend of three years is having a baby. The two have decided to start a family and agree to put off marriage until they both feel more comfortable with making such a serious commitment. The central conflict arises when Michael meets and begins a flirtation with a 20-year-old college sophomore. She's silly, naïve, oblivious, and not a little bit slutty. Still, the viewer can't help but feel sorry for her, as she is simply a distraction for Michael, and a fairly weak plot device used to set up "The Big Fight" between his character and Jenna's.\nAnd here is where the wheels fall off the wagon for Goldwyn and the otherwise talented screenwriter Paul Haggis. Asking the audience to believe that the thus far sane and grounded Jenna, frequently referred to as "the perfect girl," would react this irrationally to her partner's misstep requires a suspension of disbelief that the filmmakers have simply not earned. The film takes a nosedive, recovering only for a moment when Michael shares a compelling scene with the sage would-be father-in-law, played by Wilkinson.\nWatching Jenna, the terrifying thought occurred to me that absolutely none of the women in the film are shown in a flattering light. Chris' wife is maniacally unstable, Jenna goes nuts, and even Danner's character is a little questionably right-minded.\nI'm scared that soon to be 30-year-olds may think this way, but I'm more scared that the filmmakers believe women think this way. Admittedly, some women share similar qualities to the ones depicted here, but my hope for humanity is that men realize that most women aren't completely crackers.
(09/21/06 2:51am)
I have not, unfortunately, seen "L'Ultimo Bacio," the Italian film upon which the recently released "The Last Kiss," starring Zach Braff, was based. I am sure, however, that the original foreign film is better than its successor. Directed by Tony Goldwyn, "The Last Kiss" tries hard to be poignant, succeeds frequently, but fails in the grand scheme.\nThe film follows a group of late 20-something professionals as they struggle with the realization that they are growing older and their lives have few "surprises" left in store for them. Braff's character Michael and his commitment fears are at the center of the plot. Revolving around him are Casey Affleck's domestically bedraggled and beleaguered character Chris, and Michael's girlfriend's parents, played beautifully by Blythe Danner and Tom Wilkinson. Danner is the best thing about the movie but is sadly under-used in favor of exhausting the storyline of the far less interesting Michael and girlfriend Jenna.\nFor the most part, the film seems more like a cautionary tale for the urban upwardly mobile than a thorough portrait of the state of modern relationships. I cannot imagine this film striking a chord with anyone outside of that class set, which is its ultimate failure. It disregards the underlying truths inherent in all human relationships in favor of dramatizing disputing couples and friends, sadly believing that is what passes for good fiction. I've seen this film praised for its "reality," and I suppose if we're defining "reality" here as being the five minutes of shouting and screaming that follows the moment when you first realize that your mate isn't perfect, than "The Last Kiss" has that in abundance.\nOut of the many plot threads, Braff's is the most prominent. Michael has just found out his girlfriend of three years is having a baby. The two have decided to start a family and agree to put off marriage until they both feel more comfortable with making such a serious commitment. The central conflict arises when Michael meets and begins a flirtation with a 20-year-old college sophomore. She's silly, naïve, oblivious, and not a little bit slutty. Still, the viewer can't help but feel sorry for her, as she is simply a distraction for Michael, and a fairly weak plot device used to set up "The Big Fight" between his character and Jenna's.\nAnd here is where the wheels fall off the wagon for Goldwyn and the otherwise talented screenwriter Paul Haggis. Asking the audience to believe that the thus far sane and grounded Jenna, frequently referred to as "the perfect girl," would react this irrationally to her partner's misstep requires a suspension of disbelief that the filmmakers have simply not earned. The film takes a nosedive, recovering only for a moment when Michael shares a compelling scene with the sage would-be father-in-law, played by Wilkinson.\nWatching Jenna, the terrifying thought occurred to me that absolutely none of the women in the film are shown in a flattering light. Chris' wife is maniacally unstable, Jenna goes nuts, and even Danner's character is a little questionably right-minded.\nI'm scared that soon to be 30-year-olds may think this way, but I'm more scared that the filmmakers believe women think this way. Admittedly, some women share similar qualities to the ones depicted here, but my hope for humanity is that men realize that most women aren't completely crackers.
(03/30/06 5:00am)
"Everything Is Illuminated" is a wonder of a film, and it achieves something so rare that it is hard to believe it comes from a first-time director/screenwriter. Its achievement lies in its uncanny ability to evolve from a quirky, hilarious road picture into a solemn and poetic meditation. The central theme is remembrance, involving one of the most horrific events of the 20th century: the extermination of the European Jewish community in World War II. \nAcclaimed actor Liev Schreiber ("The Hurricane") adapted the autobiographical novel by Jonathan Safran Foer for the screen and finally got it produced by Warner Independent Pictures after a couple years of shopping for a financier. Perhaps the film works so well because of Schreiber's intimacy with its content, since he grew up in the Jewish community and has played many Jewish roles in his career. \nThe film begins with an introductory voiceover by one of the central characters, a Ukrainian translator named Alex Perchov. Alex's role is one that could have been performed badly, given that he is written as a caricature early on. He is goofy, talking mostly about sex, American pop culture and his crazy obsession with American hip-hop. It is to actor Eugene Hutz's credit and Schreiber's deft writing that Alex is a likable protagonist, one we trust from the start. \n Jewish-American Jonathan Foer (Wood) hires Alex as his guide through the countryside of Ukraine. Jonathan is in search of a mysterious woman in an old photograph whom Jonathan is told saved his late grandfather's life before the Nazi invasion of his small village, Trachimbrod. When Jonathan arrives in Ukraine, he is met by Alex and Alex's crotchety old grandfather, who appears to have strong anti-Semitic beliefs. \nThough the story revolves around Jonathan's quest to discover his roots, it takes on a far more complex dimension with the addition of Alex's grandfather, who may know more about Jonathan's past than any of them first realize. As the three strangely-assembled characters travel the Ukrainian countryside, encountering other eccentric characters, having car trouble and getting lost in vast green farm fields, they connect in different ways. The grandfather softens from his frequent memories of the country before the war and finds something in Jonathan that is not clear until everything is indeed illuminated when the three reach their destination in the home of a little old lady who is the only survivor of Trachimbrod. \nThe DVD of the film is somewhat lackluster, with only two special features. Several deleted and extended scenes are included, as well as the original theatrical trailer. Sadly, there are no director commentaries or behind-the-scenes features, which could have really helped viewers understand more about Schreiber's attachment to the story and explain why he chose this film as his directorial debut. However disappointing the DVD may be, it is still worthwhile to rent or buy this small but important film.
(03/29/06 11:43pm)
"Everything Is Illuminated" is a wonder of a film, and it achieves something so rare that it is hard to believe it comes from a first-time director/screenwriter. Its achievement lies in its uncanny ability to evolve from a quirky, hilarious road picture into a solemn and poetic meditation. The central theme is remembrance, involving one of the most horrific events of the 20th century: the extermination of the European Jewish community in World War II. \nAcclaimed actor Liev Schreiber ("The Hurricane") adapted the autobiographical novel by Jonathan Safran Foer for the screen and finally got it produced by Warner Independent Pictures after a couple years of shopping for a financier. Perhaps the film works so well because of Schreiber's intimacy with its content, since he grew up in the Jewish community and has played many Jewish roles in his career. \nThe film begins with an introductory voiceover by one of the central characters, a Ukrainian translator named Alex Perchov. Alex's role is one that could have been performed badly, given that he is written as a caricature early on. He is goofy, talking mostly about sex, American pop culture and his crazy obsession with American hip-hop. It is to actor Eugene Hutz's credit and Schreiber's deft writing that Alex is a likable protagonist, one we trust from the start. \n Jewish-American Jonathan Foer (Wood) hires Alex as his guide through the countryside of Ukraine. Jonathan is in search of a mysterious woman in an old photograph whom Jonathan is told saved his late grandfather's life before the Nazi invasion of his small village, Trachimbrod. When Jonathan arrives in Ukraine, he is met by Alex and Alex's crotchety old grandfather, who appears to have strong anti-Semitic beliefs. \nThough the story revolves around Jonathan's quest to discover his roots, it takes on a far more complex dimension with the addition of Alex's grandfather, who may know more about Jonathan's past than any of them first realize. As the three strangely-assembled characters travel the Ukrainian countryside, encountering other eccentric characters, having car trouble and getting lost in vast green farm fields, they connect in different ways. The grandfather softens from his frequent memories of the country before the war and finds something in Jonathan that is not clear until everything is indeed illuminated when the three reach their destination in the home of a little old lady who is the only survivor of Trachimbrod. \nThe DVD of the film is somewhat lackluster, with only two special features. Several deleted and extended scenes are included, as well as the original theatrical trailer. Sadly, there are no director commentaries or behind-the-scenes features, which could have really helped viewers understand more about Schreiber's attachment to the story and explain why he chose this film as his directorial debut. However disappointing the DVD may be, it is still worthwhile to rent or buy this small but important film.