Showing posts with label Danny Huston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Danny Huston. Show all posts

Movie Review Marlowe

Marlowe (2023)

Directed by Neil Jordan 

Written by William Monahan 

Starring Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, Danny Huston, Adewale Akinnouye Agbaje, Jessica Lange

Release Date February 15th, 2023 

Published February 24th, 2023 

Marlowe is a stunningly mediocre film. An attempt to bring back the feel of 40s noir detective novels, in the vain of Raymond Chandler, using Chandler's creation, Detective Phillip Marlowe, Marlowe wanders, stumbles, plods and trips over oodles of over pronounced dialogue and a dimwitted 'mystery.' How bad is Marlowe? It made me wonder if I've ever found Liam Neeson entertaining. Seriously, I had to convince myself that I really did like the Taken movies. I think I did. I think... yeah. Neeson could not be more miscast in the role of a 1930s gumshoe in Los Angeles. 

Marlowe opens on a completely meaningless visual. A man is pacing back and forth dictating some odd thing to an attentive secretary. You think the man speaking is Marlowe and the secretary is his Girl Friday, the go-to gal, that reliable female pal from past detective movies. Nope, that's not Marlowe or his secretary. It's also not someone that the actual Phillip Marlowe is peeping in on for a case. So, why did we open on this visual? God help me, I have no idea. It's a completely disconnected visual. It's a seeming recreation from past Marlowe films and novels that I assume director Neil Jordan recreated simply to evoke Marlowe's of the past. 

The reveal of the actual Marlowe comes with the introduction of our Femme Fatale, that dangerous female client with the case that will test our detective's metal. Diane Kruger is our femme fatale in Marlowe and with her platinum blonde hair and tight dress, she certainly has the visual from a Phillip Marlowe mystery down pat. Sadly, she and Marlowe, as played by Liam Neeson, have to eventually speak and when they do, the hired boiled dialogue turns both actors into unintentionally comedic characters. There is a particular cadence to Raymond Chandler mysteries and neither Neeson or Kruger have that kind of cadence. In their mouths, these words come off like people stating written dialogue out loud and not the natural speech of two people who speak like this all the time. 

It's an odd and perhaps labored comparison but Marvel movie fans will understand. If you've seen Guardians of the Galaxy and then see the Guardians as directed by anyone other than James Gunn, they characters just don't sound right. You can tell James Gunn's cadence is missing and it throws off the way the Guardians typically come off on screen. That's especially true in Thor Love and Thunder and kind of true in the two most recent Avengers movies. That's how Neeson and Kruger sound when trying to deliver Raymond Chandler style hardboiled dialogue. It just hits the ear all wrong. 



Spoiler Alert: Consecration's Unholy Ending

Consecration (2023)

Directed by Christopher Smith

Written by Christopher Smith 

Starring Jena Malone, Danny Huston, Janet Suzman 

Release Date February 10th, 2023 

Published February 6th, 2023 

Consecration follows the slowly cracking psyche of a woman who may or may not be the vessel of an ancient demon. Jena Malone stars as Grace, a boring eye doctor living a boring life in London. Grace's life and comfort is upended when she's told that her younger brother, a Priest, has died. Not only is he dead, he murdered another fellow Priest before taking his own life. The Nuns in the Scottish abbey where Grace's brother lived and work appear convinced that he was possessed by a demon who caused him to commit murder and take his own life. 

Naturally, Grace must investigate over the objection of Mother Superior (Janet Suzman) and the lead detective on the case, DCI Harris (Thoren Ferguson), but with the aid of a Vatican based Priest, Father Romero (Danny Huston), who is also seeking the truth about what happened. Or is he? That bit of snark is aimed at the fact that Consecration isn't a great movie. It's often a quite convoluted mess that at once frames the church as the villains and potentially the heroes. It's perhaps intended to have a twist but I am honestly unsure. 

With this spoiler alert article we will examine the characters and see if we can make sense of the odd ending of Consecration and maybe find where this failed film could have worked. From here on, spoilers for Consecration. I don't recommend the movie but you might prefer seeing it before having the characters and plot ruined. Thus, you've been warned. From here on out, spoilers for the characters and story of Consecration... 

Who is Grace? Jena Malone's Grace lives a comfortable if boring life as an eye doctor in London. Grace was an adopted child, alongside her brother, and grew up in a deeply traumatic broken home. Grace's father was crazed and abusive. Dad thought his daughter was some kind of demon and that stopping her from destroying the world started with him keeping her captive. This leads to him murdering Grace's mother before he's nearly killed himself while trying to kill Grace. 

In reality, Dad was right. Grace is, in fact, a demon in human form. She doesn't know it yet, but Grace is a powerful demon who travels through time to kill who needs to be killed to protect her secret and secure Grace's future for whatever evil scheme is supposed to play out. Grace's brother died when an older Priest figured out that killing Grace was the only way to stop the demon inside her and was endeavoring to kill Grace. Instead, the brother killed the Priest and to show the demon that she wasn't in charge, he killed himself. 

I think that's what happened. Again, Consecration is a deeply confused movie that seems to shift motivations while searching for the next creepy visual element. Grace figures out that she is the demon just as she's about to surrender to Father Romero who wants to entomb Grace and the demon under the newly consecrated church. Grace survives, murders several people, including Father Romero, and pretends to kill herself to throw off DCI Harris. In reality, she's an unstoppable evil demon who can survive anything and kill anyone she chooses. 

The film ends when Mother Superior stops sending minions to try and kill Grace and takes matters into her own hands. Showing up outside of Grace's office, Mother Superior pulls a gun on Grace only to then be struck and killed by a cab. Inside the cab is an angel bobblehead which is viewed just as Grace talks about having had a guardian angel since she was a kid. The Guardian Angel is Grace herself as a time traveling demon Nun who leads Mother Superior into the street to be hit by the cab. 

I think. Again, Consecration is highly convoluted, as you can sense from that description. I think Grace is a demon. I know we see Grace, in demon form, dressed as a Nun, traveling back in time to witness the murder of the Priest, witness her brother's death, she is responsible for saving herself from her father when he tries to murder her as a child. She's there to stab a Nun who tries to kill Grace. And, we see all of the strange, inexplicable and violent deaths that happen in front of Grace, that Grace herself commits the acts, invisibly. 



Movie Review Consecration

Consecration (2023) 

Directed by Christopher Smith 

Written by Christopher Smith 

Starring Jena Malone, Danny Huston, Janet Suzman 

Release Date February 10th, 2023 

Published February 6th, 2023 

Consecration stars Jena Malone as Grace, a doctor living in America who is called to Scotland when her brother dies under unusual circumstances. Grace's brother, a Priest, is accused of having murdered another Priest before taking his own life. Naturally, Grace does not believe that her brother would have done such a thing or taken his own life. Thus, a mystery unfolds, who killed the Priest and who killed Grace's brother and portrayed it as a suicide? 

Aiding or perhaps hindering Grace's search for the truth is Father Romero (Danny Huston). Father Romero claims to be at the convent where Grace's brother was found to re-consecrate the place and bring it back to God. He claims that he can't do that as long as lies are being told about the death of Grace's brother. So, he offers to help Grace find the truth. Meanwhile, Mother Superior (Janet Suzman) lingers in the back of many scenes looking menacing and admitting that she may have tainted the evidence surrounding the murder and Grace's brother's death. 

Eventually we learn that members of the convent blame a demon for the death of both Priests. A Nun claims that a demon possessed Grace's brother, causing him to murder the other Priest and causing him to take his own life. Whether or not such a demon exists or if the death of Grace's brother was orchestrated by members of the convent is the mystery that drives Consecration as it proceeds through its horror movie story, one bubbling with religious imagery. 

The conclusion of Consecration is frustrating and deeply unsatisfying. The whole thing turns on a Deus Ex Machina that is broad to downright silly. Essentially, one of our characters turns out to be able to be anywhere at anytime and has been orchestrating everything we have seen since the start of the movie. We learn this when we are taken back in time via flashback that shows us everything that the rest of the movie was incapable of implying. 

Jena Malone usually makes better choices than this. Malone is wonderful at playing haunted characters with deep, dark, secrets and yet, Consecration makes her weepy and weak. It doesn't suit her. She ends the movie in a much different place than she began but it feels unearned. Malone is not the wilting flower type, she has a natural strength that she brings to most of her performances. Trying to tamp that down in Consecration via bad wig and weepy eyes simply doesn't work. 

Find my full length review at Horror.Media



Movie Review: Big Eyes

Big Eyes (2014) 

Directed by Tim Burton 

Written by Scott Alexander, Larry Karaszewski

Starring Amy Adams, Christoph Waltz, Danny Huston, Krysten Ritter

Release Date December 25th, 2014

Published December 25th, 2014

Few people have a face as punch-able as Christoph Waltz. The supercilious grin he affects in "Inglourious Basterds" and brings back for his villainous role in Tim Burton's "Big Eyes" desperately invites one to pop him. Of course, it's not just his face that makes you want to poke him one, it's that arrogant manner, that superior tone and hardcore obnoxiousness. But, for a moment, just watch that jaw as he slips toward that grin and tell me you don't know exactly where you want your fist to land. 

That's the power of Waltz, a man remarkably capable of making you loathe him, a capability that is both a blessing and a curse to the new movie "Big Eyes." On the one hand, Waltz is playing a real-life character quite worthy of a sock on the jaw. Art phony Walter Keane ho attempted to steal credit for his wife's remarkably popular art. On the other hand, Waltz's Keane is so loathsome I could barely stay in the theater to watch.

"Big Eyes" tells a story of fraud and how a meek woman through inner strength, and an assist from Jehovah, overcame her domineering fraud of a husband to claim her life's work. Amy Adams portrays Margaret Keane as an impulsive woman who flees her first husband for unspecified reasons and heads for San Francisco with her daughter in tow and no plan whatsoever for how to provide for them.

In very short order Margaret meets and marries Walter Keane (Waltz) who dazzles her with stories of living in Paris and supporting himself as an artist/real estate agent. At first, Walter is supportive and the two work together. However, when Margaret's unique paintings of saucer-eyed children gain attention over Walter's street scene of Paris, he decides he should pretend the “Big Eyes” are his work ... for promotional purposes only, of course.

That Walter Keane was a fraud is relatively well known, because he was an especially successful fraud. "Big Eyes" demonstrates how Margaret enabled the fraud and why it persisted for so long.

Adams is wonderful at portraying multitudes of emotion on her splendid features, especially with her narrow blue eyes, which ache and delight with equal fervor. With her voice barely a quiver, Adams brings Margaret's strength forward in brief dissertations about how personal her art is, and we know eventually that strength will transition into action.

After years of letting Walter co-opt her work and bastardize it into a pop phenomenon, Margaret left Walter and moved with her daughter to Hawaii. There she became a Jehovah's Witness and decided it was time to tell the truth about her paintings.

Here director Tim Burton directs a delightful scene in which Margaret reveals the truth to a random Hawaiian radio DJ who thought he was simply interviewing the wife of Walter Keane.

"Big Eyes" is certainly not without its delightful moments -- not just in its depiction of the radio show, but its scenes of the aftermath of people seeing Margaret's story on the AP wire. Then it appears in newspapers finally reaches Walter in San Francisco, where his indignant reaction to the story is completely hysterical. Also delightful is the courtroom follow-up as Margaret sues Walter for the proceeds of the “Big Eyes” paintings. Waltz acts out both sides of a cross-examination of himself about his creative process.

In the courtroom scene, Waltz becomes his most unctuously punch-able. If you didn't truly despise Walter prior to this scene, you will truly wish him ill by the end of his courtroom shenanigans. I have no idea how much of Walter Keane's work in court as his own idiot lawyer is actually based on the real-life case, but if it was anything like in the movie, he's lucky he wasn't strung up in the town square. 

While I was delighted by the courtroom scene and Waltz has moments of glorious, comic oiliness, there are times when the drama becomes too much. The scene in which Walter first seizes credit for the paintings is infuriating to watch, as are all scenes in the film featuring Waltz opposite Danny Huston. He portrays the film's narrator, a gossip columnist for a San Francisco newspaper. Huston has an unctuousness to match Waltz's, and the two of them together is more insufferable than entertaining. 

I can't say Tim Burton needed to cut back on Walter. That's relatively impossible given the true story. But some kind of modulation on the tone of his performance is, I believe, a reasonable request. The performance is at times so detestable that I wanted to leave the theater. 

So, do I recommend "Big Eyes?" That's a good question. I really don't know. I appreciate the effort the film puts forth to tell this worthy, true-life story, but some of the film is nearly impossible to sit through. Waltz is incredibly effective, almost too effective, at making us despise him. Still, I can't help but credit the film for provoking such a visceral reaction in a viewer. 

I really hate Walter Keane as he's portrayed in "Big Eyes." In that way I can't help but recommend the movie, with the caveat that this film will turn off as many people as it entertains. Adams is wonderful and the film is the best thing with Tim Burton's name on it in quite some time.

I still want to punch Christoph Waltz. 

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) 

Directed by Gavin Hood 

Written by David Benioff, Skip Woods

Starring Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Danny Huston, Ryan Reynolds, Dominic Monaghan

Release Date May 1st, 2009 

Published May 4th, 2009 

Arguably the most revered of all superheroes, among the hardcore comic book fans, Wolverine has long deserved his own place in the comic book movie world. Nothing against the X-Men movies which were of varying but often superior quality but Hugh Jackman's Wolverine always seemed to strain against the convention of the superhero team. Granted, some of that was by design, the character has always been a lone wolf, so to speak.

But more than the design of the character, Wolverine and Hugh Jackman were simply bigger than the X-Men, as the character really has always been. Thus, there is a great deal of pressure on this Wolvie movie X-Men Origins Wolverine. The pressure to live up to an outsized reputation and the pressure to live up to beyond outsized fan expectatons.

Origins traces the life of young James Logan from the day he found out he was a mutant who could grow claws of bone through years of work as a mercenary alongside his mutant brother Sabretooth (Liev Schreiber) in the US Army, to the day he tried to leave mercenary work behind and live a life of peace and normalcy.

For a time Logan worked with a team of mercenaries assembled by General Stryker (Danny Huston). Along with his brother, Logas fought alongside shooting expert Agent Zero (Daniel Henney), Swordsman Wade 'Deadpool' Wilson (Ryan Reynolds), Chris 'Bolt' Bradley (Dominic Monaghan), John Wraith (Will I Am) and Frederick The Blob Dukes. Together this team committed what Wolverine comes to believe are atrocities, hence why he walked away.

Of course, if they had just let Logan retire we wouldn't have much of a movie. Living in Canada, Logan has met a woman, Kyla Silverfox (Lynn Collins) and is living an idyllic life when General Stryker arrives with a warning, someone has begun killing the team. It's Sabretooth and he wants to make his brother pay for walking away.

With Stryker's help, Logan undergoes a procedure intended to give him the ability to not merely fight his brother but do something no conventional weapon could do, kill him. With the use of out of this world technology that bond unbreakable metal with all of Logan's bones, he becomes the indestructible Weapon X, Wolverine.

Directed by Gavin Hood, X-Men Origins: Wolverine has some terrific action and some seriously goofball stuff. The good stuff is watching Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber go claw to claw. The good stuff is Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool taking out room full of armed men with just two swinging swords.

The goofball stuff is the stuff from the trailers and commercials for Wolverine. The flying from an exploding car to a helicopter to walking away in slow motion as the copter explodes. We've seen goofball stuff like this before and have become immune to the point of kitschy laughter at how cheesy they seem and how self satisfied filmmakers seem with these scenes.

The mythology stuff, all of the back story, the Origins of the title, will appeal only to the hardcore fans who will search for their other X-Men favorites among a group of child mutants rescued by Wolverine late in the film. Hardcore fans who can name the real name of Agent Zero without having to look it up. Those fans will no doubt be stoked by the high level of efficacy or terribly disappointed by whatever inaccuracy they can seize upon. Even in the nitpicking they will find pleasure. Those not in the cult however may be a little put off by the thickness of the plotting, especially since so much of the action doesn't deliver enough distraction from the plot.

Still, what works for Wolverine is Hugh Jackman whose cut physique and cigar chomping charisma perfectly capture the elemental badass nature of Wolverine. He was the perfect choice for this role in the X-Men movies and he has only grown more comfortable and capable as the character has progressed. Wolverine gets us past alot of the troubled, overly dense plotting of X-Men Origins.

Mostly for the hardcore fan, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is sub-par by the standard set by The Dark Knight, Spiderman and Iron Man. On it's own, away from the lofty comparison, it succeeds with Hugh Jackman's performance, as a summertime filler that should please the faithful.

Movie Review The Constant Gardener

The Constant Gardener (2005) 

Directed by Fernando Meirelles

Written by Jeffrey Caine

Starring Ralph Fiennes, Rachel Weisz, Danny Huston, Bill Nighy

Release Date August 31st, 2005

Published September 15th, 2005 

Fernando Meirelles's City Of God was an astonishing announcement of a talent truly coming into his own. Meirelles had made movies in his home country of Brazil before but nothing with the visceral visual punch of City Of God. With such success a move to feature directing closer to the heart of the business in Hollywood was inevitable. With The Constant Gardener, a British independent production distributed by Focus Features, Meirelles has gone about as Hollywood as he is capable of. A political thriller from the great John Le Carre that aspires beyond mere thrills to something far more important.

Don't be misled into thinking that Gardener is a ponderous thumping of liberal guilt towards Africa; it's also a love story about an emotionally walled-off man and a beautiful, idealistic free spirit thrust into the political whirlwind of Africa.

Ralph Fiennes stars in Constant Gardener as Justin Quayle, an assistant British diplomat who has likely reached the peak of his employability. Quayle seems to have little interest in his bureaucratic position in Kenya where he spends most of his time tending his garden while his superiors handle the heavy diplomatic lifting.

Even after meeting the beautiful idealist Tessa (Rachel Weisz) while on assignment in Britain and falling quickly in love, Quayle remains detached from his African surroundings. Upon moving to Africa with Justin, Tessa jumps immediately into the streets and slums of Africa taking on the cause of healthcare with the help of a local doctor, Arnold (Hubert Kounde).

With AIDS ravaging the country, pharmaceuticals are a hot button. When Tessa discovers that the goodwill of British pharmaceutical companies who donate much of the AIDS medication in the country comes with the danger of product testing for drugs that are not safe and in fact are quite deadly to some, she and Albert set out to expose the danger. All the while Justin remains respectful of his wife's passion but continues to tend his garden oblivious to the rising intrigue of his wife's activities.

When Tessa is found murdered Justin finally begins to see beyond the walls of his bureaucratic office. Setting out to discover why his wife was killed, Justin places himself in harm's way to expose the corruption his wife died to bring to light. Thus begins a world leaping journey from Africa to England and across Europe and a love story that even he had forgotten about.

The plot is as simple as my description, however Director Fernando Meirelles is not content to direct The Constant Gardener as a typical thriller. Interrupting the timeline, the film begins with Tessa's death and flashes back and forth from Justin and Tessa's first meeting to the beginning of Justin's search for meaning in her death and back to what exactly Tessa was attempting to expose.

The timeline shifts work, they give the film more intrigue than a straight telling might have. When combined with the handheld photography and hot hazy visuals of Africa, the film was actually shot in the streets of Kenya, it gives the film a real dramatic jolt. Like City of God, The Constant Gardener has Meirelles signature documentary look and feel.

The acting in The Constant Gardener is first rate. Ralph Fiennes is likely the most consistently fascinating actor working today. His reputation is that of the mercurial ACTOR in every sense of the word and yet the talent on display in The Constant Gardener is astonishingly subtle and affecting. It is Fiennes who really sells the romantic aspects of the plot and makes you believe that even as disconnected as Justin was from his wife's passions he loved and respected everything about her. 

I cannot praise Mr. Fiennes' work any more.  It's likely that awards season will heap all of the necessary praise on this extraordinary performance. This is Mr. Fiennes best work since his Oscar nominated role as a German guard in Schindler's List, his breakout performance. Since that role Fiennes has done fine work in obscurity. Aside from that other Oscar nominated piece The English Patient, his work in movies like Oscar and Lucinda, Spider and Onegin has been beloved by critics and ignored by audiences. His profile is likely to grow this fall with an appearance in the next Harry Potter film.

After wasting her talent in popcorn flicks like The Mummy, The Mummy Returns and Constantine, Rachel Weisz shows the breadth of her talents in The Constant Gardener.  A career best for Weisz as an actress, Tessa is naive and idealistic but with a steely side that comes out when she needs it. Her passion can be seen as foolish by some, as in the way she so gleefully engages in her worst behavior, but the cause is a worthy one. Wearing a pregnancy belly while walking through 100 plus degree heat amongst the impoverished throngs of Kenya is the kind of method acting few actresses could pull off.

Weisz, Fiennes and the supporting performance of the great character actor Danny Huston are all likely to be remembered at the Oscars in March. For Mr. Huston however I would recommend finding a good guy role soon, the ultra-creepy heavies that Huston plays in nearly every film are becoming cliche. Still his work here, while extra creepy at times, is memorable and necessary.


If there is one issue I have with The Constant Gardener it is with the international intrigue and murder for hire subplots. Maybe I'm just burned out on the conventions of the thriller genre but I wasn't interested in seeing every extra painted as a potential threat. There is a scene in the London airport that is typical of the good guy on the run style thriller where everyone in the airport is shown to be a potential spy ready to report Justin's whereabouts to the bad guys. The scene feels out of place in such a serious minded movie.

It is a fact that many corporations do many awful things, but corporations in movies always seem to want to kill anyone who threatens the stock price. In The Constant Gardener Justin is chased all over Africa, Britain and Europe by the shady thugs of a drug company trying to keep him from disclosing their nefariousness. The type of issues raised in The Constant Gardener about the shocking treatment of Africans treated as guinea pigs deserves a more serious look, the thriller plot cheapens the issue.

African poverty and healthcare is a black mark on the conscience of every American. In a country as rich as ours, for us to be so negligent of the issues in Africa is shameful. We rationalize that our government is dealing with it, and indeed our economic aid to Africa is substantial, but industries like the pharmaceutical industry in America and England are doing the kinds of things dramatized in The Constant Gardener and there is no public outcry. Shamefully there are 100 times the number of news stories about Brangelina as there are about the issue those two stars have given so much of their own time to in Africa.

The thriller aspects of The Constant Gardener are remnants of John Le Carre's book and while they likely work in print the conventions are exhausted in film. Besides that, it is the romantic plot that is the real audience hook in The Constant Gardener. Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz have amazing chemistry even as the plot requires them to be pulled apart most of the time. The romantic longing that leads Justin to investigate Tessa's death is very compellingly played by Fiennes.

The film probably would have worked just as well, and even better, without the thriller plot. There was plenty of drama mined from Tessa's secrets and the non-violent machinations of the drug companies to make a compelling story. The minor gunplay and spy vs spy shenanigans feel out of place and unnecessary. Still though, they are a minor detraction.


For Fernando Meirelles working for the first time in a relatively big budget movie, the first film of his career he did not write and develop on his own, The Constant Gardener is a great accomplishment. Even through material not of his own creation his vision wins out over everything. The Constant Gardener is not quite the triumph that City Of God was, but topping that remarkable film may take a lifetime. As it is, The Constant Gardener is yet another example of his rising talent and profile. Mr. Meirelles' work will now likely be as anticipated by film fans as that of Pedro Almodovar or Martin Scorsese.

The film serves another more important purpose as well. It is a reminder of the horrors taking place in Africa and the desperate need for more worldwide attention and involvement. The film is not preachy about these problems but merely throws an important light upon them and in that sense it is more important than a mere movie.

Movie Review Stan & Ollie

Stan & Ollie (2018)

Directed by Jon S. Baird

Written by Jeff Pope

Starring John C. Reilly, Steve Coogan, Shirley Henderson, Nina Arianda, Danny Huston

Release Date December 28th, 2018

Published December 26th, 2018

Stan & Ollie is a late addition to my best of the year list. This wonderful film chronicling the final tour of the legendary comedy duo Laurel & Hardy is funny and poignant without ever becoming cloying or pushy. Steve Coogan and John C Reilly beautifully capture the history and the strain between the two great friends and partners as they attempt to salvage one last bit of glory before the spotlight fades for good.

In 1954, having not made a movie together in 15 years, Laurel & Hardy reunited for a tour of England in hopes of getting a movie project off the ground with an English producer. Things don’t get off to an auspicious start as their tour manager, Delfont (Rufus Jones) books them a run down hotel and a small theater that they are unable to sell out. Worse yet, the producer of their proposed film project won’t take Stan’s calls.

Things become so dire that it appears as if the tour will be cut short as ticket sales lag. Meanwhile, we cut to the back story of what led to their break up 15 years earlier. Danny Huston portrays legendary producer Hal Roach, the man who put the duo together and brought them to the big screen. While Ollie is content with their arrangement, Stan, who once partnered with Charlie Chaplin before his days in the movies, wants to make more money.

With Stan’s contract up, he’s managed to book a deal with Fox but only for Laurel & Hardy, not just for himself. The deal fell through when Ollie decided to remain with Hal Roach and even made a movie, Zenobia, without his long time partner. Zenobia wasn’t a hit and for more than a decade both men’s careers foundered. We don’t know what brought them back together but a payday in England appears to have been the reason.

Even still, the two have a tremendous stage act that we get glimpses of and those glimpses are hysterically funny. As the story progresses, the two begin to do press for the tour and eventually the tour begins to gain ground and sell out shows. Naturally, old tensions come back into light and the tour is thrown into chaos when it appears that Hardy’s health won’t allow him to continue.

Stan & Ollie was directed by Jon S Baird whose previous film, Filth, starring James McAvoy, is quite a departure from the gentle and sweet poignance of Stan & Ollie. Nevertheless, Baird does a tremendous job keeping a good pace and with cinematographer Laurie Rose, he’s crafted not just a funny movie, but quite a beautiful movie. Credit also goes to prosthetics makeup designer Mark Coulier for turning the lanky Mr Reilly seamlessly into the corpulent Mr Hardy.

I would be remiss if I didn’t also praise screenwriter Jeff Pope who worked from the book Laurel & Hardy: The British Tours by A.J Marriott. The dialogue, though mostly inferred, feels real, dynamic, and authentic. The lovely recreations of the Laurel & Hardy performances are wonderful but it is the private moments that resonate deeply, especially a near break up scene that plays as comedy for those who can’t hear the deeply hurtful things the two say to one another.

And then, of course, there are the two incredible performances at the center of the film. John C Reilly has earned both a Golden Globe and a Critics Choice Award nomination for his performance as Oliver Hardy and both are much deserved. Reilly, even under pounds of prosthetics finds the heart of Oliver Hardy in lovely fashion. He appears to have been a lovely man and while the film likely shaves the edges off of all of these characters, this is a lovely way to remember these men.

Steve Coogan in many ways has a much harder performance. Stan Laurel played the fool in many of the Laurel & Hardy movies, bumbling his friend into one silly bit of nonsense after another, but behind the scenes, Laurel was a force to be reckoned with. Laurel wrote much of the duo's routines for stage and screen and was even deferred to by many directors for how to film those routines, though he never earned a directors credit.

Coogan movingly captures the pain and frustration that made Stan Laurel so driven and yet so kind. He wasn’t wrong to want to get the duo more money, they were rather underpaid given their success, and it is a fine tribute to the man that he never stopped fighting for the recognition that he felt they both deserved, but especially for the endless hours of work he put in to make them so successful.

Stan & Ollie is a wonderful movie, a true crowd pleaser. It’s a movie that fans and friends and family of the legendary duo can be proud of. Yes, they had their petty differences and egotism but at the heart, they were showmen and dedicated friends. Stan & Ollie is the kind of tribute these two men deserve after so many years of being under-recognized behind contemporaries such The Marx Brothers, Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin and the copycats who came after such as Abbott & Costello and, to a lesser extent, Martin & Lewis.

Movie Review: Edge of Darkness

Edge of Darkness (2010)

Directed by Martin Campbell 

Written by William Monahan, Andrew Bovell 

Starring Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston

Release Date January 29th, 2010

Published January 29th, 2010 

No one is likely to forget Mel Gibson's off-screen issues anytime soon, nor should they, he's awful. From his disturbing 'Passion' to his arrest and subsequent bashing of the Jewish people, Mel Gibson's private life has become very public and it affects everything the public perceives about him. All of this is part of what makes his performance in the thriller Edge of Darkness so remarkable.

Less than 10 to 15 minutes into what you are expecting to be a rather generic thriller, based on the somewhat innocuous title and vacuous TV campaign, Mel Gibson and director Martin Campbell make you forget, if only briefly, about Mel Gibson's character issues, focus on his movie character and the snaky, violent plot in front of him.

In Edge of Darkness Mel Gibson is Boston police detective Tommy Craven. He has just welcomed home his only child, Emma (Bojana Novakovic) and brought her home. The welcome is short-lived as Emma falls ill and Tommy rushes her to the hospital. That was the plan anyway, just as Craven opens the door to his home a man calls out his name and a shotgun blast blows Emma right back through the doorway.

The violence in this scene is quick and merciless and sets the tone for the rest of the picture. Naturally, Tommy will conduct his own investigation of his daughter's murder. From here you may expect Edge of Darkness to become predictable and fall into typical thriller beats. It does not, in fact Gibson and Director Campbell forcefully make moves in this plot to avoid the typical and drive toward a narrative filled with surprise and suspense.

Lost in all of Mel Gibson's off-screen issues is the fact that he has always been exceptionally talented. His intensity, his physicality, his self effacing humor have all played a role in defining him as an actor capable of moving audiences in many different ways. He makes use of all of his gifts in Edge of Darkness and crafts his best performance since Braveheart.

Director Martin Campbell is a rising star. He was the director who re-launched the Bond series with the adrenalin fueled Casino Royale. Campbell has always been a strong action director but in Edge of Darkness he takes great care to deliver a directorial style that is free of the typical action beats and gets right to point of each scene.

There is very little wasted effort in Edge of Darkness. Take a scene where Craven is kidnapped. We've been here before, we know what to expect. All of sudden the scene is over and we are back into the plot. No talking killer, very little dialogue at all. It's a minor tweak of what is expected but it seems any departure from the expected can be a welcome change in this day and age.

Edge of Darkness does not reinvent the thriller, it's just made better. Better performances, better direction and most importantly, better Mel Gibson. After wandering off the path of stardom with his unfortunate behavior, Mel Gibson is poised for a strong career third act. Let's hope that his off-screen stuff is behind him and more films with the quality and excitement of Edge of Darkness are ahead.

Movie Review: 30 Days of Night

30 Days of Night (2002) 

Directed by Michael Lehmann 

Written by Robert Perez 

Starring Josh Hartnett, Shannyn Sossamon, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Vinessa Shaw, Griffin Dunne, Paulo Costanzo 

Release Date March 1st, 2002 

Published March 1st, 2002 

I'm really beginning to dislike the horror genre. Though regular readers and horror fans might argue that I have always hated horror movies, that is not true. I loved Freddy and Jason as a kid. As an adult, I find the Saw films to be utterly ingenious. My issue with modern horror films is the growing, ugly nihilism of the genre. More and more this genre that once exposed our humanity and capacity for bravery and compassion, now comes to exploit our humanity and compassion.

The latest film to trade on our humanity, depicting violent death with style, wit and impoverished morals is the vampire movie 30 Days of Night. Josh Hartnett stars in 30 Days of Night as Eban Oleson the sheriff of Barrow Alaska. Settled on the uppermost point of the United States, Barrow is home to only the most hardy winter lovers. For 30 days of every year Barrow goes into darkness. Many citizens cannot handle the lack of sun and take off. The 150 or so people who stay behind find something they never could have imagined.

A stranger (Ben Foster) arrives in town. He murders all the sled dogs. He steals and burns all of the cell phones. After he is caught by sheriff Oleson, he warns that 'they' are coming. Who are they? The stranger won't say but once citizens begin getting their heads ripped from their bodies, it's clear that 'they' have indeed arrived. Now, the sheriff with his ex-wife Stella (Melissa George) and a ragtag band of survivors must find a way to survive for 30 days when the sun returns and 'they' go back from where they came.

Based on the 2004 graphic novel by Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith, 30 Days of Night is stylish, darkly humorous and undeniably cool. And therein lies the problem. Like much of modern horror 30 Days of Night exploits our humanity and compassion to get us to invest in these characters and then destroys them in the most eye catching and gory fashion.

I am conflicted about this because I cannot deny the artistry with which director David Slade delivers this carnage. However, the style, the cool, dehumanizes the characters and takes pleasure in their misery. This brings an ugliness, a pseudo-nihilism to the proceedings that frankly makes me ill. I've grown weary of the stylish presentation of the destruction of humanity.

I get that it's a vampire movie and realism is not a question. And yes; you can argue that the style employed only serves to further distance the characters from reality. My point is however, that the danger that these characters find is meant to earn our sympathy and care and thanks to the talented performances of Josh Hartnett and Melissa George, they do.

We are invested emotionally, engaged by these characters. When these characters, not necessarily Hartnett or George, are violently dissected by vampires, the fillmmakers are taking advantage of that sympathy, exploiting it. For what purpose? Why are our sympathies engaged and then violently and bloodily turned against us?

In the Saw films, James Wan, Leigh Whannell and Darren Lynn Bousman engage us similarly but with a point and a purpose. There is a philosophy behind the carnage, a lesson to be imparted about the gift that is life, the gift that is forgiveness and the possibility of redemption. What lesson do we learn from 30 Days of Night other than fake blood looks cool when splashed on white snow.

Josh Hartnett is one of my very favorite actors. Wearing his vulnerabilty on his sleeve and his wit as well, Hartnett has a talent for characters that win us over from the moment we meet them. His sheriff in 30 Days of Night wins us over from his first scene as he stares into the horizon, an undeclared sadness plagues him as the last sunset for 30 days begins to fall.

Melissa George matches Hartnett in her appeal to our sympathies. Also carrying the burden of memory her Stella just wanted to get in and out of town without Eben knowing she was there. The sadness they share over the end of their marriage is never openly discussed but it is written in their every glance and gesture toward and away from one another. In another movie, one with a depth of feeling for these characters beyond finding unique ways for them to kill vampires or to die violently, Hartnett and George could really make something lasting and beautiful. That is something that the creators of 30 Days of Night are incapable of providing.

What is the point of 30 Days of Night. What are we supposed to take away from it? What is it that we find so exhilarating or exciting about the destruction of humanity. There is no subtext, there are no lessons imparted, this film is merely an exercise in the stylish presentation of hardcore violence. Maybe it's because I'm getting older but I just don't get it anymore.

Movie Review Robin Hood (2010)

Robin Hood (2010) 

Directed by Sir Ridley Scott 

Written by Brian Helgeland 

Starring Russell Crowe, Danny Huston, Scott Grimes, Cate Blanchett, Oscar Isaac, Mark Addy 

Release Date May 14th, 2010 

Published May 13th, 2010 

Russell Crowe is a superstar and despite his personality defects, prickly interviews and phone throwing incidents, Crowe's films have always showcased his natural charisma. As was said of classic male movie stars of the past 'Men want to be him, Women want to be with him.' That has been the essence of Russell Crowe.

Lately however, Crowe has chafed against this persona and his ache to pursue a different reputation led to a terrific performance as a roguish and paunchy reporter in “State of Play” and now a buffed up action hero “Robin Hood.” While the movie “Robin Hood” rewrites the English legend, Crowe rewrites his own history essaying Robin as a stoic, charmless action hero that could as easily been played by Vin Diesel.

As King Richard (Danny Huston) wages war in France following a trip to Palestine and Israel in the Crusades, Robin Longstride is one of the King's Archers for hire. No longer entirely loyal to the crown following a horrific massacre of Muslims, Robin Longstride is soon to leave and return to England.

Joining Robin are his long time friends and fellow Archers Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes) and Alan A'Dayle (Alan Doyle) and his onetime antagonist turned loyal friend Little John (Kevin Durand, in a rare good guy role). The way back to England leads to the discovery of a French ambush on English Knights. King Richard is dead and his crown is to be returned to England along with an ancient sword that belongs to Sir Robert Locksley (Douglas Hodge).

Robin and his merry men will return to England dressed as knights, return the crown and reap a reward, or so they had hoped. Winding up in Nottingham to return the sword, Robin meets Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett), Locksley's wife and Sir William Locksley (Max Von Sydow) who engages Longstride in a deal, Robin will take on the role of his son in order to maintain the lands after his death; he will also become husband to Lady Marion.

Meanwhile, as the craven Prince John becomes King John, the French plot an invasion to take advantage of the Royal chaos. Stoking the fires is King John's best friend Godfrey (Mark Strong) who has joined with the French and is leading the invasion. Needless to say, Robin, his merry men, and the people of Nottingham get caught in the midst of all of this intrigue and many a sword is swung and arrow flown.

Directed by the brilliant Sir Ridley Scott, “Robin Hood” treads very similar ground to his Oscar winning epic “Gladiator” and his massive flop, the crusades epic “Kingdom of Heaven.” Scott has a great deal of love for the ancient world, warrior codes and the brotherhood of war. He evokes the age exceptionally well with detailed landscapes and costumes, well used CGI and some terrific cinematography.

Where “Kingdom of Heaven” failed is in the same way “Robin Hood” comes up short; both films swamp the viewer with the ugliness and depravity of the ancient world and leave little for people to enjoy beyond the carnage. Characters suffer because Scott's attention to period detail apparently means depicting men with courage minus charisma and charm.

While Cate Blanchett is allowed to look radiant even while covered in mud, Russell Crowe plays Robin subdued, withdrawn and modestly tortured. His bravery is evident in battle and you can see why his men are loyal to him but he comes up short in the aspects of personality that make him a compelling movie character.

Mirthless, constipated and withdrawn, the Crowe that was so captivating in “Gladiator” and so charming in “State of Play'' is caked in mud and blood and is basically part of the scenery in “Robin Hood'' until the battle scenes awaken his warrior side. The battle stuff is very good, almost the equal of “Gladiator,” but “Robin Hood '' is over 2 hours and 20 minutes long and the battle scenes are merely a third of that run time.

“Robin Hood '' has moments that are as amusing as any classic action epic but the quiet moments are so quiet that lethargy sets in and the audience begins to withdraw nearly as much as Mr. Crowe does. The battle returns the Russell Crowe we’ve come to enjoy then he recedes and we wonder where is the star, where is the spirited rebel. Is Russell Crowe so desperate to create a new persona that he can no longer find joy in his work

If he can’t enjoy it, how can we enjoy it?

Movie Review: The Warrior's Way

The Warrior's Way (2010) 

Directed by Sngmoo Lee 

Written by Sngmoo Lee 

Starring Jang Dong Gun, Kate Bosworth, Geoffrey Rush, Danny Huston 

Release Date December 3rd, 2010 

Published December December 2nd, 2010 

The ‘mash-up’ is a relatively recent invention. It’s a musical invention that came to prominence on the internet in the late 90’s and early oughts and then took off with the release of DJ Danger Mouse’s crashing together of Jay Z’s Black Album with the Beatles’ White album and created a minor sensation. Since then mash ups have moved into every aspect of pop culture from music to TV to books and of course at the movies where the latest mash up involves a slamming together of slice and dice Asian cinema with the tropes of the old school American/Italian Western.

The Warrior’s Way stars Korean leading man Jang Dong Gun in his American film debut. In The Warrior’s Way, Gun plays Yang who, in prologue, is shown becoming ‘The Greatest Swordsman in the World.’ Part of this designation involves the near complete destruction of his rival clan. Only one member of his long time rivals remains, a baby. It is Yang’s task to kill this child but something stops him and instead of carrying out this final assassination; Yang goes on the lamb with the child. Taking off for America, Yang soon finds himself in a rundown western town where the gold rush boom clearly went bust.

Of the 60 or so residents of this town most are circus performers whose production crashed here and never moved on. The circus troupe is lead by Eight Ball (Tony Cox) who happens to have been a friend of a man that Yang was hoping would take him in. Sadly, Yang’s friend is long dead when he arrives leaving behind a rundown laundry business that Yang is expected to take up.

Indeed, with a push from Lynne (Kate Bosworth), Yang does take to the laundry business and soon the business of killing is replaced by the comfort of cleansing and the peace of a desert garden that Yang somehow brings to life. For a time things look ideal as Yang and the newly dubbed baby April look like they could settle in with Lynne and become a family.

Of course, we know this cannot last and things come to a deadly end with the arrival of a former Civil War soldier, The Colonel (Danny Huston). With his deadly band of former soldiers The Colonel arrives in town with revenge in mind. The last time he was here he was disfigured by a teenager whose name escaped him. That teen was Lynne.

As the conflict with The Colonel develops Yang’s former master Saddest Flute (Ti Lung) is patiently waiting for Yang to pick up his sword again and reveal his location. The sword you see cries, carrying the deathly screams of the souls it has taken. When it is unsheathed it reveals where Yang is and allows Saddest Flute and his clan to find him.

Director Sngmoo Lee sets this Asian/Western mash up in a CG universe that exists in eternal twilight. The sun seems to constantly be rising or falling, never fully up or down. The constantly purpling landscapes are dreamy and unique even as they are more noticeable than they should be.

The CGI bloodbath that ensues from frame one until the third act denouement is less impressive than the landscapes. Though Jang Dong-Gun has a strong presence he seems light on the actual physicality and is restricted to sliding and gliding while super quick edits and CGI blood spatter do the actual fighting for him.

Even less impressive is the work of Ms. Boswoth and Mr. Huston who go to extremes of their character in order to find a beat to play against this atonal computer landscape. For Ms. Bosworth it means adopting a ludicrous Western accent and tomboy clothes and for Mr. Huston it means a variation on his tired bad guy growl and a higher than usual creep factor expressed in his sexual fetish for teeth and scars. Eeewww.

I have not even mentioned Oscar winner Geofffrey Rush who plays a Western sharpshooter turned rummy. Billed as Ron though rarely referred to by name, Rush stumbles into scenes, takes over because he is clearly the most interesting actor in the scene and stumbles out to wait for the plot to make use of him again. Rush is among the elements wasted in this 40 million dollar epic of computer generated boredom. The Warrior’s Way wants to be cool; it is Cowboys vs. Ninjas, but it simply doesn’t have the goods.

A stone faced lead, bizarre supporting performances and a mindlessly pretty CGI background add up to just about nothing in The Warrior’s Way. Those who love CGI blood splatter and the implied cool of Jang Dong-Gun you may find something to like about The Warrior’s Way. Me, I’ve already forgotten The Warrior’s Way and begun pining for the next odd genre mash up: Cowboys vs. Aliens.

Movie Review: The Number 23

The Number 23 (2007) 

Directed by Joel Schumacher 

Written by Fernley Phillips 

Starring Jim Carrrey, Virginia Madsen, Logan Lerman, Danny Huston 

Release Date February 23rd, 2007 

Published February 22nd, 2007 

Jim Carrey has struggled to overcome his reputation as just a clown for years. He has done well with dramatic turns in The Truman Show, Man on The Moon, and The Majestic. With his latest picture he once again works against type this time as a potentially psychotic family man in the thriller The Number 23. He should probably have stuck with comedy. The Number 23, directed by Joel Schumacher, is a goofball thriller with an interesting premise that never works because Jim Carrey is simply the wrong actor for this role.

Walter Sparrow (Carrey) has a life that is rather mundane. As a dog catcher he doesn't seem to have much to do from day to day, when there aren't dogs to catch. Aside from waiting for his wife, Agatha (Virginia Madsen), to finish work everyday he's a pretty boring and lonely guy. One day, when Walter picked up Agatha from work he found her in a bookstore. There she purchased for him an odd used book called The Number 23.

Walter is skeptical of the book at first; but two chapters in he is hooked. The book, it seems to Walter, is mirroring his life. The description of the lead character Fingerling, played by Carrey himself in dream sequences, matches Walter's childhood experiences almost exactly. As the story progresses Walter see's more parallels with his own life, especially in relation to the book's central theme about the number 23 which Walter links everywhere in his life. Eventually the book predicts Walter will murder his wife and he must find some way to keep that from happening.

Directed by Joel Schumacher from a script by Fernley Phillips, The Number 23 is a paranoid thriller that indulges an interesting conspiracy but sadly degenerates into a series of ever less believable twists before crashing and burning in the final 20 minutes. The idea behind the film is interesting. The number 23 has in fact been linked by conspiracy theorists to all sorts of tragedies and the script for The Number 23 initially makes good use of this.

From the moment the first trailer for The Number 23 hit theaters Jim Carrey fans have worried that they had another Cable Guy on their hands. They were right. The Number 23 is yet another manic, out of control performance for the funnyman, only this time without the few spare laughs that other film managed. Carrey simply can't find the right pitch for this type of character. He can do morose and he can do manic but when he combines those attributes as he did in Cable Guy and as he does in The Number 23 his performance becomes messy and over-indulgent.

I love the idea of this film. With a tighter script and a different lead actor; I believe The Number 23 could be a dense, conspiracy thriller. In reading about the number 23 enigma I found that the number is linked to the Illuminati and other rich conspiracy targets. Those who have obsessed over the number, those who suffer from an illness called Apophenia; the experience of seeing patterns in random meaningless data, have connected the number 23 to numerous historic tragedies from the Oklahoma City bombing to the siege in Waco Texas to 9/11.


Did you know that Oklahoma City and Waco both happened on 4/19. 4 +19 is 23. No matter that Timothy McVeigh intimated that he chose that date for the Oklahoma City bombing because it was the date of the Waco siege, the conspiracy theory about this ridiculous number is more fun. A movie about that kind of mania would likely be much more fun than the mess that is The Number 23.

I'm certainly not suggesting that there is a role Jim Carrey can't play. However, clearly there are roles he shouldn't play. Psycho, conspiracy-attled killer simply doesn't suit Carrey. It didn't work in The Cable Guy and it works far less in The Number 23. Granted, a third act train-wreck in Joel Schumacher's direction does Carrey few favors but even with Schumacher's bad direction, Carrey is so wrong for the role that even good direction likely could not save The Number 23. \

Documentary Review Fallen

Fallen (2017)  Directed by Thomas Marchese  Written by Documentary  Starring Michael Chiklis  Release Date September 1st, 2017 Published Aug...