Movie Review Civil War

Civil War (2024) 

Directed by Alex Garland

Written by Alex Garland

Starring Kirsten Dunst, Cailee Spaeny, Wagner Moura, William McKinley Henderson, Nick Offerman

Release Date April 12th, 2024 

Published April 12th, 2024 

So, war is bad. Don't do war. If you do war then we won't have internet or even electricity. People will have live in tents in football stadiums, it's all bad. There is no NFL, no NBA, no March Madness. No movies, no Marvel, no Disney Plus. War truly sucks. 0 out of 5 stars for war. Are you enjoying my sarcasm? I'm laying it on pretty thick. On a very surface level, this is the thesis statement behind Alex Garland's new movie Civil War. Lot's of people will die and nothing good will happen if we let our country slip into a civil war. 

Civil War stars Kirsten Dunst as veteran photo journalist, Lee Smith. Lee and her reporter colleague, Joel (Wagner Moura) are planning a perilous journey to the White House from New York City. This is dangerous because the so-called 'Western Forces' of Texas and California have moved the frontline of the Civil War to the President's front door. To get to the White House and the chance to interview the President (Nick Offerman), will mean crossing the almost invisible line between Americans fighting the government and government forces fighting on behalf of the embattled President.

Which side is right or wrong is not part of this conversation. We will never learn why the two sides are fighting. You can make your assumptions and perhaps try to make the President out to be a Trump-like figure who is clinging to power against the will of the American people, but the movie doesn't have a rooting interest, it doesn't take a side. The movie Civil War is simply opposed to war of any kind and that's something that the movie and I have in common. Indeed, that is something that most people have in common, we don't want to be in a war. 

Find my full length review at Swamp.Media 

Movie Review The Two Faces of January

The Two Faces of January (2014) 

Directed by Hossein Amini 

Written by Hossein Amini 

Starring Viggo Mortensen, Oscar Isaac, Kirsten Dunst 

Release Date August 28th, 2014 

Published November 17th 2014

I feel as if I missed something essential in “The Two Faces of January.” For the life of me, I don’t know why the film is called “The Two Faces of January.” I feel the film must have introduced this information at some point but I don’t recall it. I could speculate that the two faces are those of stars Viggo Mortensen and Oscar Isaac as they seem to be counter-weighted to each other throughout the film but what was the ‘January’ bit? It’s not a reference to the month, it’s a not a name, unless that’s what I missed. It nags at me that I missed this or if I didn’t miss it and am puzzling over something that doesn’t matter.

“The Two Faces of January” is an adaptation of a Patricia Highsmith novel. Thus, it is set in Europe, in this case Greece, among beautiful, vacationing Americans. Oscar Isaac is Rydal Keener, an ex-pat con man and tour guide with aspirations to be rich. For now, he’ll settle for not being at home at his father’s funeral. Rydal’s con is to find fellow Americans who don’t speak the language and don’t understand foreign currency. It’s an almost victimless crime as his victims have plenty to spare and he’s really only skimming off the top.

Viggo Mortensen and Kirsten Dunst are Chester and Colette MacFarlane. At first, we’re to wonder if they are set to be Rydal’s next meal ticket. Director and screenwriter Hossein Amini however, has something more sinister in mind. Like Rydal, Chester is something of a conman, an American stock swindler. On the run with Colette in Europe he has conned his young wife into a game of pretend; pretending they’re going to go home and he isn’t going to be sent to prison or worse.

The game ends when an American private eye finds Chester and Colette and sets about a shakedown for the missing money of one of his clients. The detective dies and when Rydal arrives at the wrong moment to return a lost bracelet, he’s roped into a life-changing plot. Using his connections as a conman Rydal will attempt to get his new friends out of Greece without their passports. Phony documents take time however and with Grecian police acting efficiently to ferret out the plot, a road trip is undertaken to remain under the radar.

That’s the crux of the plot. What’s left is spoiler filled so consider yourself warned.

Ok, fine, I decided to look up the title of the movie to see what I missed. It turns out that it is a reference to the Roman God Janus which is said to have had to faces, one to see the future and one to see the past. Janus was the God of beginnings and transitions. That, naturally, is quite fitting for this story as the past plagues the future of all three characters. Janus by the way was eventually honored by the first month of the year, as January.

Throughout the introductory portion of “The Two Faces of January” we come to see Rydal admire both Chester and Colette. We can see his envy for Chester but also a deep respect for his station. We can sense a desire to usurp Chester even as Chester becomes a father figure. Yes, it’s all very Freudian and Shakespearean with the son who wishes to replace the father at the side of the mother. Yada, yada, yada. Here however, is where our director smartens up. By removing Colette via the film’s second accidental murder the dynamic shifts and what was beginning to be a draggy psychological thriller shifts gears to become a noir thriller.

Having failed to also kill Rydal in the wake of his murder of Colette, Chester finds himself chained to his new ‘friend’ as he attempts to leave the country. Each man has it out for the other but the game playing brings them together, as does the revenge each seeks on the other. Rydal is driven to avenge Colette and his having been framed for her murder. Chester, on the other hand is seeking escape but also to redeem the manhood he lost in his cuckolding.

That’s the psychological motivation for the action of the the final act of the film. Mr. Amini however, has by this point, as much as we have, has lost interest in psychology. The final act  of “The Two Faces of January” is instead played almost entirely in the language of film noir camerawork and staging.

As each man evades capture by police the cobblestone streets of Crete are alive with moonlight. Narrow corridors like those out of Carol Reed’s “The Third Man” shimmer with moonlight illuminating a path toward inexhaustible death. That Chester is to die is not in question here but the style with which his death arrives is classically crafted and elevates the film. We also get a very unusual and soulful moment as the dying father figure gives back to his son his life with a helpful confession of his crimes.

Much like the God Janus looking forward and backward at once, “The Two Faces of January” looks to be two movies at once. One movie is a pop-psych thriller with a little Shakespeare for flavor. The other is a tribute to the noir mysteries of the 40’s and 50’s complete with the mistaken identities, the wrongly accused man and the wet, reflective streets that always seemed to await a chase and a death.

That is the film’s beauty and its curse. It is two movies in one and neither is enough to satisfy in full. I loved the ending but the pop-psych stuff plods and the chemistry of the stars never bring it to life. The ending is almost good enough for me to recommend the movie but I wonder how many of you will last that long once the film is available on home video and you can simply stop and do other things.

Movie Review: Elizabethtown (Original Review)

Elizabethtown (2005) 

Directed by Cameron Crowe 

Written by Cameron Crowe 

Starring Orlando Bloom, Kirsten Dunst, Judy Greer, Susan Sarandon, Paul Schneider

Release Date October 14th, 2005 

Published October 13th, 2005

For me, a new Cameron Crowe film is like the release of Lord Of The Rings. I will line up days in advance, I will play the soundtracks of his previous films at obscene volumes and I will pore over the texts of the script as if they held the answer to life itself. Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous, Say Anything and Singles are not just any other movies.  To me they are masterpieces.

So I have been anticipating the release of Elizabethtown ever since the final credits on Vanilla Sky rolled off the screen in 2001. To say I am a little disappointed in Elizabethtown is one of the hardest things I have ever written. By the standards of an average movie Elizabethtown is great. By the standards of Cameron Crowe, however, Elizabethtown is a step backwards.

Orlando Bloom plays Drew Baylor, who looks like a man on his way to his own execution. Drew is a shoe designer for a Nike-esque company in Oregon and his first creation, a shoe called 'Spasmodica', has just failed so spectacularly that the company stands to lose nearly a billion dollars on it's recall. As Drew's boss (Alec Baldwin in a minor cameo) explains, the shoe was so poorly received by the public that one industry observer was quoted as saying the shoe could cause millions of people to return to bare feet.

Fired from the only job he has ever known, Drew returns home with dark intentions. He plans to kill himself and begins fashioning a very unique suicide device involving a kitchen knife and some workout equipment.  It must be seen to be believed. Drew's attempt is foiled by his cell phone's unending musical ring which he cannot resist answering.

The call is from his younger sister Heather (Judy Greer).  Their father has died. On a trip back to his hometown, the tiny Kentucky hamlet Elizabethtown, Dad had a heart attack. At his mother Hollie's (Susan Surandon) request Drew must go to Elizabethtown and retrieve the body for cremation in Oregon and represent the family in whatever tribute the Elizabethtown Baylor's have planned. The two sides of the family have rarely had contact.

On his flight from Oregon to Kentucky Drew meets Claire, a chirpy stewardess who takes a special interest in making sure he knows where he is going. Claire is obviously attracted to Drew despite, or maybe because, of his morose attitude. She gives him directions to get to Elizabethtown and her phone number in case he gets lost and it seemingly could have ended right there.

When Drew finally arrives in Elizabethtown the culture shock and his newfound family are so overwhelming that he needs to talk to someone and Claire is his choice. The two talk an entire night and get together to watch the sun come up. They agree to be friends but it's clear both are fighting fate.  They are meant for each other.

That is the very bare bones of Cameron Crowe's Elizabethtown, yet another very personal and deeply felt story for Crowe but also one he can't quite get a handle on. There are three important plots in Elizabethtown. First is Drew's failure at work.  Second, the family drama including his father's death and meeting his extended family.  And third is his romance with Claire. To make this movie work Crowe needed to coalesce each of these three plots into one story. Unfortunately it just never happens.

I enjoyed both lead performances by Bloom and Dunst but the relationship is so far unrelated from the family drama and Drew's work drama that it feels almost like a separate movie. Dunst delivers a character that is very unique.  Some might say that she is more fantasy than anything, but I believed that this character would do the things she does. She is quirky and forgiving and troubled in her own ways.  It's a complex part that has great potential but there are scenes missing, important scenes and dialogue that might better have integrated her into the rest of the story.

Bloom's performance is complicated for different reasons. He was not the first  choice for the role.  Initially Ashton Kutcher was cast as Drew. Bloom was the better choice of the two but because Cameron Crowe's male protagonists are so well remembered Bloom is competing with the ghosts of the past and he pales in comparison to the likes of Tom Cruise, John Cusack, Campbell Scott and even young Patrick Fugit from Almost Famous.

Cameron Crowe does not do Bloom any favors in his scripting or direction. Much of Elizabethtown plays like Cameron Crowe's greatest hits. Dunst's character is a mixture of Renee Zellweger's needy but lovable single mom in Jerry Magure and Kate Hudson's ethereal groupie from Almost Famous. Drew's wacky extended family in Elizabethtown are older versions of the wacky neighbors from Singles or the inebriated party goers from Say Anything. And Drew himself carries the DNA of both Jerry Maguire and Lloyd Dobler.

Even the film score, once again lovingly crafted by Crowe's wife Nancy Wilson, feels as if it were lifted from Almost Famous. Check out the scene just after Susan Surandon's exceptional speech at the memorial. Drew and Claire meet in the hallway and the acoustic guitar score comes in just a little too loud. The scene is a poignant moment where Drew tries once again to explain that he and Claire cannot be together. The music in the scene is lovely but sounds almost identical to music used in a scene in Almost Famous where William tells Penny she has been sold out by the band and won't continue with the tour. This may be just the anal retentive Crowe fan in me coming out but it bothers me to hear Crowe simply repeat himself.

Thankfully, the same cannot be said of the film's pop soundtrack. Once again Cameron Crowe brings together an eclectic mix of classic hits and forgotten or overlooked favorites that compliment the story and occasionally comment on it. In the film's climactic scenes in which Drew drives his fathers ashes cross country back to his home in Oregon he is accompanied by an amazing soundtrack that Claire made for him as a sort of musical map of America. The reasoning is contrived but the emotion these scenes and songs evoke are real and very moving. No director mixes pop music, storytelling, and imagery as effectively as Cameron Crowe.

Cameron Crowe movies are known for romance, smart characters, and great music. Elizabethtown overflows with each of those elements but, unfortunately, Crowe cannot corral them all into one story. Each of the individual characters from Orlando Bloom and Kirsten Dunst in the leads to Susan Surandon, Paul Schneider and Loudon Wainwright in supporting roles are all interesting characters but they are all parts of different movies. Bloom shares scenes with each of them and yet seemingly never at the same time.

The romance of Elizabethtown works in individual scenes such as Drew and Claire's all night phone session and the first night they make love and the aftermath the following morning. You definitely root for them to be together. But the movie is as much about this romance as it is about Drew's family, which is in a whole other film.

The family drama is a strong plot. Susan Surandon is exceptional in her one big scene at the memorial in which she does standup comedy, tap dances and reconnects with her extended family by opening up about how much she and they all loved her husband. Crowe does an excellent job of establishing the late Mitch Baylor as another member of the cast. Lovely sepia toned flashbacks of Drew with his father, perfectly aged photos and even the actor laying in the coffin with just the slightest hint of a smile that Drew dubs whimsical all serve to help the audience feel the loss.

The extended family and friends are an interesting collection. I really enjoyed Paul Schneider as Drew's cousin, a failed rock star with an out of control son and a difficult relationship with his father played by Loudon Wainwright. There was some lovingly detailed work in crafting Schneider and Wainwright's characters that are hinted at but the film does not have time to get too into that.

The film would work better if Claire had been as much a part of the family drama in Elizabethtown as she is the romance plot. Crowe never connects her to the family drama, which could have been done simply by making her a family friend from Elizabethtown and not some random stewardess. Put Claire in Elizabethtown, connect her to the family and maybe you can connect the two separate stories. Because she is outside of it the movie is disjointed and it never comes together.

For me, writing even a slightly negative review of a Cameron Crowe movie is torture, but it's undeniable. Aside from the awesome soundtrack, Elton John's "My Father's Gun" is my new favorite song by the way, Elizabethtown only works as a sketch of a good Cameron Crowe movie. A number of good scenes and good characters  great music but not a great movie. Fans of Cameron Crowe will find a lot of specific things to love in Elizabethtown: scenes, characters, music. I would recommend it for them with the warning that they may be disappointed by the film as a whole.

Movie Review Marie Antoinette

Marie Antoinette (2006) 

Directed by Sophia Coppola

Written by Sophia Coppola

Starring Kirsten Dunst, Jason Schwartzman, Judy Davis, Rip Torn, Rose Byrne, Asia Argento 

Release Date October 20th, 2006

Published November 19th, 2006 

It is very quiet.  Austrian Archduchess, Marie Antoinette (Kirsten Dunst), aged 15, has just been betrothed to Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman), the future king on France.  Throughout the long trip from Austria to France, there is an odd expression on everyone’s face.  It’s as if the air itself is uncomfortable.  As the French court awaits Marie Antoinette’s arrival, they putter around amidst the leaves and talk amongst themselves about nothing at all.  They all seem to be thinking something to themselves.  Judging from the same puzzled expressions on the moviegoers’ faces at the screening of Sofia Coppola’s MARIE ANTOINETTE I attended, I think they might be thinking how strange the entire scenario seems.  

Everything feels a little bit slow, a little too quiet and mostly out of place.  It is too early to give up on the film at this point.  After all, this is Coppola’s follow-up to the haunting, offbeat LOST IN TRANSLATION.  We are in good hands.  This uneasiness must be in step with what Marie Antoinette is going through.  Once she finds her footing, I’m sure she will break out of her shell and show these French folk how to live freely and the film will follow.  Well, Marie Antoinette, the person, gets the hang of it but sadly, MARIE ANTOINETTE, the movie, never does.  It remains hollow and aimless, leaving me wondering how Coppola could have been happy with it.

Coppola took a decidedly different and brave approach to chronicling the woman who became the queen of France at age 19.  She cast American actors in French roles and did not have them speak French or even with an accent.  She boosts the soundtrack with 80’s new wave music instead of music of the period.  The choices are meant to highlight the lonely plight of Marie Antoinette, to show that her emotional journey is timeless.  

Only Dunst shows hardly any emotion in the title role so there is nothing to take away.  She can handle isolated and she can party with the best of them but she doesn’t show any turmoil or inner-conflict.  It doesn’t help that Coppola’s script features naturalistic dialogue either.  People rattle on about nonsense and gossip but rarely ever say anything of note to each other.  Perhaps this is what Coppola had intended to show but meaningless conversation needs to give insight into a character’s mind at the very least.  Here, all the minds are empty.

If it weren’t for the fashion and the food (and the fortune that must have been spent on making everything look so lavish), there would be nothing at all to focus on.  For such famous historical figures, very little actually seems to happen to them.  For what seems like half the movie, the entire plot focuses on how Louis won’t have sex with Marie Antoinette.  It is certainly a pressing matter as an heir has to be produced in order to validate their marriage.  If it is not consummated, it may even be annulled.  

When the “great work” was finally done, Marie Antoinette is elated but there is no explanation as to why it was so difficult to begin with nor does it seem like it became any more frequent afterwards.  Her brother had a chat with the future king and that supposedly did the trick.  There is no mention as to what that chat was about so your guess is as good as mine as to what finally turned him on.  

Historically, Marie Antoinette became the scapegoat for France’s increasing deficit.  Whereas the majority of France’s money had been sunk into the 7 Years’ War and aiding the Americans in their struggle for independence from England, the masses pointed their fingers at Marie Antoinette’s frivolous spending.  She went from an adored queen to being chased from her palace.  The build that led to that change must have been tumultuous but Coppola leaves history at the door while very little happens inside.  By the time the mob shows up to drive her and the king out, it feels more like a device than a moment in time.

I can see why the French booed at Cannes.  MARIE ANTOINETTE is a calculated project that was troubled since its conception (Coppola abandoned it during the script writing process to create LOST IN TRANSLATION because she wasn’t sure how to make it work).  The deliberate disregard for historical accuracy may have been valiant to start but finished feeling labored.  Coppola’s previous works relied on emotion more so than dialogue to get under the skin of the viewer.  

Their success announced great promise for MARIE ANTOINETTE but Coppola lost her edge somewhere among the hundreds of pairs of Minolo Blahniks custom made for the film.  A lesser director would not have taken such an ambitious approach to this story.  A lesser director would have made a film far worse than this one.  May MARIE ANTOINETTE be but a misstep along the path of a brilliant career.

Movie Review: Wimbledon

Wimbledon (2004) 

Directed by Richard Loncraine

Written by Adam Brooks, Jennifer Flackett, Mark Levin

Starring Paul Bettany, Kirsten Dunst, Sam Neill, Jon Favreau

Release Date September 17th, 2004

Published September 16th, 2004

With what I have written in the past about my disdain for the clichés of sports movie and of the modern romantic comedy, you could sense that a movie like Wimbledon would be a special sort of torture. Simply take the worst of both genres and combine them and ugh. However Wimbledon is the creation of Working Title Films, a company that has discovered it's own unique formula for romantic comedies that really works.

Working Title is the company that made Hugh Grant a star in Four Weddings and A Funeral and Notting Hill and delivered last year’s wonderful romantic ensemble Love Actually. It must be a British thing. There is something about Working Title's approach to romantic comedy that usually works. It works in Wimbledon albeit not as well as it has in the past.

Paul Bettany stars as over-the-hill (32-years-old) tennis star Peter Colt. Peter is playing Wimbledon for the final time in his fifteen-year career. In fact, Wimbledon will be his final tournament period, Peter is retiring to be the club pro at a posh resort. He only hopes not to embarrass himself and just maybe win one last match before he quits.

Before he steps on the court he has the pleasure of meeting a beautiful young American tennis star named Lizzie Bradbury. The two meet in a cute way when Peter accidentally gets the key to her hotel room and walks in while she is in the shower. From there, the two start bumping into each other and soon its a little romance, under the radar of course, the British press can be murder.

Complicating things further is Lizzie's overbearing father (Sam Neill) who warns Peter not to interfere with Lizzie's concentration. That is a subtle way of saying stay away from my daughter, something Peter just can't do. Peter especially can't stay away from Lizzie because after meeting her, he begins to play well and wins and wins again. Soon people are talking about him again and he has a shot at going all the way.

Naturally, since this is a romantic comedy you know that there will be some artificial roadblock thrown in front of the lovebirds to separate them until the big finish. This contrivance is usually where the Working Title formula separates itself from other romantic comedies but this time they fail a little. The contrivance is less than believable this time. It's saved only by Bettany who comes through in the film’s final reel to save the movie from the typical pitfalls of the romantic comedy.

In a role that many will recognize as one Hugh Grant turned down, Paul Bettany becomes a star in his own right. Not quite as charismatic as his Chaucer from A Knight's Tale, his Peter Colt is charismatic but subdued. He is weary and sees only dreariness in the near future. That is until he meets Lizzie who opens his eyes to an entirely new and brighter future. At first, the relationship is ambiguous as to whether we have a love match or superstition. Are Peter and Lizzie in love or do they get together because they play well after being together. Bettany plays the ambiguity well but plays the love and devotion even better as the film progresses.

For her part Kirsten Dunst does well to put over Bettany's starring role. She seems to act as a way for Bettany's character to get to the next big scene. It's as if she is a supporting character rather than a lead and that works surprisingly well. Especially well because of how poorly written Lizzie's backstory is written. She's playing her first Wimbledon and is one of the top players in the world but how old is she? Most champions of her ilk are 18 or 19, Lizzie seems older. This maybe a sticking point for tennis fans only.

I happen to love watching tennis. I have vivid memories of Boris Becker's first Wimbledon victory, of Jimmy Connors at the U.S. Open and Pete Sampras failing to win the French Open for so many years. My love of tennis makes this film so much more pleasurable because Paul Bettany is a terrific tennis player. Much praise must be given to technical advisor and former player Pat Cash for developing Bettany into a competent enough player that his scenes look believable.

The film’s final tennis match is spectacularly well realized, aside from the unnecessary commentary by tennis legends John McEnroe and Chris Evert. Bettany's play is excellent and director Richard Loncraine embellishes it with terrific camerawork and a plot device that let's us inside Peter Colt's head, a weary stream of conscience that is funny and endearing.

I must say what a pleasant surprise it is to watch a romantic comedy and a sports movie that is not absolute torture. Wimbledon may not avoid the cliches of it's combined genres but at the very least it embellishes them enough to make it interesting. Paul Bettany is the film’s real find and the element that lifts Wimbledon above it's many cliches and contrivances. This could be a star making and Hugh Grant had best start looking in his rearview mirror for Paul Bettany who could be scooping up a few of those roles that used to go right to him.

Movie Review: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) 

Directed by Michel Gondry 

Written by Charlie Kaufman

Starring Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet, Kirsten Dunst, Mark Ruffalo, Elijah Wood, Tom Wilkinson

Release Date March 19th, 2004

Published March 18th, 2004 

Jim Carrey's attempts to move into “legitimate acting" are often maligned even before they are seen, even by people who call themselves fans. It seems that whenever someone leaves their comfortable, often-mediocre niche we Americans have set aside for them. We go out of our way to shove them back in with harsh and often unfair conjecture. Jim Carrey is a very obvious victim of this niche society.

His latest attempt to escape his niche is the Charlie Kaufmann scripted Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Carrey plays a somber, sweet, romantic lost soul while Kaufmann's script provides the weirdness that Carrey usually provides with his physical schtick.

Carrey is Joel Barish who one day decides to blow off work and take a train to his favorite beach. Nevermind that its winter. On the train ride back, Joel meets Clementine (Kate Winslet), an acid-tongued wild child with an obvious sweetness beneath her punk veneer. They begin a tentative flirtation that is about to lead to Joel's bed when suddenly the opening credits roll and the film begins again.

From there, we are lost in a time warp of Joel's memories and sadness. After Joel and Clementine broke up, Clementine went to a place called Lacuna Corp and had all of her memories of Joel erased. Out of spite, Joel goes to Lacuna to do the same to her. With the guidance of Lacuna's founder Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson) and his staff, Joel is told that all of his relationship can be eliminated with a procedure that is technically brain damage, but is only “on par with a night of heavy drinking.”

Joel agrees to the procedure, which is to take place in his apartment while he sleeps. A pair of Lacuna technicians (Mark Ruffalo and Elijah Wood) come to Joel's apartment after he's asleep and spend the night erasing his memory. Once Joel is actually undergoing the process, he realizes there are some memories of Clementine he does not want to give up. His fight to save some of those good memories is the thrust of the plot.

Who doesn't have a relationship that they would consider erasing from their memory? For me it would be Michele, my high school girlfriend. We were together for three years as a couple and several years as friends afterwards. We loved and we hated in almost equal measure the entire time we've known each other. For all of the pain that she caused me and I caused her there are a number of really good times that I would not be willing to give up. That is the central theme of the film and the way it's explored on the screen is not just the film projecting emotion on to the audience. Rather, the audience is a participant in the emotion.

The film is not exactly as straightforward as I describe it. Writer Charlie Kaufmann and director Michel Gondry have a number of unique twists and turns that make Eternal Sunshine an amazing, mind-bending experience. It's an old school science-fiction storytelling device using technology, in this case a rather low-tech technology, to tell a very human story. Sci-fi without aliens or complicated special effects, sci-fi just used to tell a good story in a very different way.

This is a rather uncomplicated, almost simplistic way to write a relatable story. Painful breakups are a universal experience and Kaufmann uses that universality as a jumping off point to a different way to tell a sad, romantic story. There have been movies that explored the same themes of love and loss. What Kaufmann does is what the best modern screenwriters do, take a conventional idea and twist it. Plots that have been done to death can still be done well if you give them at least one unique twist.

With the help of a Michel Gondry's visual mastery, Charlie Kaufmann found more than one unique twist he could give to the love and loss story, the romantic comedy and the sci-fi picture. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a film that should be shown in film classes for years to come as inspiration for original ideas from traditional sources.

For Jim Carrey, this is yet another brilliant performance that will go unnoticed. The film is unlikely to make many waves at the box office and despite positive critical notice, the March release of the film dooms its Oscar hopes. Carrey can still take heart however in the one truth of great art. It's never appreciated in it's own time. Maybe years from now someone will dig this film out of a vault with barely a memory of Carrey's schtick and discover Carrey's talent.

Movie Review: Elizabethtown

Elizabethtown (2005) 

Directed by Cameron Crowe 

Written by Cameron Crowe 

Starring Orlando Bloom, Kirsten Dunst, Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Judy Greer

Release Date October 14th, 2005 

Published October 15th, 2006 

I have wrestled with loving Cameron Crowe's “Elizabethtown” ever since it's 2005 release. The film has been part of one of my most significant relationships, she loves the movie and was angry that I found fault with it. It was with her pushing that I have revisited “Elizabethtown” several times in the intervening years and come away with a number of different reactions.

There are so many wonderfully positive things about “Elizabethtown,” the most notable of which is the extraordinary soundtrack. Of course, Cameron Crowe is a master of movie music so this soundtrack can come as no surprise but the way he uses music in the film does surprise and delight. Listen for the delicate grooves not only of the score done by Crowe's now ex-wife Ann Wilson but also the callbacks to songs by Tom Petty and My Morning Jacket that filter in unexpectedly and underline important scenes.

Watch the unique way Crowe uses the unusual Elton John song My Father's Gun as a mournful reckoning for how Orlando Bloom's Drew Baylor feels as he takes up with the distant family that had loved his father but seemingly held his family at a distance. It's wonderful how the awkward lyrics about the civil war and family legacy coalesce with Drew's discomfort among his extended family.

The music is perfect from scene one with The Hollies Jesus Was a Crossmaker through the end with a brief reprise of Tom Petty's underappreciated It'll All Work Out. Listen to the way that Crowe uses Tom Petty throughout “Elizabethtown” and marvel at the subtlety of director and musician in perfect concert. It'll All Work Out is used just after Drew promises to kill himself and just as his savior/love interest Claire is introduced. The song is our reassuring underline to let us know that though Drew will struggle he will survive. It's much more subtle without my description.

I cannot get enough of Cameron Crowe's ear for music and eye for knowing where exactly to use it in his films. It's a remarkable and underrated talent. With that said, there are a number of issues that I have had with “Elizabethtown” from the first time I saw it, through my first disappointed review through repeated viewings and reevaluations of the film over five years.

The plot begins with Drew Baylor, a 20 something shoe designer for a Nike-esque shoe company in Oregon. Drew has just designed an innovative new work out shoe that has met with massive public disapproval. So bad was the shoe's reception among the public that Drew is being fired and the company is about to lose something close to a billion dollars.

The company's owner, Phil (Alec Baldwin) quotes one critic as saying that this shoe could send a generation back to bare feet. This section is filled with logical inconsistencies and minor quibbles that undercut Drew's dramatic journey. First up is the name of the shoe: Spasmotica. There simply is no company in the world that would release a shoe called Spasmotica and no consumer that would purchase it.

It's a quibble but there is simply no way a multibillion dollar company would not have tested the public reaction to the shoe before committing nearly a billion dollars in marketing and production to it. The title would not have survived the first testing phase nor likely would the design which is something akin to a Ray fish. We are told that Drew is a genius and an artist given free reign and it's simply not believable.

This is important because it leads to Drew's dramatic decision to take his own life which is the driving force for the rest of his sad journey. We must believe in Drew's desperation or he seems merely pathetic. Orlando Bloom does a fabulous job lifting the audience past logical inconsistencies enough that they don't sink the film but its close. If you don't like Bloom and aren't willing to believe his desperation and sadness you will be left out of “Elizabethtown.”

Then, as Drew is contemplating his rather fanciful suicide, he has rigged a carving knife up to an exercise machine that should be enough to stab him directly in the heart; he gets a call informing him that his father has died while visiting family in Elizabethtown. Drew has been drafted to fly to Elizabethtown to retrieve his father’s body and return it home. It’s on the flight that Drew meets Claire, a too helpful flight attendant, and “Elizabethtown” begins showing off its maddening and delightful taste in romance.

Onion A.V Club Head Writer Nathan Rabin coined the phrase Manic Pixie Dream Girl based on a viewing of Kirsten Dunst in “Elizabethtown.” The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is defined as 'that bubbly, shallow cinematic figure that exists in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures.' It's a cynical and cutting description of “Elizabethtown's” Claire and one that I have been unable to escape since I read it.

The Manic Pixie Dream Girl has haunted my every viewing of “Elizabethtown” and it's a struggle to put aside Mr. Rabin's dismissive caricature and see Ms. Dunst's performance. Indeed, as written by the sensitive Mr. Crowe, Claire is as much a device as she is a character. So why does she ring so deeply in my soul?

I long for a Claire of my own to rescue me from despair and help me recognize what is good within me while offering judgment free love and fantasy sex following a perfect unintended seduction through mutual sadness and lonely longing. Claire is a little too perfect but is not perfect the fantasy of fantasists? What man did not at one time long for his very own Claire? 

There are problems with this fantasy however and they provide another of the shockingly lazy inconsistencies that plague “Elizabethtown.” In a scene early in Claire and Drew's relationship Claire describes the two of them as 'the substitute people.' They are stand ins in at the moment for the people they each really want. It's Claire's way of keeping distance from Drew, assuming that he is still hooked on his recent ex, Ellen (Jessica Biel). 

She's hedging her bets with him; inventing her own boyfriend as a way of letting Drew off the hook should he carry on with his pining for Ellen. It's a wonderful scene that shows Claire is not the fearless creature who flirted so openly with Drew on his flight to Kentucky and talked so openly with him in their wonderful all night phone call. It's very early in their relationship and Claire needs to be a little weary considering how fast things are moving between them. 

However, later in the film Claire throws the 'substitute people' comment back at Drew as if they were his words and not hers. The logical inconsistency undercuts the drama and impact of what is a very dynamic and dramatic scene. We are also supposed to believe in this scene that Drew, even after so clearly having fallen for Claire, still wants to kill himself. The scene calls for a withering comment from Claire that sets the stage for their reconciliation. Instead, the scene ends on a pair of confusing points.

Unlike any other Cameron Crowe film, “Elizabethtown” calls for desperate leaps in logic and suspensions of disbelief. So why do I still love it? “Elizabethtown” is a shaggy dog of a romance filled with whimsy and life and set to a phenomenal soundtrack. Despite its inconsistencies there are moments of such tenderness, romance and heart that I cannot help but love it.

Many critics have hammered “Elizabethtown” and many cite a scene where Susan Sarandon as Drew's mom performs a stand up comedy routine and a tap dance at her late husband's memorial as the films dramatic nadir. I completely disagree. Sarandon's unguarded emotion in this scene and Cameron Crowe's perfect imagery, shooting Sarandon from behind as she dances capturing her silhouette in a in a spotlight, is utterly gorgeous and the shots of Bloom and Judy Greer as his sister laughing and holding back tears evoke deep sympathy and smiles. 

This scene is wonderful for it's capricious spirit and the memorial scene as a whole is wildly capricious, ending as it does with Drew's cousin's band playing Free Bird as a giant paper Mache bird catches fire and sprinklers flood the hotel ballroom set. Sure, it's indulgent but it's also purely Cameron Crowe and as the “Elizabethtown” love theme score comes in underneath the chaos it's hard not to get caught up. 

That scene is followed up by a darkly comic burial scene that leads to “Elizabethtown's” final flight of odd fancy. Claire has requested that Drew take a road trip home as he takes his father's ashes back to Oregon. She has made him a map of famous tourist traps and places of musical legend and set the whole thing to 42 hours worth of classic songs. When she found the time to make this 'very unique map' is anyone's guess. 

Most odd is why? Why would Drew go to the hotel where Martin Luther King was killed? Why would Drew visit the Survivor Tree in Oklahoma City? What do these tragic places have to do with his journey? These scenes stretch credulity especially as we arrive at the half way point of Drew's journey where Claire is waiting for him. In a fit of ridiculous whimsy that relies on specious timing and luck, Claire sets up Drew to meet her at the Second Largest Farmer's Market in the World. Keep in mind, if Drew had deviated from her map in any way she would have been left there all day waiting. If one thing goes wrong with her goofy plan once he gets there, it involves an odd little scavenger hunt, they may never find each other. 

Crowe's indulgence in this ludicrous ending is overwhelming and yet I find myself excited as Drew searches for Claire's wacky red hat. I cannot help getting caught up because I do so love these characters. Orlando Bloom has never been this winning and Dunst is cuter than ever. I want these two characters together and that proves just how effective Elizabethtown is. Even with its massive flaws these characters and their romance are irresistible.

I love “Elizabethtown.” I still wrestle with its inconsistencies and failures of logic but the characters and soundtrack resonate deeply within to the point that I watch the film compulsively. I have seen the film almost 10 times in the five years since its release and I will watch it again. It’s partly because of my personal connection which remains as strong as ever, going on four years now, but also because Cameron Crowe has a remarkable way with soulful, human stories and tender romance.

Oh, and that ungodly brilliant soundtrack.

Movie Review Spiderman 3

Spiderman 3 (2007) 

Directed by Sam Raimi 

Written by Ivan Raimi, Alvin Sargent 

Starring Tobey Maguire, James Franco, Kirsten Dunst, Thomas Haden Church, Topher Grace, Bryce Dallas Howard, J.K Simmons 

Release Date May 4th, 2007 

Published May 3rd, 2007 

It was bound to happen. The law of diminishing returns had to kick in at some point. For some film franchises; it happens right away (Matrix Reloaded, anyone?). For some; a good run continues (We’ll see what happens with Shrek and Harry Potter soon). Other film franchises have never gotten off the ground creatively (How did we get a second Fantastic Four and a third Rush Hour?).

But, for one of the great franchises of all time, a great run doesn’t exactly end as much as it ebbs. In Spiderman 3 a great franchise doesn’t jump the shark, to appropriate a TV term, rather it levels off with a first mediocre entry. Failures in logic, underwritten villains and overripe melodrama, can’t sink a great franchise but it does bring an unsatisfying end.

When last we left Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) he had revealed himself as Spiderman to the woman he loves Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) and she had run away from her wedding to be with him. Now, Peter is ready to take the relationship to the next level and ask Mary Jane to be his wife.If only things could be that simple.

Unfortunately for Spiderman a trifecta of villains has other plans for the webslinger's future. First there is Peter’s ex-best friend Harry Osbourne (James Franco) who believes Spiderman killed his father and wishes for revenge. Then there is Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) a petty thief who stumbles into some kind of science experiment and becomes the Sandman.

Finally, the third villain, for a time, is Peter himself. With New York finally coming to see Spidey as a real hero, things are going to Peter’s head. He is soaking up the love and admiration of the public and is beginning to neglect his relationship with Mary Jane. When a meteor filled with a lively black goo slams into the earth it attaches itself to Peter Parker and its power is transformative.

The problems with Spiderman 3 are going to be obvious and overbearing for some and easily forgivable for others; but they should be obvious to everyone. Director Sam Raimi, in a rush to cram a whole lot of plot into not a lot of space, cuts a few to many logical corners. Coincidence and contrivance takes the place of rational plotting.

Characters make decisions based on what is needed for the scene even if it contradicts previous behavior. More than once a character arrives somewhere because the plot needs them and not for any other logical reason. One character holds on to a piece of information that could have been helpful as far back as Spiderman 2. This previously insignificant character happens to hold this info until just the moment that it is needed in this plot.

Despite the logical leaps and the abuse of coincidence and contrivance, there is still much to enjoy in Spiderman 3. The computer graphics continue to be cutting edge. The action and CGI work together in dazzling effect. The scene in which Flint Marko becomes the Sandman is a visual mind blower as we watch Thomas Haden Church pulled apart atom by atom until there is nothing but sand.

Then; there are the fight scenes which grow bigger with each successive battle. Peter versus Harry, fighting in mid air. Spidey taking on Sandman inside and outside a moving brinks truck and the battle at the end between Spider and the tandem of Sandman and that villainous black goo, which attached itself to a new host, are all terrific scenes and more than enough reason for me to recommend Spiderman 3.

Later this summer Shrek will try to avoid its own jump the shark moment. Meanwhile Pirates of the Caribbean will try and bounce back from a lackluster follow up. Every franchise is different but each will have a low point. If Spiderman 3 is the low point for the Spiderman franchise then we can look forward to more great things from our friendly neighborhood Spiderman the next time he swings into theaters.

Movie Review Spider-Man 2

Spider-Man 2 (2004) 

Directed by Sam Raimi

Written by Alvin Sargent 

Starring Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Alfred Molina, James Franco, Rosemary Harris 

Release Date June 30th, 2004 

Published June 29th, 2004 

The first Spider-Man was a spectacular adventure that surprised a lot of critics with its depth and terrific characters. Spider-man 2 is likely to surprise even more. Free of expository scripting, this sequel leaps into the fray and delivers something most sequels cannot, a follow up that is more than worthy of its original.

2 years have passed since Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) was bitten by that radioactive spider and Spider-man has continued saving innocent New Yorkers from all sorts of peril. Still, he is not quite the hero you would expect. Spider-man is still consistently vilified by the maniacal newspaperman J. Jonah Jameson (JK Simmons). Worse yet, his Spidey powers are coming and going, often leaving him falling from the sky and in pain.

As for Peter Parker, well, he's getting it worse than his alter ego. It does not pay to be a superhero so Peter is forced to take odd jobs to pay for his tiny one-bed-no-bath apartment. Unfortunately, his web slinging duties tend to make him late for work and thus he gets fired a lot, including from his latest job delivering pizzas. Peter's Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) is close to losing her home and blames herself for the death of her husband Ben. Peter has not told her what really happened.

Peter is also failing his college courses, too often late to class where his professor (Dylan Baker) is ready to fail him unless his paper on the legendary scientist Otto Octavius is good enough to save him. Doctor Octavius (Alfred Molina) just happens to be working for Peter's friend Harry Osbourne (James Franco) at Oscorp where he is developing a dangerous new energy source with the help of four massive metal tentacles that fuse to his spine. You can tell this is going to go bad and it does. Octavius' experiment blows up, killing his wife and leaving the tentacles permanently fused to his back. Worse yet, somehow the tentacles are now in charge and they want to try the experiment again.

Of course that is not Peter Parker's biggest problem. No, his biggest problem is still his unrequited love of Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). In the two years since Peter told Mary Jane they could never be together, she has become a successful actress and model. Her face is plastered all over the city, a constant reminder to Peter of what he has given up to be Spider-man. Mary Jane has finally tired of waiting for Peter and has told him she is going to marry Astronaut John Jameson (Daniel Gillies).

That is a minor gloss of this wonderfully dense and well-conceived plot. Director Sam Raimi and writer Alvin Sargent, with an assist by writer Michael Chabon amongst others, have concocted a rare action-adventure film with a life outside of its computer graphics.

Filled with humor, sadness and life, this is a script worthy of attention of awards shows. The middle portion of the film is especially good. Peter Parker gives up being Spider-man and while his grades are up and he may finally be able to be with Mary Jane, crime goes up 75% and even Jonah Jameson wishes Spidey would come back. With Doc Ock on the loose, you know Spidey will be back but this terrific script and cast make this obligatory decision a seamless part of the story and the maturing of Peter Parker.

The script nods endlessly to its comic book source. The scene where Peter tosses his Spidey suit in an alley garbage can is a direct lift from the comic book. Extraneous characters like John Jameson and the doctor who treats Peter after he thinks he's lost his powers, Dr. Curt Connors, are both historic characters from the comic book. Both go on to have serious accidents that lead them to becoming villains in the comic, FYI.

There is also a bit at the end involving James Franco's Harry Osbourne that relates to one of the comics all time best storylines. Fans of the comic who recognize these characters are drooling over which will be the big baddie of Spider-man 3.

What a loss it would have been if rumors prior to the film’s shooting had come true and Tobey Maguire had been dropped as Spider-man. No offense to Jake Gyllenhaal who was rumored to take over for Maguire, but Spider-man is clearly Maguire's role. Maguire has not always been one of my favorite actors. I've always found his earnest nerdiness and dewy eyed look cloying. Somehow, Maguire turns those negatives into positives for both Spider-man and Peter Parker. His nerdy exterior is the perfect cover for the superhero inside, his nervousness and quavering voice as Peter Parker is the essential yin to Spidey's confident superhero yang.

The chemistry between Maguire and Kirsten Dunst is tremendous and the love story is almost as exciting as the CGI fight scenes. Almost. These are some impressive effects, but I digress. There are real fireworks when Peter and Mary Jane are together. The unrequited love story has grown from the puppy dog crush of the first film to a deeper, more mature longing and we feel it every time they are together.

Now back to those effects. Science has not moved far enough yet to make Spider-man or his nemesis Doc Ock look completely seamless, but this is as close as anyone has come other than George Lucas. Doc Ock is a terrific-looking character. At first he seems kind of goofy looking, Alfred Molina is not the first actor you think of when you think of a comic book movie. However, once the character gets into fighting Spider-man it really gets good. The climactic battle on an elevated subway train is one of the most exciting action scenes ever. Ever!

If there is a criticism of Spider-man 2, it’s that there might not be enough of Spider-man himself. As good as Maguire is at being Peter Parker, that is where the film’s depth comes from. I can see where some audience members will be counting the seconds until Peter is back behind the mask. That for me is a minor criticism because whether it's Spider-man or Peter Parker, this movie is a terrific ride filled with emotion, humor and unbeatable action. As Roger Ebert said, this may be the best superhero movie ever made.

Movie Review Spider-Man

Spider-Man (2002)

Directed by Sam Raimi 

Written by David Koepp

Starring Tobey Maguire, James Franco, Kirsten Dunst, Willem Dafoe, Bruce Campbell, J.K Simmons

Release Date May May 3rd, 2002 

Published May 2nd, 2002 

I must admit that when I heard Tobey Maguire had won the role of my favorite superhero, Spiderman, I was quite disappointed. How could the Cider House Rules geek be a superhero?!? Well, I'm glad that I now must eat those words because Tobey Maguire is a terrific Spiderman and now, I can't imagine anyone else doing this role.

As the film begins, we are introduced to science geek Peter Parker, a shy introverted kid who’s only friend is Harry Osborn (James Franco) and nurses a crush on the girl-next-door Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). I'm sure most people are familiar with the origin of Spiderman; he was bitten by a radioactive Spider and began to take on the spider’s traits. The ability to spin webs, strength 10 times normal and of course the amazing ability to crawl up walls.

Suddenly the shy kid is a muscled-up superhero and immediately looks for a way to cash in on his newfound abilities. He finds it in a wrestling ring with a huge guy named Bonesaw (The legendary Randy “The Macho Man” Savage). Peter, now calling himself Spiderman, defeats Bonesaw to win $3,000 dollars, however the promoter refuses to pay the full amount. The promoter’s office is then robbed, and Peter skips an opportunity to catch the thief. The decision to let the thief get away is a fateful one as it is the same thief who shoots and kills Peter's beloved Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson).

Parallel with Peter Parker's story is that of Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe), father of Peter's friend Harry and the president of Oscorp. With his company on the verge of losing a major military contract Osborn decides to test his controversial new weapon on himself. Needless to say, the experiment is a mistake and causes Osborn's personality to split between Norman and his new alter ego, the Green Goblin.

It's a classic comic book story and transfers to the screen extremely well thanks to the brilliant director Sam Raimi. Raimi could have just used his big budget for nothing but special effects, but instead he uses it to create a whole universe for Spiderman and his supporting cast to inhabit. Whether it's Aunt May and Uncle Ben's row house, Peter's High School, or even a professional wrestling ring, the comic book sheen that Raimi and his team brings to Spider-Man looks terrific. 

Maguire is excellent; he makes Spiderman and Peter Parker come to life. Maguire never plays him like your typical, all-powerful, unkillable superhero. He plays him as a human who can bleed and get angry and has to fight his emotions as well as his pursuers. Kirsten Dunst has it easy, she merely has to smile, and the audience falls for her the same way Peter Parker does. Dunst is a wonderful actress who builds great chemistry with Maguire. Willem Dafoe is effective as Osborn/Goblin, he certainly can play a believable psycho and in Spiderman he does so with only a little bit of scenery chewing.

It is rare that a summer blockbuster actually meets expectations; it is far rarer when one surpasses them. Spiderman does exactly that and is one of the best movies I've seen this year and one of the best blockbusters of all time.

Movie Review Melancholia

Melancholia (2011)

Directed by Lars Von Trier 

Written by Lars Von Trier 

Starring Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Alexander Skarsgard, Kiefer Sutherland 

Release Date May 18th, 2011 

Published October 22nd, 2011 

"Melancholia" is a typically divisive film from director Lars Von Trier that will bore and aggravate as many people as it moves and fascinates. You'll find me in the latter category. This moody meditation on life and death, meaning and the lack of meaning, is enthralling in its beauty and heartrending in its sadness.

"Melancholia" is a two part story following the lives of sisters, Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg). We begin with Justine's story. It is Justine's wedding day and she and her new husband, Michael (Alexander Skarsgard, "True Blood") are late to their reception. Justine's sister Claire and her husband John (Kiefer Sutherland) have gone out of their way for this wedding in hope that it will free Justine from a lingering depression. Justine and Claire's parents are certainly no help.

Their father (John Hurt) is a drunkard carrying on with a pair of women half his age. Their mother (Charlotte Rampling) is bitter and not making any attempt to hide her loathing of the institution of marriage.

Lingering over Justine's new marriage is her husband's father, Jack (Stellen Skarsgard), who is also Justine's boss. He wants an ad tagline from her so badly that even on her wedding day he persists with work going as far as hiring a man to follow Justine in hopes she will be inspired. By our account Claire is unusual but she's making an effort. Nevertheless, both Claire and John can sense her beginning to slip back toward despair.

Claire's story picks up sometime after the wedding. A planet called Melancholia is approaching earth and while John predicts it will pass while creating a spectacular show in the sky, Claire is uncertain. Claire is terrified that Melancholia is going to collide and destroy the earth. If you haven't guessed that Melancholia is a metaphor for impending death then you aren't really trying. That's the simple metaphor anyway. I suspect something deeper if I were to probe it further but my mind lingers on death and how it haunts everyday life.

Depressing? Maybe, but I actually find comfort here. I think that I find comfort in the same way Von Trier does, with art. Death has a way of focusing the mind and when focused my mind turns to beauty and art. There is great beauty in "Melancholia." Von Trier along with cinematographer Manuel Albero Claro and art director Simone Grau collaborate to create images of ruin and sadness that are achingly beautiful and likely to win "Melancholia" awards for their stunning beauty.

"Melancholia" won't work for most audiences. The film is meandering and humorless and does not move to the beat of the average mainstream American movie. If you are someone who enjoyed Von Trier's previous work or contains the patience and observation needed for this experience, you will be rewarded. "Melancholia" is a work of art.

For the record; I am aware of what Lars Von Trier said about Adolph Hitler. My review of his film in no way demonstrates that I agree with or even understand what Mr. Von Trier was attempting to say about Hitler.