Movie Review: Borg-McEnroe

Borg vs. McEnroe (2018)

Directed by Janus Metz Pedersen

Written by Ronnie Sandahl

Starring Shia LaBeouf, Sverrir Gudnasson, Stellan Skarsgard

Release Date April April 13th, 2018

Published August 10th, 2018

Usually when a movie bombs in spectacular fashion there is a very good reason why. Whether it was production delays, a star who finds trouble in the media, or a general lack of quality, there is usually an obvious reason to point to why something failed. Thus far however, it’s hard to say exactly why Borg Vs McEnroe is one of 2018’s biggest losers. Despite an 83% positive rating from critics at RottenTomatoes and an audience score nearly as good, the film barely broke the surface in terms of attention and with a $65 million dollar budget, there is not excuse for the movie tanking so badly.

Borg vs McEnroe takes audiences behind the scenes of one of the most epic battles in tennis history, Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe’s spectacular fight over the 1980 Wimbledon Championship. With Borg chasing his 5th straight Wimbledon and McEnroe the cocky upstart, making consistent headlines with his consistently bad on-court behavior, the match up was instantly iconic and more than lived up to its legendary expectations.

Bjorn Borg (Sverrir Gudnasson) wasn’t always a Swiss Cyborg with laser focus and no emotion on the court. As we learn from Borg vs McEnroe, Borg had more in common with the young John McEnroe than we ever imagined. Borg was cocky and filled with rage as a teenager and nearly found himself kicked out of tennis before he could ever become a champion. Borg nearly chose hockey as a more apt outlet for his rage filled tennis game.

Then, Borg met Swedish tennis legend Lennert Bergelin (Stellan Skarsgard). It was Bergelin who rescued Borg’s career when he was nearly kicked out of the game as rage fueled teen. It was Bergelin who taught Borg to slow down and take one point at a time and, most importantly, not to let his opponent see his emotions. Despite Borg’s cyborg behavior on the court we learn from the movie that he had perhaps a form of OCD, or at least a deeply held superstition, that drove him mad and could at times hamper his on court abilities.

John McEnroe is at once more and less complicated that Borg. As played by Shia LeBeouf, McEnroe is quick to rage on the court and stand-offish off the court. McEnroe was friendlier than Borg and actually made friends on the tennis tour, while Borg practiced in private and rarely left his highly appointed hotel room with his ritualistic layout of tennis gear and his fetishistic approach to sleep temperature.

There are more interesting details about Borg and McEnroe in Borg vs McEnroe but I won’t spoil them here. Director Janus Metz does terrific job of setting the stage for Borg and McEnroe’s epic match. We get a great sense of the character’s histories and how they form the men they are on the court and the more volatile behind the scenes moments have a riveting quality in the context of the final act of the movie, the Wimbledon final of 1980.

Sverrir Gudnason is a real life tennis pro, once Sweden’s number 1 player though not someone who broke out into worldwide fame. His credible impression of Borg on the court is a highlight even as the film appears to be hiding Lebeouf behind quick cuts. Lebeouf does well to look credible but it’s hard to imagine he would be good enough to recreate the actual style of Borg vs McEnroe as even the real life Borg and McEnroe struggled to find the magic in real life.

Borg vs McEnroe is a terrific sports movie. It’s conventional but still compelling. Gudnason is strong for a guy who plays professional tennis for a living. He’s genuinely compelling as Borg even if it never seems like we get a glimpse into what he’s really thinking. LeBeouf gets the showier part and it works as Lebeouf’s own youthful troubles seem to somewhat mirror McEnroe’s.

Why did Borg vs McEnroe fail so spectacularly? The film made only $7 million dollars worldwide on a budget of $65 million dollars. It’s hard to say why it happened but it wasn’t the fault of the movie. The film is solid, well made and well acted. The characters are compelling, the tennis is exciting. What happened to make fans reject the film so hard by not buying a ticket? It’s baffling but there it is. $65 million dollars down the drain all because audiences decided to skip on seeing a pretty good sports movie to the point that it didn’t even make it to nationwide release.

Borg vs McEnroe is available now on Blu-Ray, DVD and On-Demand Streaming.

Movie Review Prates of the Caribbean Dead Man's Chest

Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man's Chest (2006) 

Directed by Gore Verbinski 

Written by Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio 

Starring Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Geoffrey Rush, Bill Nighy, Stellan Skarsgard

Release Date July 7th, 2006 

Published July 5th, 2006 

2003's Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl was a major surprise. Here is a film from the Disney formula factory, based on a theme park ride of all things, produced by mainstream dress meister Jerry Bruckheimer and directed by an unproven talent in Gore Verbinski. With all of these factors the film should have stuck to high heaven. Instead, Pirates of the Caribbean was a high spirited, high seas adventure that features arguably the best performance in the career of one of our greatest actors, Johnny Depp, and a pair of rising stars just ahead of the peak of their talents.

Naturally sequelization was a no-brainer, especially after the film began breaking the bank at the box office. Students of the Hollywood game are well aware that surprise hits like Pirates are once in a lifetime events. So it comes as no surprise that the sequel, subtitled Dead Man's Chest, suffers a case of sequelitis. It's the disease that strikes most, if not all attempts to recapture one time magic; see The Matrix and its sequels as the prime example.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is nowhere near as dreadful as Matrix Revolutions, but it does fail to recapture the swaggering, daggering fun of the original film by being bloated, overwrought and incomplete.

When last we saw Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) he had escaped the gallows and was back as captain of his beloved Black Pearl. Aided by the lovely young couple Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley), Jack escaped the villainous Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) and was free to return to his scalawag ways and get on with the business of pirating.

Will and Elizabeth have since returned to port to be married. Unfortunately a new man in charge of the English port, Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander), has decided to arrest them for aiding Jack's escape. Beckett is willing to make a deal. If Will can convince Jack to give up his precious broken compass and bring it to Beckett then Will, Elizabeth and Jack himself will have their freedom.

The compass is not actually broken. Rather it is not in the hands of its rightful owner and thus will not point in the direction of its intended destination. The compass points the way to a buried treasure that is not merely gold or precious metal. It points the way to a chest containing the still beating heart of Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) an accursed pirate who sails the seas as an undead sea creature for eternity. Whomever possesses his heart controls Jones and his undead crew.

Jack will not be easily convinced to give up the compass. You see, Jack owes a debt to Davy Jones. It was Jones who gave Jack the Black Pearl some 13 years earlier in exchange for Jack's soul. With Jones now ready to collect the debt, with the help of a monstrous sea creature called 'the kraken', Jack needs to find the heart of Davy Jones to save his own life.

That is plenty of plot and yet barely enough to fill the movie's overlong two hour forty minute runtime. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest suffers from the Hollywood 'bigger is better' syndrome. The idea that because something is bigger or longer that it is somehow better is something Hollywood has practiced but never proven. Dead Man's Chest is further proof of the exact opposite.

Stuffed to the gills with filler scenes of Will's search for Jack, Jack's dalliance with native islanders and a subplot for Jonathon Pryce as Elizabeth's father are all examples of places where director Gore Verbinski might have tightened up the film's narrative.

About the native scenes, not nearly as offensive as those in King Kong, I would hate to lose the rolling cage scene featuring Will and the crew of the Black Pearl inside a giant globe made of human bones being chased downhill by angry natives. The scene is well shot, exciting and quite funny but also quite superfluous to the plot. The scene exists simply to exist. Losing the native portion of the film would cut more than a half hour out of the film's bloated 2 hour 40 minute length and narrow the plot in a more concise manner. Of course, length is not the film's only problem.

Director Gore Verbinski managed a miracle in the first Pirates film corralling a career defining performance from Johnny Depp into what is essentially a factory picture made from a very typical Disney/Bruckheimer formula. For the sequel, unfortunately, Johnny Depp seems to be doing an impression of himself as Jack Sparrow. His heart simply isn't in it this time. Depp does manage more than a few classic moments, especially in his last scene, an instant classic of grand guignol, but for the most part he is going through the motions of recapturing what we remember of Jack Sparrow. There is simply nothing new or energetic about the performance.

Orlando Bloom at least looks more the part of an action hero than he did the first time. Bloom is maturing into a fine actor whose fine features are no longer overshadowing his talent. As written however, his Will Turner does not have a great arc. His part is not nearly as juicy as Jack Sparrow which tends to leave him looking bland but worse yet writers Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott now have him fighting for the love of Elizabeth with Jack Sparrow which only further serves to expose the characters blandness.

As many issues as I have with the film as a whole, I did not truly dislike Dead Man's Chest. The film has some grand adventure wrapped up in its overlong runtime. Watch for the three way sword fight inside a giant wheel, an extended bit of action that actually has something to do with the plot. Especially good in Dead Man's Chest are the special effects that transform the brilliant Bill Nighy into the sea creature Davy Jones.

Essentially a man with a giant squid on his head, Davy Jones is a remarkable feat of CGI creature creation. Nighy's entire face, including the very expressive eyes, is the creation of CGI. This is cutting edge stuff used to very gross but also grand effect. It is not only Nighy's Davy Jones but a whole crew of CGI sea creatures including a pirate with the head of a hammerhead shark and an unrecognizable Stellan Skarsgard as a pirate covered in barnacles and with a secret that becomes an important plot point for Dead Man's Chest and likely for the third installment of Pirates, subtitled At World's End, due in 2007.

Yes, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is the middle child of this major franchise and yes it does feel like it. Though plenty is resolved a lot of unanswered questions are necessarily left open for the next sequel. The unanswered questions aren't quite as annoying as those of the second Lord of The Rings or Matrix films but still irritating.

By the standards of a movie sequel based on a theme park ride, from the Disney/Bruckheimer film factory, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is a fun picture. By the standards of great movie making? The film suffers from Superman-itis on top of its sequelitis. Superman-itis is an affliction that affects films expected to be culture defining moments of pop history that turn out to be less memorable than the hype that surrounds them.

I am recommending Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest for the special effects and occasional flourish of it's grand action scenes but lower your expectations Pirates fans this is not the Curse of the Black Pearl just a pale photocopy.

Movie Review King Arthur

King Arthur (2004) 

Directed by Antoine Fuqua 

Written by David Pranzoni 

Starring Clive Owen, Keira Knightley, Stellan Skarsgard, Hugh Dancy, Til Schweiger, Ioan Gruffaud 

Release Date July 7th, 2004 

Published July 5th, 2004

Jerry Bruckheimer’s slavish devotion to commerce may satisfy capitalistic business plans, but as for making enjoyable films, those have been few and far between. Okay, I can’t deny that Pirates Of The Caribbean was a slick, exciting bit of entertainment fluff but I cannot forget the nightmare that was Kangaroo Jack or the most dreadful blockbuster in history, Armageddon.

Bruckheimer’s latest film, King Arthur, combines the commercial slickness of Pirates with the dreary sadness of most of the films that carry his name. King Arthur is an attempt at an authentic historical epic, the so-called “real” story behind the legend of King Arthur and his Knights of The Roundtable. However, the film has no answer to the question “Why would anyone want a history lesson from the man who brought us Con-Air?”

Clive Owen stars as the legendary British/Roman King, Arthur, the greatest warrior in all of the land. Arthur’s legend has grown as he and his loyal band have helped to secure Roman rule in Britain. However with the slow decline of the empire and the encroachment of a warrior horde called the Saxons, the Romans have decided to pull out of Britain. Though Arthur and his knight were to have completed their service, they are asked for one more battle while Rome runs for the hills.

Arthur’s knights include his loyal second Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Tristan the lookout (Mads Mikkelson), childish Galahad (Hugh Dancy), brave Daganet (Ray Stevenson) and tough guy Boers (Ray Winstone). Together they have never lost a battle but this mission is more dangerous than ever before. The final mission, saving a family whose son may be the next Pope, takes them not only toward the vicious Saxons but also into the midst of Merlin and the Britons whom the Romans had been fighting for control of the country.

Once they reach the family they are to save, Arthur finds these religious people may not be as pious as they seem. As the Saxons quickly advance, Arthur and his men rescue a number of abused slaves and captive Britons, including the lovely Briton warrior Guinivere (Keira Knightley). With the slaves and the family in tow, they must outrun the Saxons and eventually form a tenuous pact with the Britons to fight the common enemy.

Jerry Bruckheimer and director Antoine Fuqua have a number of surprises in store in King Arthur but few of them are welcome. Most shocking is the outright overt hatred of religion, specifically Christians. Every religious authority in the film is corrupt to a disturbing degree. The Knights despise religion and as for Arthur, he considers himself loyal to the Pope but also follows a man who is considered a heretic.

When his religious superiors are exposed as bad people, Arthur doesn’t just question his faith; he abandons it with little inner turmoil. As an atheist, I am sympathetic to the film’s looking down at religion but this blatant hatred of religion will turn off a number of everyday filmgoers, and worse, it’s entirely unnecessary.

Another controversial element of King Arthur is its PG 13 rating. Jerry Bruckheimer, the commercial whore that he is, somehow wrangled a PG-13 from the geniuses at the MPAA for a film filled with R-rated violence. Just because there is very little blood actually seen doesn’t make the film less violent. Those are still piles of bodies lying on the ground, those are still guys catching flaming arrows in their chests.

I’m no prude, in fact I wish the film had been more blatantly violent, the punches pulled are purely commercial in nature. The film would have been helped by some honest bloody violence instead of trying to pretend no one really got hurt. Families who go to see King Arthur thinking it’s appropriate for 13 year olds will get a disturbing surprise.

Director Antoine Fuqua is a competent technical director who films action with a professional flair. His actors, especially Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, and Ray Winstone, are pros that easily sell you on their character’s heroism and toughness. It's a shame that they are given a script by writer David Franzoni that is amazingly scattershot.

The script ricochets from staid drama, to well-conceived violence then tosses in cheesy dialogue bits and the unnecessary religion bashing. Director Fuqua and his actors actually hold the film together pretty well. Well enough to give the film the conventional blockbuster look that is portrayed in the film’s advertising. Watching the film however, you will be surprised at how unconventional, or if you’re so inclined, offensive, the film is.

This is definitely not your father’s King Arthur. Forget what you know of the mythic Knights. This is a grittier, more realistic telling of the legendary story. Obviously liberties are taken, I doubt Guinivere was really the kind of girl-power heroine she is portrayed as here. As played by the gorgeous Keira Knightley, Guinivere is the kind of post-feminist heroine that is badass, politically correct and easily marketable.

Of course anyone relying on the producer of Kangaroo Jack for a history lesson gets what they pay for. Bruckheimer’s approach is all about the Benjamins, which probably means that history occasionally took a backseat. Of course Bruckheimer’s commercial approach makes the film all the more curious considering how non-commercial much of the film’s content is. Did he read this script or just commission the poster?

Movie Review Mamma Mia

Mamma Mia (2008) 

Directed by Phyllida Lloyd 

Written by Catherine Johnson 

Starring Meryl Streep, Amanda Seyfried, Stellan Skarsgard, Colin Firth, Pierce Brosnan

Release Date July 18th, 2008 

Published July 17th, 2008

I have to confess an odd affinity for the music of Abba. The safe, uncalculating earnestness of their disco pop is a pleasant little distraction on occasion. Spike Lee even managed to turn Dancing Queen into a powerful expression of the times when he used it to evoke the synthetic happiness of the late seventies in his underappreciated epic Summer of Sam.

Broadway show tuner Phyllida Lloyd captured perfectly the jaunty, uncomplicatedness of Abba's music when she brought Mamma Mia to the stage in 2005. Even the Tony's sat up and took notice. Now Lloyd has brought the superfluous fun of arguably disco's finest ambassador's (Sorry Bee Gees fans) to the big screen.

Mamma Mia stars Meryl Streep as Donna Sheridan, a former disco queen turned hotelier. Donna runs a hotel on the coast of the Adriatic that draws the bare minimum of tourists. Her most urgent project is getting the place fixed up for her daughter Sophie's wedding. Sophie has a big surprise in order for mom. While mom is welcoming guests, including her former singing pals Tonya (Christine Baranski) and Rosie (Julie Walters), Sophie is welcoming three surprise guests, each of whom is a blast from Donna's past and, more importantly, each may be Sophie's dad.

Colin Firth plays Harry with his typical British neurotic energy. Stellan Skarsgard is Bill, a globe -trotting journalist going with the free spirited flow at all times. And Pierce Brosnan is Sam, a rich guy who quickly figures out what is going on and comes to assume that he is Sophie's dad and that after all these many, many years, he is still in love with Donna.

That makes a good straight forward plot. However, Mamma Mia is far from straight. I mean straight forward. Sorry. Because the music of Abba serves as the inspiration for Mamma Mia the songs of Sweden's number one entertainment source are jammed into every corner and only some willingly adhere to the story being told.

Making things even more complicated than trying to shoehorn so much music into the movie, is the fact that the stars sing for themselves and most aren't great. Meryl Streep is good, Christine Baranski is better and Julie Walters can carry a tune but the boys are completely overmatched.

Pierce Brosnan is outright brutal as he attempts a duet with Streep. Firth and Skarsgard are equally unlistenable. They are saved, a little bit, by the massive production numbers that accompany the song and give them light and energy. A Lot of Mamma Mia is capable of skating on good intentional and the sheer willful intent to entertain.

Mamma Mia is undeniably fun and frothy. That said, if you don't love Abba you won't love this movie. It's a musical with nothing but Abba tunes. Tunes are jammed into scenes just for the fact that they are Abba tunes and regardless of whether they belong in the story. If you aren't a fan there is nothing here to appeal to you.

Jaunty and energetic in its bizarre way, Mamma Mia is a fans only entertainment that will preach well to the converted and leave the rest in the cold.

Movie Review: Dogville

Dogville (2004) 

Directed by Lars Von Trier

Written by Lars Von Trier

Starring Nicole Kidman, Stellan Skarsgard, Lauren Bacall, Paul Bettany, Chloe Sevigny, Patricia Clarkson

Release Date April 23rd, 2004

Published March 25th, 2004 

Director Lars Von Trier received a lot of positive notice for his film Dancer in the Dark, but what really stuck with him was the negative notice. Specifically, Von Trier bristled at criticism that he did not understand America well enough to set his film there. In response, Von Trier began work on what he calls his America trilogy. The first of the trilogy is called Dogville, which observes America's morals and values from a European perspective. A powerful, if not entirely accurate, indictment of American moral hypocrisy.

Nicole Kidman stars as Grace, a woman on the run from gangsters and the law who finds herself in the tiny hamlet of Dogville somewhere in the Rocky mountains. With the help of a local named Thomas Edison Jr. (Paul Bettany) Grace avoids the gangsters by hiding in a mine shaft. Tom diverts the gangsters but he has ulterior motives for helping this stranger.

Thomas is Dogville's self appointed philosopher and teacher. He holds monthly meetings at the town’s church where he pontificates to the town’s 15 residents on morals and ethics. When Grace arrives Tom sees an opportunity to put his teachings to the test and see if the townspeople live up to the ideals he has attempted to instill. Grace is unaware of Tom's motives and sees only his kindness; the two form an immediate bond. Despite his underlying intentions, Tom's feelings for Grace are real and for a time we think there could be a happy ending for the two.

Tom's plan for Grace and the town is for Grace to hide out under the town's protection. In exchange, Grace will work for each of the town’s residents one hour of each day. For Grace, it's a hideout. For Tom, it's a social experiment--a test of the town's kindness and caring. It begins as Tom would hope, with the town taking to Grace. (It helps that Grace is, in turn, a hard worker.) However, as Grace's predicament is slowly revealed the town slowly turns and Tom's experiment takes a sad and dangerous turn.

Oscar nominees Chloe Sevigny, Lauren Bacall and Patricia Clarkson head up the supporting cast with Philip Baker Hall and Jeremy Davies. The soul of the film however is the noble but badly damaged Chuck played by Stellan Skarsgard. Chuck stands in for all of America's failed dreams, stuck in a loveless marriage and a job that is more of an obligation Chuck takes his rage out on whoever is nearest to him. When that rage is turned on Grace it begins the films ugly turn. Skarsgard is invaluable; his pained expression conveys the broken back of the American working class of the depression era.

Von Trier's first of three American allegories is a searing look at the morals and values that this country was built upon, and the level of hypocritical betrayal of those values on the part of many Americans. It's a cynical point of view, but one that is shared by a number of Mr. Von Trier's European brethren. As a patriot and a partisan, I find some of what Von Trier has to say about American values a little unfair but take it with a grain of salt because, in Europe, Von Trier's views may not be a minority opinion.

Stylistically speaking, Dogville is an amazing break from conventional filmmaking; an experiment on par with Von Trier's invention of Dogme filmmaking back in 1995. The set standing in for the Rocky Mountain hamlet is merely a barren soundstage with chalk outlines where homes should be. The only sets are an elevated stage that serves as Grace's home, a small storefront window, and a bell tower that hangs from the ceiling.

Von Trier cribbed the visual style from the filmed plays he grew up watching in his native Denmark. Like a great stage play, the action is in the words. This is a terrific screenplay with powerful, intellectual ideas. Ideas about morality, values, religious hypocrisy, and old world justice. It's the best thing Von Trier has written since Breaking The Waves. At nearly three hours, the film clips by at a surprisingly strong pace. The script is so powerful that you barely notice the passage of time.

This a rare and unique film. A challenging look at how a foreigner has viewed our country's cultural history. A film that holds a funhouse mirror up to our past, our politics and our culture, it's not an entirely accurate or fair vision but is valid in its own way as an opposing view. If the two remaining films in Von Trier's America trilogy, Manderlay and Washington, are as powerful as Dogvilleis, then we are really in for something amazing.

Movie Review: Exorcist The Beginning

Exoricist The Beginning (2004) 

Directed by Renny Harlin 

Written by Alexi Hawley 

Starring Stellan Skarsgard, James D'arcy, Izabella Scorupco 

Release Date August 20th, 2004 

Published August 21st, 2004 

Let me begin this review with a confession. Readers of my columns already know that I have written frequently about the troubles plaguing The Exorcist film series. I have been quite critical of the film’s producers for jettisoning director Paul Schrader in favor of Renny Harlin because they felt Schrader did not deliver the kind of disgusting gore they had requested. Schrader's shabby treatment is a shadow over this film and until his finished version is released on DVD, that demon cannot be 'exorcised'.

With that out the way and my bias clearly in the open, we can discuss this highly unusual and tragically awful film Exorcist: The Beginning.

Father Lancaster Merrin (Stellan Skarsgard) is famous for having saved the life of young Regan McNeil in 1971's The Exorcist but he was not always a priest. In the 1950's, he was just another archaeologist digging up fossils in British-controlled North Africa. Merrin's days are spent drinking and nights spent tormented by memories of the time when he lost his faith in God. One day as Merrin is drinking, he is visited by a representative of the British government requesting that he take part in an archaeological dig that has uncovered an ancient church buried beneath the desert.

It is clear that Merrin's expertise as both a priest and archaeologist are what are being requested and Merrin is insistent that he no longer has religion in his life. Still his curiosity is piqued and soon he is off to the desert where the natives are restlessly and warily uncovering one of the most unusual finds in history. It is a church buried beneath the desert. On the dig, Merrin is joined by a priest from the Vatican, Father Francis (James D'arcy) who is to track Merrin's progress and report back to Rome, something Merrin is unhappy about. Father Francis believes this church may be the place where Lucifer fell.

Merrin is not there long before strange things begin happening. Villagers are falling ill, Hyena's are circling the camp and becoming increasingly aggressive. Eventually a young boy named Joseph (Remy Sweeney) is taken ill and the camp physician Doctor Sarah (Isabella Scorupco) can't find what is wrong with him. The villagers believe the boy is possessed and want to sacrifice him. It's up to Merrin and Sarah to protect him and eventually they will try and save him, exorcising him with the help of Father D'arcy. From there the film has a twist so mind-blowingly ridiculous it's worth the price of admission. Laughable is the best way to describe it. Campy kitsch. So funny I could almost recommend it, if you didn't have to sit through the rest of the film to get to it

Exorcist: The Beginning may sound like a straightforward story of one man's struggle with his faith and his spiritual reclamation but as directed by Renny Harlin it is a shrill, stupid horror cliche of bad twists and an insatiable lust for gore. The reason director Paul Schrader was dismissed and the film entirely reshot was that it wasn't gory enough for producer James G. Robinson. Renny Harlin made certain he did not make the same mistake and in so doing ratcheted the gore factor to an extreme that would make the most twisted imagination wince.

There are babies stillborn covered in maggots, fields of crucified bodies hanging from upside down crosses, and the most hacky of screen cliches, the child-in-danger manipulation. Numerous children, including the film’s lead child actor are placed in serious jeopardy and Harlin has the gall to portray the children’s murders without cutaways, something akin to child abuse for the young actors forced to fake their gory deaths.

Subtlety has never been Mr. Harlin's strong point, he famously failed spectacularly with Cutthroat Island, Driven and Deep Blue Sea. If you thought Mr. Harlin's special effects work in Deep Blue Sea was bad, wait till you see the horrendous CGI abortion he performs in this film. From bad CGI smoke in the film’s opening scenes to CGI Hyenas with glowing cartoon eyes to a makeup job in the film’s final moments that is something only Ed Wood could appreciate.

The blame for this abomination of Exorcist legend does not sit fully with Mr. Harlin. Most of the blame can be placed with producer James G. Robinson who has been quite vocal about his hands on approach to producing. He was rumored to have considered directing the film himself after firing Paul Schrader before settling on Renny Harlin. Mr. Robinson's hands on approach may be part of the reason why the film’s special effects are so bad, consider the film was finished just days before prints of the film had to be shipped to theaters. A producer’s decision no doubt. Delaying the film any further would push it out of it's comfy August release, a dumping ground for Hollywood's end of summer dregs.

Mr. Robinson's hands on approach has been seen on a number of his prestigious productions like Major League: Back To The Minors, Juwanna Mann and most horrifyingly alongside Director Paul WS Anderson on Soldier. While Anderson has taken most of the blame on Soldier, maybe there should be some revision of that legendary Hollywood story of how such a prized script was turned into such a bad movie to make room for Mr. Robinson.

I have been quite hard on this film and it deserves it. I have been hard on producer James G. Robinson and I think he deserves it as well (did I mention he produced Chill Factor? Sorry, distracted again). Mr. Robinson has a chance to prove me wrong when he releases Director Paul Schrader's version of Exorcist: The Beginning on DVD later this year. He has promised to release both films so that comparisons can be made and hopefully he is a man of his word. Even if Mr. Schrader's version is as bad as the producers claim, it certainly could not be as bad as the film they did release.

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.

Movie Review Angels and Demons

Angels and Demons (2009) 

Directed by Ron Howard

Written by David Koepp, Akiva Goldsman

Starring Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgard 

Release Date May 15th, 2009 

Published May 14th, 2009 

Dan Brown is the Stephanie Meyer of the conspiracy set. He may not have vampire teens but, he has an equally easy reading, mass appeal quality. Where Meyers adds faux Shakespearean dreariness to Vampire tropes, Brown takes the well worn ideas of the tinfoil hat set and adds suspense and complicated dialogue to create a worldwide phenomenon that millions love because the implied complexity of puzzles makes you feel smart.

Angels & Demons is, curiously, a sequel to 2005's worldwide blockbuster The Da Vinci Code. Curious because Angels & Demons was actually released before The Da Vinci Code which was its sequel. It doesn't really matter; if you check your Summer blockbuster for continuity or a modicum of good sense, summer movies likely aren't for you.

Tom Hanks returns in the role of Harvard Symbology Professor Robert Langdon. As if to show you how awesomely convoluted his stories are, Brown invented an entire field of study. Symbology is a thing but it's more commonly known as Semiotics, Symbology is just easier for audiences to understand, the root, symbol, very simple. When last we left Dr. Langdon he had discovered Da Vinci's secret about the Virgin Mary's burial plot.

Now, he's been called to Vatican City where the death of a pope has some wondering if murder were afoot. There is a whole lot of nonsense about the Hadron Collider, a scientist and his daughter, Dr Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer), Hanks' obligatory sidekick, and the College of Cardinals, but none of it really matters. The crux of Angels & Demons comes down to Tom Hanks running about while various murders are committed at locations only a Symbologist could discover.

Ewan McGregor co-stars as Father Patrick McKenna who could be Langdon's ally or he could be the number one suspect. He could also be a red herring from the casting department. Trust me, once McGregor pulls a devastatingly convoluted bit of skydiving you will not care, either you will have given in to the goofball fun of Brown's low watt conspiring or you will be mid-nap. Stellan Skarsgard also appears in Angels & Demons as the head of Vatican Security and it becomes a red herring contest between he and McGregor. 

I was modestly entertained by how silly and beach read-y Angels & Demons is. Ron Howard is far too talented a director for things to get too far out of whack. Howard, at the very least, keeps the energy level high. As for Tom Hanks, his good guy act is top notch. Hanks can't help but elevate this material as his innate likability can't be dimmed even by the most convoluted and nonsensical of plots. Hanks holds sway over an audience like few other actors are capable of. 

Angels & Demons is mostly harmless popcorn entertainment. At over 2 hours, with multiple twist endings, it definitely overstays its welcome but if you are a fan of Dan Brown, Ron Howard or Tom Hanks you may just be forgiving enough to like Angels & Demons. There is nothing terrifically wrong with the occasional insipid bit of plot nonsense when you have Tom Hanks leading you past the silliness.