Movie Review Jurassic World

Jurassic World (2015) 

Directed by Colin Trevorrow 

Written by Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, Colin Trevorrow, Derek Connelly 

Starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D'onofrio, Ty Simpkins, Omar Sy, Irfan Khan

Release Date June 12th, 2015

Published July 13th, 2015 

"Jurassic World" has been called 'Sexist,' 'Anti-feminist,' and, in one review, was called 'Gendered,' a new-to-me term for calling out a piece of pop culture for not living up to the ideals of modern pseudo-feminism. These accusations are each aimed at the portrayal of the character of Claire, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, a career oriented, driven, Boss of the "Jurassic World Theme Park." 

Claire's character arc finds her not enjoying the company of children, preferring the boardroom and not caring much for dinosaurs as anything other than the products that her company exploits for millions of dollars. These traits position Claire as something of a villain however, they also position her to learn valuable lessons over the course of her character arc, you know, like a movie character. 

As film criticism has evolved away from aesthetic arguments toward easier to write, and to read, socio-political commentary, movies are being held to a more and more impossible standard of standing in for every version of American culture and representing every political perspective so as not to offend anyone or let anyone feel left out. This transition however, threatens to legislate character traits out of characters and limit the ways in which a writer can create unique characters who stand out on their own as individuals with inherent flaws. 

One of the criticisms of Claire that I have read about Claire and her anti-feminist symbology centered on her clothes. Bare in mind, we are seeing one very unusual day in the life of the Jurassic World theme park. On any other day, Claire would spend her time in boardrooms or in her well-appointed office and not in the woods being chased by a dinosaur. The being chased by dinosaurs part is, quite fair to say, not on Claire's schedule EVER. 

And yet, we have critics calling Claire out for being dressed for meeting clients, which, by the way, was her original plan for the day before a massively, unexpectedly dangerous new dinosaur escaped its seemingly inescapable cage. Claire is being considered anti-feminist because she chose to wear high heels and a cream colored top and skirt ensemble on a day when she, as a character in a story, did not know she would be chased by dinosaurs. 

The character of Claire is well established as being somewhat socially awkward. Claire's comfort comes from achieving her ambition which is to be rich and successful. Now, I realize that that is not the kindest character trait but if we require every character in movies to be kind at all times and eschew ambition then where will our villains come from? More importantly for Claire, where will the life lesson come from? If she begins from a place of fully evolved traits perfectly suited for both the board room and a dinosaur attack then what is the dramatic arc? 

Is it anti-feminist to wear heels and a skirt? Is it anti-feminist to not concern yourself with your clothing choices when a dangerous dinosaur gets loose in your dinosaur theme park? Some have asked why Claire did not go for a wardrobe change amid the chaotic escape of the dangerous and deadly Indominous-Rex, maybe some running shoes and khakis. The film answers that question by simply thrusting Claire immediately into the action of first covering up the danger in her pre-evolved state of pure ambition, to then attempting to save lives. My point, she was a little busy for a wardrobe change, there's a freaking dinosaur on the loose. 

I hate to engage in a clichéd argument but I will: If Claire was a man would anyone call him out for wearing a suit to work? Then, when the stuff hits the fan would that man be called out for not throwing on his boots and khakis before dealing with the situation at hand? No, a male character is allowed to have character traits, a female character however has to be a beacon to her gender, a symbol of all that is good, and just and never wrong, out of place, or in the process of learning valuable lessons like, keep a pair of running shoes and dungarees in the office in case a freaking dinosaur escapes its inescapable cage. 

If there is an anti-feminist moment in "Jurassic World" it comes in a bizarre and reductive conversation between Claire and her sister, Karen, played by Judy Greer. Karen has sent her two sons to see their aunt and tour the park and Claire, being a busy executive running a multi-million dollar theme park, shoves the kids off on an assistant for the day, much to Karen's dismay. Here Claire demonstrates an unlikable quality, otherwise known as a character flaw. 

That aside, the anti-feminist statement comes from Karen who instructs her sister that she will understand the fear that Karen feels for her children in the care of some stranger instead of their aunt, when Claire becomes a mother. When Claire states that she doesn't see herself becoming a mother, Karen shoots back pointedly stating that Claire will one day be a mother. The exchange is awkward and Karen's insistence that her sister will be a mother one day plays as if she were saying that all women should be mothers. 

It's a bad scene, indefensible even in context. With that said, one thing that is being quite unfairly neglected by those who wish to make Claire a symbol of anti-feminism or sexism is that Claire never for a moment indicates that she agrees with her sister. Even after saving her nephews from dinosaurs and seemingly becoming more loving and thoughtful in the process, Claire never indicates in dialogue or action that she's changed her mind about being a mother. Yet, in the minds of those who are attacking "Jurassic World" the fact that Claire eventually falls for Chris Pratt's hunky raptor trainer is somehow an indication that she's going to give up her ambitions in favor of being a mother. That's quite a leap of logic. 

So, a female character in a modern action blockbuster cannot meet and fall in love with anyone because it is an indication that she wants to give up her ambition and be a wife and mother? What's the other option? If, as the film establishes, Claire is a heterosexual woman with a typical sex drive then is it not perfectly alright that she's attracted to a handsome man and may in fact want to be with him. Moreover, returning to my previous point, nothing in dialogue or action indicates Claire has changed her position about having children. Yes, she's more loving toward her two nephews but that's because they've all just survived a horrific dinosaur related trauma. 

Context however, is the enemy of those who wish to make a larger point about a piece of pop culture that doesn't perfectly suit the writer/critic's world view. Claire is a character built of context. She is a character who is thrust into the most unlikely, unimaginable scenario, one that she was quite fairly, not prepared for. Taken in context, the actions of Claire the movie character make a reasonable amount of sense but that doesn't matter to those with an agenda as anything that doesn't fit that agenda is simply wrong. 

Look, my fear here is thus, that writers and critics who spend time calling out pop culture for lacking in areas that match their socio-political worldview will eventually legislate character flaws out of existence. In the future, all characters will lack anything resembling a failing out of fear that said failing will be seen as a betrayal of some of-the-moment-important socio-political world view. 

Returning to Claire for just one more point, is there not something to be said for the fact that she is a woman who is in charge of a multi-million dollar dinosaur theme park? Everyone in the park answers to her, she's the second in command behind the billionaire dilettante owner played by Irrfan Khan. She's a strong, successful woman, flawed in her seeming lack of care for the dinosaurs, blind to how her ambition affects those she cares about. Claire is not some sexist/anti-feminist caricature, she's a worts and all character who, over the course of a ridiculously scary adventure will come to realize what is truly important to her. 

That's not a symbol of anti-feminism, that's a character arc.

Movie Review The Break Up

The Break Up (2006) 

Directed by Peyton Reed 

Written by Jeremy Garelick 

Starring Jennifer Aniston, Vince Vaughn, Joey Lauren Adams, Judy Davis, Vincent D'Onofrio, Jon Favreau

Release Date June 2nd, 2006 

Published June 1st, 2006 

When Jennifer Aniston split with Brad Pitt she had the sympathy of the celebrity obsessed world. Pitt left Aniston for his Mr. & Mrs. Smith co-star Angelina Jolie who in her looks and manner is the perfect villainess foil to Aniston's all american girl. Sympathy however, does not mean much at the box office. People may have been annoyed with Pitt and Jolie for breaking poor Jenny's heart but that did not stop audiences from making Mr. & Mrs. Smith a box office blockbuster.

The sympathy has done little for Aniston's own films. Both the thriller Derailed and the high profile romantic comedy Rumor Has It were box office non-starters and this spring's Friends With Money was barely a hit by small scale indie standards. Aniston's box office troubles should end with the new comedy The Break-Up, co-starring new beau Vince Vaughn, but that does not mean that Aniston's astonishing career slide is anywhere near over. The Break-Up is a dyspeptic, almost angry anti-romance featuring two lead characters more unlikable than most horror film villains.

In The Break-Up, Aniston plays Brook, an artist who works in one of Chicago's swankiest Gallery's. While attending a Cubs game, Brook meets Gary (Vaughn), a bus tour guide, who boorishly forces an unwanted hot dog on Brook and her loser date before accosting and encouraging her into dumping the boyfriend for him.

Two years later the fastidious Brook and the disorganized Gary are living together in a beautiful condo but all is not well. Ego-centric Gary cannot seem to do anything but play video games and leave his clothes on the floor. Brook on the other hand, cannot stop nagging Gary about the ballet, doing the dishes and other such activities he hates and she enjoys. A major meltdown following a dinner with their respective families leads to a break up. However because both Gary and Brook are on the condo lease neither wants to move out. Worse yet for Brook, she does not want to give up on Gary and the relationship.

This is where I part ways with the picture. Aniston's Brook seems like a reasonably sane person. When she breaks up with Gary she has a number of good reasons for doing so, and yet, the film forces her to hope that he will simply apologize and they can get back together.This renders Brook a rather silly person. At one moment she’s standing up for herself against a slovenly and seemingly uncaring partner and the next she’s forced to whip herself into wanting to stay with the guy. 

Gary is never anything other than obnoxious, self centered and egotistical. He never shows an ounce of caring for Brook, aside from the opening montage of photographs over the credits that serve as the couple's two year backstory. He is a major jerk who puts a pool table in the dining room the day after the break up and follows that up with a stripper party in the living room to make Brook jealous. The film gives neither Brook nor us a reason to like Gary other than the fact that he is played by Vince Vaughn. That is just not enough, unless you believe Vince Vaughn is god's gift to women.

That said, Brook is no prize either. Just simply wanting this jerk back is off putting enough but the way she parades men through the apartment to make Gary jealous is just sad and pathetic. Watching her I wanted to call in Dr. Phil to sit Brook down for a talk on self esteem and bad judgment. Hurting Gary’s feelings is not something I cared about but the guys she was using for that purpose were innocent bystanders. It’s just not funny watching her so obviously use these men for such unseemly purposes.

Peyton Reed is a fascinating and challenging director. His Bring It On was a tart little comic truffle with more bite than you expect from the teen comedy genre. And more interesting, his Down With Love was a stylish, ballsy attempt to recapture the camp romance of the fifties Doris Day-Rock Hudson flicks. Neither Bring It On or Down With Love succeeded fully but both films are risky in ways most mainstream films are not.

The Break-Up too is risky in very unexpected ways. The film has a very serious edge to it. A very unexpected level of realism comes in the arguments that Vaughn and Anistons characters engage in. The fights sound like real couples arguments and not the cute banter of the usual rom-com. The fights are nasty and personal in the ways only intimate partners can be. This is very bold but also very out of place. Fans showing up for light funny romance tinged with Vince Vaughn's usual acerbic wit and outlandishness will be dazed and confused by the film's daring realism.

What is good about The Break-Up? There are a number of very funny supporting characters. Jon Favreau, as Vaughn's best friend, steals a couple scenes by giving Gary some awful advice. And John Michael Higgins, best known as one of Christopher Guest's regulars, is funny as Brook's in the closet brother who sings pop tunes acapella with his singing group 'The Tone Rangers'.

Both Favreau and Higgins characters are funny in individual scenes but they are so far apart from the central plot that they are almost from another, far funnier, movie. When The Break-Up takes its major turn toward drama in the final act both Favreau and Higgins are left behind and nearly forgotten. There is no place for their broad characters in what suddenly and quite unfortunately becomes a nasty and borderline abusive situation. 

I cannot forget to mention the brilliant Vincent D'onofrio who plays Vaughn's brother. D'onofrio is a mess of ticks and gestures in a role similar to his Law and Order Detective character but gone to pot. Disheveled and disturbed, D'onofrio makes this oddball character the most likable person in the entire film in just a few scenes. He too is lost in the wake of the film's dramatic turn and the film is worse for his loss.

Both Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn are naturally likable actors. However, in this film not even their maximum charisma can overcome the nastiness that is at the heart of The Break-Up. The film is far too mean spirited and angry to be entertaining. The ad campaign positions the film as a so-called anti-romantic comedy, whatever that means. The film is certainly anti-romantic but it's also anti-humorous and anti-entertaining.

I credit the film and especially director Peyton Reed for being daring but the mixture of broad comedy and the nasty realism just doesn't come together. The characters are too poorly sketched and rely far too heavily on the real life likability of Vaughn and Aniston. As characters Gary is an egocentric dick and Brook is a simpering wimp. There is nothing romantic or comedy in this pairing. It's just sad.

Movie Review Happy Accidents

Happy Accidents (2001) 

Directed by Brad Anderson

Written by Brad Anderson 

Starring Vincent D'Onofrio, Marisa Tomei, Anthony Michael Hall, Holland Taylor 

Release Date August 24th, 2001 

Published December 21st, 2002 

Good romantic comedies are becoming very rare. Movies like Secretary or Shallow Hal show the potential in the genre to still be vital and funny. But more often, we see trash like Sweet Home Alabama and Maid In Manhattan; assembly line tripe slapped together with big stars and attractive posters. Happy Accidents, which stars Vincent D'Onofrio and Marisa Tomei, belongs to the first group of films I listed--a romantic comedy that is unique and funny.

Tomei is Ruby Weaver, a woman in her early 30s, who is on quite a losing streak with men; plenty of frogs and no princes. She and her circle of friends have taken to keeping track of the bad boyfriends by taking pictures of them and filing them in the a box they call the Ex files. For Ruby, her recent strikeouts include a guy with a rubber fetish and a guy in his 30s who still lives with his parents. Then Ruby meets a strange, sensitive guy named Sam Deeds (D'Onofrio). Sam works with the elderly and likes to draw. He is strange because he reacts to everyday things like dogs and perfume as if they were foreign to him. As Sam and Ruby's relationship develops, Sam decides to be honest with Ruby and tell her where he's from. He had previously explained to Ruby that he was from Dubuque, Iowa. The part he left out was that he is from Dubuque, Iowa in the year 2447. 

Of course, Ruby thinks he is a mental patient but Sam's charms lead her to think that maybe it's just a kinky little game. As Sam explains more about time travel, his family, and why he decided to back in time, Ruby is intrigued by the fantastic stories and, as long as they stay just between the two of them, is okay to let Sam live his fantasy. However, Sam isn't content to keep quiet. Even though he says it's against time travel protocol to talk about it, he begins telling friends about it and Ruby comes to believe he is really sick

Writer/director Brad Anderson toys with the audience throughout the film, dropping clues in all directions. Follow one set of clues and Sam is telling the truth. Look at another set of clues and it seems likely that he is likely a mental patient. It's a difficult balancing act, but Anderson is blessed with the talented and charismatic D'Onofrio, who easily balances charm and insanity.

One could easily compare Happy Accidents with another movie about space aliens masquerading as mental patients--K-Pax. The difference is where K-Pax is maddeningly vague and ends with no resolution, Happy Accidents skates and charms, and its resolution is welcome, if not surprising.

D'Onofrio is becoming one of the most consistently fascinating actors working today. I would highly recommend Happy Accidents based on his role alone. That the film is also charming and romantic might be considered a Happy Accident.

Movie Review Impostor

Impostor (2002) 

Directed by Gary Fleder 

Written by Caroline Case, Ehren Kruger, David Twohy

Starring Gary Sinise, Madeline Stowe, Vincent D'onofrio, Mekhi Phifer, Tony Shalhoub

Release Date January 4th, 2002 

Published January 3rd, 2002 

Four years ago, Dimension films began work on a science fiction film called The Light Years Trilogy. The film was to be 3 short films based on three separate Philip K. Dick stories. The project never fully came together though two of the three short films were produced. One of those was Impostor starring Gary Sinise and Vincent D'onofrio. The suits at Dimension liked the 30-minute version so much they ponied up the dough to turn it into a full-length feature.

They were better off with the half hour version.

Impostor takes place 75 years in the future, with Gary Sinise as scientist Spencer Oldham. Oldham is working on a top-secret weapon in the war against aliens called the Centaurians. Arriving at work after a weekend vacation, Spencer is arrested by the military police headed by Vincent D'onofrio. D'onofrio claims that Oldham is not who he appears, that he is in fact an alien cyborg with a bomb in his chest.\

In a scene reminiscent of the Salem Witch trials, Oldham is to be tied to an operating table while a laser drills into his chest. The theory is to get the bomb out and diffuse it. Essentially, if Spencer is an alien bomb they kill him and if he's not, the test will have proven he wasn't alien. Spencer will be dead but at least he's not an alien. Well of course Spencer escapes, there wouldn't be a move if he didn't, and thus begins a series of dull chase scenes through your typically post-apocalyptic cityscapes.

Sinise is well cast as is D'onofrio but they were likely better served in the original 30 minute version.

There are some interesting scenes in Impostor. For example, the first interrogation scene with D'onofrio questioning Oldham while his friends and coworkers look on has the feeling of a futuristic version of the 1950's communist witch hunts, and as I previously mentioned the Salem Witch trials. The ending does build some palpable suspense with a fun little twist.

But in the end, Impostor is, to paraphrase the band Sum 41, all filler no killer.

Movie Review Jurassic World

Jurassic World (2015) 

Directed by Colin Trevorrow 

Written by Rick Jaffe, Amanda Silver, Derek Connolly, Colin Trevorrow 

Starring Christ Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D'onofrio, B.D Wong 

Release Date June 12th, 2015 

Published June 11th, 2015 

“Jurassic World” has been called ‘”sexist,” “anti-feminist” and, in one review, “gendered,” a new-to-me term for calling out a piece of pop culture for not living up to the ideals of modern pseudo-feminism. These accusations are aimed at the portrayal of the character Claire played by Bryce Dallas Howard, a career-oriented, driven administrator of the Jurassic World Theme Park.

Claire’s character arc finds her not enjoying the company of children, preferring the boardroom and not caring much for dinosaurs as anything other than the products that her company exploits for millions of dollars. These traits position Claire as something of a villain. However, they also position her to learn valuable lessons over the course of her character arc — you know, like a movie character.

As film criticism has evolved away from aesthetic arguments toward easier to write, and to read, socio-political commentary, movies are being held to a more and more impossible standard of standing in for every version of American culture and representing every political perspective so as not to offend anyone or let anyone feel left out. This transition threatens to legislate traits out of characters and limit the ways in which a writer can create unique characters that stand out on their own as individuals with inherent flaws.

One of the criticisms of Claire as an anti-feminist symbol is centered on her clothes. Bear in mind: We are seeing one very unusual day in the life of the park. On any other day, Claire would spend her time in board rooms or in her well-appointed office and not in the woods being chased by a dinosaur. Being chased by dinosaurs was, quite fair to say, not on Claire’s schedule EVER.

And yet we have critics calling Claire out for being dressed for meeting clients, which, by the way, was her original plan for the day before a massively, unexpectedly dangerous new dinosaur escaped its seemingly inescapable cage. Claire is being considered anti-feminist because she chose to wear high heels and a cream colored top and skirt ensemble on a day when she, as a character in a story, did not know she would be chased by dinosaurs.

The character of Claire is well established as being somewhat socially awkward. Claire’s comfort comes from achieving her ambition, which is to be rich and successful. Now, I realize that that is not the kindest character trait, but if we require every character in movies to be kind at all times and eschew ambition, then where will our villains come from? More importantly for Claire, where will the life lesson come from? If she begins from a place of fully evolved traits perfectly suited for both the board room and a dinosaur attack, then what is the dramatic arc?

Is it anti-feminist to wear heels and a skirt? Is it anti-feminist to not concern yourself with your clothing choices when a dangerous dinosaur gets loose in your dinosaur theme park? Some have asked why Claire did not go for a wardrobe change amid the chaotic escape of the dangerous and deadly Indominus Rex — maybe some running shoes and khakis. The film answers that question by simply thrusting Claire immediately into the action of first covering up the danger in her pre-evolved state of pure ambition, to then attempting to save lives. She was a little busy for a wardrobe change: There’s a freaking dinosaur on the loose.

Movie Review: The Eyes of Tammy Faye

The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021) 

Directed by Michael Showalter 

Written by Abe Sylvia 

Starring Jessica Chastain, Andrew Garfield, Vincent D'Onofrio, Cherry Jones 

Release Date September 17th, 2021 

Published December 24th, 2021 

A trope that has become overused in biopics is the necessity to provide a literal explanation for something that becomes part of the life of a famous person after they become famous. With that in mind, I was prepared with a heavy sigh and an eye roll while watching the biopic, The Eyes of Tammy Faye, all about the life of Tammy Faye Bakker, played by Jessica Chastain. As I started the movie, I girded myself for a very literal explanation of why Tammy Faye began wearing garish clown-like makeup. 

What a surprise then to see that the main explanation of Tammy’s love for makeup was simply because she liked makeup. The backstory of Tammy Faye’s makeup gets a very brief scene at the very start of the movie and is mostly left behind as Tammy’s true obsession is revealed to be religion and being completely oblivious. Credit goes to director Michael Showalter who makes many smart choices in how to bring the unusual life of Tammy Faye Bakker to the big screen. 

The Eyes of Tammy Faye stars Jessica Chastain in the role of Tammy Faye Bakker and Andrew Garfield as her husband, con-man conservative Christian talk show host, Jim Bakker. The two met at a bible college in Minnesota. Here, Jim preached prosperity gospel, much to the dismay of his professors but to the great delight of his classmate, Tammy Faye. It was, and likely remains, Jim Bakker’s belief that God wants certain people to have great wealth and anyone with great wealth is therefore blessed by God. 

Never mind all of that stuff Jesus said about the poor, Jim Bakker was not one who believed that there was divinity in poverty. Thus he set out to be rich by any means necessary. After marrying Tammy Faye, Jim took Tammy Faye on the road where they preached the gospel and Jim took out loans and raised money for their personal needs via the many church congregations that accepted him as a guest preacher. 

Meanwhile, Tammy Faye also had her eyes on the horizon, searching for her big break. That break comes when Tammy Faye incorporates a puppet show into their preaching and singing and it gets seen by leaders of the Christian Broadcast Network, owned and operated by Pat Robertson (Gabriel Olds) and Jerry Falwell (Vincent D’Onofrio). They jump at the chance to bring the young and talented Jim and Tammy Faye aboard for a kids show but Jim has bigger plans. 

After finding success with children, Jim pitches himself as the host of a late night religious talk show that would be called The 700 Club. This comes at a cost however, to his marriage as a pregnant Tammy Faye is left off of the show and sulks at home. Before long Tammy Faye is demanding that Jim spend time with her while also getting in his ear about how they should be making more money. It’s Tammy Faye who plants the seeds that would become their crowning achievement, PTL, Praise the Lord the cable channel. 

Here is where Jim and Tammy Faye would find multi-million dollar success but also eventually find their grave downfall. As successful as the PTL was, Jim’s dedication to prosperity gospel drove him to constantly spending more than the PTL was bringing, especially spending it on himself while allowing Tammy Faye to shop to her heart’s content. While Jim desperately chases every dollar, Tammy Faye quickly comes to recognize the emptiness of their lives and the conflict between Jim and Tammy Faye eventually spills into their very public downfall. 

It’s a good story but not one that translates easily to a film narrative. Despite what The Eyes of Tammy Faye might want you to believe, Tammy Faye is not an entirely sympathetic character. Some might be able to buy Tammy Faye as a naïve innocent, as Jessica Chastain plays her, but reality also indicates that Tammy Faye was as or even more ambitious than her husband. Even as she may have been a victim of her husband's duplicitousness, she very much indulged and enjoyed the lifestyle trappings that his scheming made possible. 

The Eyes of Tammy Faye quite often tips into hagiography, as if the filmmakers and star Jessica Chastain were striving to make Tammy Faye a martyr and a counterpoint to her con-man husband. I say that but I don't say it with a great deal of confidence, especially after a final scene that appears to push the film into an area of camp that seems to both deify and deflate the legacy the film had been building for Tammy Faye. The final moments highlight a problem with The Eyes of Tammy Faye that's difficult to explain. 

For most of the movie, it doesn't appear that the film has a sense of humor regarding Tammy Faye, she's not being pitied or parodied. The final act, and especially the final scene of the movie, are the first time we get a sense of what I know I was looking for in the film, a slightly more savage and unrelenting look at Tammy Faye. In the final scene, the film reaches a remarkable climax that is both high camp and genuinely emotional. It's a moment where the potential of The Eyes of Tammy Faye emerges. Sadly, it emerges to late to rescue the movie and instead serves to highlight the tone that was missing from the first two acts of The Eyes of Tammy Faye. 

Ultimately, I am mixed on The Eyes of Tammy Faye. I adored the ending and I loved elements of Jessica Chastain's full bodied performance as Tammy Faye. The problem, for me, appears to be that Chastain started to like Tammy Faye and feel protective of her. That appears at times to be at odds with the tone that director Michael Showalter is going for. The disconnect between her desire to do justice to Tammy Faye and Showalter's high wire act attempt to bridge Chastain's performance into his more savage send up of Tammy Faye, ultimately short circuits both Chastain and Showalter's efforts. 

Movie Review: The Salton Sea

The Salton Sea (2002) 

Directed by D.J Caruso

Written by Tony Gayton 

Starring Val Kilmer, Vincent D'Onofrio, Adam Goldberg, Luis Guzman, Peter Sarsgard 

Release Date April 26th, 2002 

Published Apil 25th, 2002 

Stories about Val Kilmer's attitude and ego have clouded such varied productions as The Doors, Batman Forever, and Mission To Mars. It's been reported that on the set of Mission To Mars Kilmer and co-star Tom Sizemore actually came to blows. No matter what is said about Kilmer's attitude, his talent is undeniable, even though his ability to choose good material is questionable (At First Sight, The Saint), But when he does get good material, Kilmer is as good as anyone working today. In the thriller The Salton Sea, Kilmer has excellent material and he is more than equal to it.

Directed by feature film first-timer DJ Caruso, The Salton Sea at first stars Kilmer as our unnamed narrator. Sitting in a burning hotel room holding a trumpet and surrounded by flaming dollar bills, we get a sense of an unfolding noir, but as the narrator leads into his story we get so much more. As our narrator explains he isn't sure who he really is. At one point he was Tom Van Allen, a jazz musician weeks away from marrying the girl of his dreams, Liz (Chandra West). Most recently he was Danny Parker, a speed freak turned police informant. How Tom becomes Danny is told in a flashback within a flashback. To explain that further would destroy one of the films great plot twists. Let's just say that the connection is a little strained but pays off well.

As Danny, our narrator explains his dealings with two cops, Morgan played by The Green Mile's Doug Hutchinson and Garcetti played by the ever reliable Anthony LaPaglia. To keep the cops from busting him, Danny offers to help the cops catch a drug dealer named Pooh Bear. Vincent D'onfrio plays Pooh Bear, one of the most unique and fascinating film characters in a long time. As Pooh Bear, D'onofrio communicates menace with a nasal southern drawl made scarier by the fact that the character has no nose. 

You see, in the lore of The Salton Sea, Pooh Bear sniffed so much speed that his nose had to be removed. He covers the hole in his face with a plastic nose that when taken off delivers a visual punch not soon forgotten. Pooh Bear's unique hobbies include recreating the Kennedy Assassination with pet pigeons in place of the president and Mrs. Kennedy, and torturing his enemies by setting rabid animals loose on their exposed genitals. These unusual traits could make for an over the top and unbelievable character but Pooh Bear's strange southern folksiness and D'onofrio's amazing talent bring the character down to earth and make the character frighteningly believable.

The Salton Sea twists and turns like a combination of Memento and Pulp Fiction run through a blender. Writer Tony Gayton, whose previous credit was the slick detective story Murder By Numbers, here shows a flair for dialogue and characters that is very unexpected when compared to the prepackaged thriller characters he previously put in place. With Director DJ Caruso providing the grimy imagery and Gayton drawing uniquely wild characters, The Salton Sea transcends it's comparisons to stand on it's own as an exciting grunge noir. Though it's not as good as Pulp Fiction or Memento, The Salton Sea shows that it's creators have the potential to do something great.

Val Kilmer and Vincent D'ofrio each deliver career best performances in The Salton Sea. While they could easily have relied on character quirks and lazily gotten by, both actors appear deeply invested in these characters and giving them life. They are both weird and complicated, just the kind of juicy role that a Capital A Actor would want, neither Kilmer or D'onofrio are resting on the wilder aspects of their character. Both actors masterful compel the audience through their energy, the emotion, and the physical presence of these characters. By making Danny and Pooh Bear plausible they make them feel real, even as each are recognizable as characters within an outsized, manipulated noir mystery universe. 

The Salton Sea is one of the best movies of 2002.