Movie Review: Finding Neverland

Finding Neverland (2004) 

Directed by Marc Forster

Written by Marc Forster

Starring Johnny Depp, Kate Winslet, Freddie Highmore, Radha Mitchell, Dustin Hoffman, Julie Christie

Release Date November 12th, 2004

Published November 11th, 2004

James Matthew Barrie was born in Scotland in the late 1800's, moved to London just before the turn of the century, and ran in the circle of a number of well-known writers, including H.G Wells, P.G Wodehouse, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to name a few. Though Barrie is mainly known for one work in particular, he was arguably the most successful writer in his circle at that time. It is only the passage of time and the gloriousness of his best-known work that leaves so much of his other material forgotten. That one work was the seminal children’s fantasy Peter Pan and how Barrie invented this fantastic fairy tale is the subject of Finding Neverland starring Johnny Depp and directed by Marc Forster.

Coming off the tremendous failure of his latest play, writer J.M Barrie takes a walk in the park with his dog. As he sits on a bench attempting to find a new story to tell, Barrie meets the Davies’ family. George (Nick Roud), Jack (Joe Prospero), Michael (Luke Spill), Peter (Freddie Highmore), and their mother Sylvia (Kate Winslet). Llewellyn Davies takes an immediate liking to Mr. Barrie who entertains them with his imaginative storytelling.

Barrie begins going to the park every day to play with the boys and spend time with Sylvia. This, not surprisingly, causes trouble with his wife Mary (Radha Mitchell) as well as with Sylvia's mother Mrs. Du Maurier (Julie Christie) who worries what the unusual relationship will do to her daughter’s social standing as well as to her own.

Despite the tensions, Barrie can't stay away because the children have inspired him to write what will go on to be his masterpiece. While spending time with the Davies, Barrie begins to indulge a fantasy he has carried with him since he was a child: A story about pirates, Indians, fairies, and a place called Neverland. Even as real life grows more dramatic, the fantasy he's writing gets more and more fantastical.

Depp is extraordinary. In Finding Neverland, he has yet another of his lovable oddballs. Only this time, as opposed to his Jack Sparrow in Pirates of The Caribbean or his nutty writer in Secret Window, this character is both odd and believably dramatic. You believe that this character was this unusual but still a very real person. Indeed much of the script is historically accurate to the life of J.M Barrie and his relationship with the Davies family. What is unclear is how much of the odd behavior of the character is from Depp or from what was known of the real J.M Barrie. Either way it still works.

Director Marc Forster, with the help of cinematographer Roberto Schaefer and production designer Gemma Jackson, creates a world that is a perfect balance of fantasy and reality. They manage to illustrate J.M Barrie's reality and a believable illusion of his spectacular imagination. Writer David Magee, working from source material based on a play by Alan Knee, crafts a terrific script that builds from somewhat mundane at the start to beautifully moving by the films climax.

It's hard to believe that Forster's previous directing credit was the gritty, hard bitten Monster's Ball. But it's not hard to believe that just as he led Halle Berry to an Oscar in Monster's Ball he has led Johnny Depp to the possibility of one. In fact everything about Finding Neverland, from Depp's performance to Forster’s direction, Kate Winslet and Julie Christie's tremendous supporting work and finally the cinematography and production design, looks Oscar quality.

Documentary Review Fahrenheit 9/11

Fahrenheit 9/11

Directed by Michael Moore

Written by Documentary

Starring Michael Moore, George W. Bush

Release Date June 25th, 2004

Published June 24th, 2004

Say you have a job that pays you a coupla hundred grand a year. It's a good job, well respected. Now let's say you have outside interests, investments that stand to make yourself, members of your family and your friends more than a billion dollars but it requires that you do things in your job that are somewhat less than ethical, immoral even. Is it not fair to ask where your loyalty lies? That is one of the central questions of Michael Moore's brilliant and scathing documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, a title that implies the temperature at which freedom burns.

The above question asked more specifically is posed to the Bush administration and it's supporters. The President, his family and friends have and continue to, benefit from investments with Saudi businesses that have at least vague, often provable links to terrorists. Those investments make them more than a billion dollars while the American people only pay George W. Bush 400 grand per year. If Bush pushes foreign and domestic policies in specific directions, those investments are likely to pay off bigtime. So all that stands between corruption of the highest office and the ethical wielding of Presidential power is the word of George W. Bush. Sorry, but that is not good enough for me.

There is far more to Fahrenheit 911 than the above example. Things such as the flight that carried Osama Bin Laden's family out of the United States after September 11th 2001 without so much as a Law and Order style interrogation. The flight, arranged at the highest levels of our government left the country a week after Osama Bin Laden had attacked America, his family is allowed to leave the country without even being asked where Osama might be hiding.

Conservatives want to talk about Michael Moore's timeline of events after 9/11 and the opening of the skies to commercial and in this case private aircraft. Moore's timeline is in fact correct. What conservatives can't explain is how Muslims with an obvious tie to Osama Bin Laden, they are family for pete's sake, are allowed to leave a week after the tragedy, while other Muslims with no ties to Bin Laden were being held for six months to year until the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security were absolutely certain there were no terrorist ties.

Oh did I mention the Bin Laden's were one of the families that the Bush's have their money tied up with? Another sick irony exposed by Michael Moore in this film is how the Bin Laden families investments in American defense contractors made the family large sums of money as America built up toward it's military hunt for Osama and the subsequent war in Iraq.

Speaking of the war, Michael Moore has a few important things to say about Iraq. Recycled news footage shows just some of the innumerable contradictory statements that the administration made in order to make its case for war. The film also goes to Iraq and using never before seen video shows our soldiers, injured, disillusioned and angry, but also doing their job with bravery and commitment to the cause. They aren't sure what that cause is, but they do it anyway.

The finale of the film follows a mother from Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan named Lila Lipscomb. Ms. Lipscomb was a supporter of the war but letters from her son and his eventual death in combat changed her mind. She goes to Washington wishing to ask what it was her son died for. This is one of the film’s most powerful moments, one where you wish Moore might turn away, turn the camera off. However, when you think about it, Lila Lipscomb can't turn the camera off. Camera or no camera, her pain is there and that pain is what Moore captures and the fact that Lila Lipscomb is not the only mother who is mourning a son.

The film’s biggest headline grabbing sequence shows those infamous seven minutes after the second plane hit the trade center and it became clear America had been attacked. Those seven minutes in which President Bush sat there in that Florida classroom listening to a kid read a book about a goat. Seven minutes captured on a video camera by the teacher of the class, not the media. Bush sits and looks powerless, lost, far less than the leader of the free world.

This is one of the most fascinating and powerful works of documentary art I have ever seen. It's also quite funny as well, which can be somewhat disorienting as occasionally during the film a funny, ironic moment is followed or preceded by something important or meaningful. That temporary disorientation is nothing compared to the feelings I had after the film which take a while to process and put into words. I am truly blown away by this film, not that I'm the least bit surprised that George W. Bush is a corrupt liar who manipulates his office for the betterment of his and his associate’s wallets. That I knew. What shocks me is how there are still so many that want this guy re-elected.

Movie Review Eye of God

Eye of God (1997) 

Directed by Tim Blake Nelson

Written by Tim Blake Nelson

Starring Nick Stahl, Martha Plimpton, Kevin Anderson, Hal Holbrook, Richard Jenkins, Margo Martindale 

Release Date October 17th, 1997 

Published July 13th, 2003 

In his relatively short career as a director, Tim Blake Nelson has shown a fascination with tragedy. In The Grey Zone it was the horror of the Holocaust. In ”O” it was teen violence by way of Shakespeare. And in Nelson's very first feature, Eye of God, it was a town in Oklahoma that seemed bathed in tragedy from economic depression to domestic abuse to suicide. Made with the help of Robert Redford's Sundance Institute in 1997, Eye of God was the first indication that the actor had the eye of a director.

Set sometime in the 1980's Eye of God centers on the small town of Kingfish, Oklahoma. A town suffering though a major economic downturn that has people moving away at the rate of a family a week. Into this tragic situation comes a former convict, Jack Stillings (Kevin Anderson). He has come to Kingfish to meet his prison pen pal, a young waitress named Ainsley Dupree (Martha Plimpton). At first Ainsley has cold feet and thinks of leaving but Jack convinces her to stay and that night they have their first date.

Running parallel to Jack and Ainsley's story is that of Tom Spencer (Nick Stahl) who's mother committed suicide, leaving him with his overbearing Aunt and with thoughts of taking his own life. When Tom is found wandering along the side of the road covered in blood, it's obvious he has been involved in something awful. Unfortunately, a shell-shocked Tom is unable to speak and can't tell anyone what happened.

As we learn from a voiceover provided by Hal Holbrook, who also plays the sheriff of Kingfish, Jack and Ainsley's story is being recounted in flashback, while Tom's story takes place in the present. The film shifts backwards and forwards much like Brian Singer's Usual Suspects. The time shifts in Eye of God are signaled by overlapping sounds and static camera shots. The camera pans slowly away from the characters to some various image as another begins to speak or a phone rings or a door slams. It's not a new approach but for a first time director it was a challenging choice and one that Nelson carries off very well.

The script, also written by Nelson, is part mystery, part character study. Unfortunately, the mystery unravels well before the film is over. It becomes clear which character is guilty and that takes some of the punch out of the film’s ending. What the ending does have though is well-acted tragedy that Martha Plimpton and Nick Stahl really hit home. Stahl's final scene is a real heartbreaker and shows the potential that he is finally beginning to live up to some six years later. It's a wonder we don't see more of Martha Plimpton, who has always turns in an effective performance in whatever she is in, even the God awful 100 Cigarettes.

The film’s only real problem is it's leading man Kevin Anderson. A true straight to video legend, Anderson evinces an east coast attitude even as he's supposed to be playing a down home Midwesterner. His portrayal done with a hint of bad Midwest accent turn Jack into a redneck caricature, a hypocritical bible thumper who never for a moment fools the audience into sympathizing with him.

As artful as Eye of God is, it's not entertaining. It's just sad. I loved the performances by Stahl and Plimpton and Tim Blake Nelson's risky directing style. However, the film’s sadness is overwhelming. When the mystery falls apart just past the half way point, the audience is left with nothing but the tragedy. That and Anderson's performance keep Eye Of God from rising to the level of Nelson's follow up features “O” and The Grey Zone, but that is to be expected from a first feature.

Movie Review: Around the World in 80 Days

Around the World in 80 Days (2004) 

Directed by Frank Coraci

Written by David Titcher 

Starring Jackie Chan, Steve Coogan, Cecile de France, Jim Broadbent, Arnold Schwarzenegger

Release Date June 16th, 2004 

Published June 15th, 2004 

History can be unkind to a movie. Take Mike Todd's immense vanity production 1956's Around The World In 80 Days. The film was the most extravagant and expensive production of it's time and was awarded Best Picture, beating Giant and The Ten Commandments. However, ask most critics about the film and you get a different picture altogether. The film is a God-awful mess for the most part.

Still it's a well-known title and has the Jules Verne name to back it up and thus we have a remake on our hands. Sure, it doesn't have the extravagance of original film but it does have the charm the previous film lacked. And there is a lot to be said for charm.

Phileas Fogg (Steve Coogan) is not one of those “head in the clouds” types and he's not a dreamer. He's just a scientist with faith in man's ability to accomplish any task. With his sometimes-unusual inventions, he pushes the boundaries of known human limits and pushes the patience of Britain's club of top scientists, led by Lord Kelvin (Jim Broadbent). Fogg's boundless imagination has yet to invent anything that impresses Lord Kelvin. In fact, Kelvin does all he can to prevent Fogg from becoming a full-fledged member of the club.

It is fate then that Fogg should meet a would-be thief who calls himself Passepartout (Jackie Chan), which is French-Chinese or so he explains. Passepartout, unknown to Fogg, has just robbed the bank of England but it's not what you think. Passepartout was merely retrieving an ancient artifact that was stolen from his village by the vial General Fang (Karen Mok) and sold to Lord Kelvin. While evading the police, Passepartout hides out at Fogg's mansion pretending to be a valet sent over by a service. It is Passepartout who hatches the 80 days bet as a way of getting Fogg to transport him back to China to return the artifact called The Jade Buddha.

The wager is thus: if Fogg can circumnavigate the globe in less than 80 days then Lord Kelvin will step down and name Fogg head of the Royal Academy of Science. However, if Fogg fails he must never invent again. With the wager in place we are off on a wild ride around the world with Passepartout being chased by the Chinese army of General Fang and both being pursued by the bumbling, Brit Inspector Fix (Ewan Bremner).

The guys aren't alone though. In France, they are joined by a sexy French painter Monique La Roche (Cecille De France) who basically exists as a function of the plot. After all what adventure movie doesn't have a love interest? It's in the movie rulebook so she's in the movie. It helps that she is easy on the eyes and quick with her spirited wit. Monique has an immediate attraction to Phileas who’s somewhat clueless, again, as the plot would have it.

Okay, we are not breaking new ground here and not just because this is a remake. There are a number of contrivances and shortcuts. This was after all directed by Adam Sandler's in house director Frank Coraci, so what else would you expect?

Still, the film does have a joyous spirit to it. It's funny and at times even exciting, especially Jackie Chan who has never been better. Some have said that Jackie Chan has lost a step but I didn't notice. If he's being helped by computers, wires or stunt doubles, it's well covered up and his stunt choreography is as good as it's ever been. Keep an eye out for his bench fighting scene against General Fang's men and the Statue of Liberty fight, two terrific, exciting fight scenes. Chan can also mug with the best of them and here he takes on an almost silent movie hero vibe as his face contorts into all sorts of exaggerated emotions. His facial expressions make up for his still nearly unintelligible accent.

Sadly, the wonderful Steve Coogan who was so memorable in 24 Hour Party People never really comes to life in this film. Coogan's Phileas Fogg is entirely too straight-laced and uptight to be interesting. His main emotions stem from his constant need to keep track of time. The rare scenes where he does spark are the romantic moments with the lovely Cecille De France, who has enough energy and spark for the both of them. She looks as if the French have cloned Brittany Murphy and given her an accent, and like Murphy, it's her boundless spirit that makes her so sexy.

As a family movie, Around The World in 80 Days will try the patience of young children with it's few dead spots. However, once Chan has some butts to kick the kids and some of the parents will be very entertained. Try and forget the original film and especially forget Jules Verne who deserves better and has yet to see his work fully realized onscreen. Around The World in 80 Days is not for purists or nitpickers, it is simply a brainlessly entertaining piece of pop candy.

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: Envy

Envy (2004) 

Directed by Barry Levinson

Written by Steve Adams 

Starring Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Rachel Weisz, Amy Poehler, Christopher Walken

Release Date April 30th, 2004

Published April 30th, 2004 

Imagine a Hollywood pitch meeting where a producer first tells you that he has Barry Levinson attached to direct the film being pitched. Then the producer tells you that Mr. Levinson has drawn the interest of both Jack Black and Ben Stiller. This is a can't-lose pitch and you don't even know what the movie is about. The result of this can't-miss pitch is Envy, a comedy about best friends, one of whom becomes a millionaire while the other remains an everyman schlub. Somehow, despite its can't-miss pitch, it misses badly.

Ben Stiller is Tim Dingman and Jack Black is Nick Vanderpark. Tim and Nick have been best friends and neighbors for years. Their wives are friends, their kids are friends and the guys even work together at a sandpaper factory. Tim is a dedicated worker but Nick is more of a dreamer with a tendency to nod off at times. Nick spends most of his time dreaming up wacky get rich quick schemes and his latest is a doozy.

After seeing some guy on the street cleaning up dog-doo with a rubber glove and a baggy, Nick is struck with an idea. It's a spray that would make dog-doo disappear. Well it's not an invention yet, as Tim is quick to point out, all Nick has is an idea with a name, Va-Poo-Rize. Regardless of Tim's discouragement, Nick offers Tim the chance to be his fifty-fifty partner for a minimal investment. Tim, not surprisingly turns him down but ends up kicking himself when Nick's idea becomes a reality and he becomes filthy rich.

Despite his riches, Nick remains in the neighborhood. He buys out most of the neighbors surrounding his and Tim's homes and builds a mansion that fills an entire city block directly in front of Tim's house. While Tim has to get up every morning and trudge to the sandpaper factory, Nick is riding his great white horse everywhere, making sure to wave to Tim every morning as he leaves.

Tim has trouble at home, where his wife Debbie (Rachel Weisz) has left him, she can't forget how Tim turned down Nick's partnership idea. Tim is fired from the sandpaper factory after blowing up at his boss and soon he is hanging out with a bum called the J Man (Christopher Walken) at a dive bar. As the bum buys him drinks, Tim becomes increasingly angry at Nick and when he gets home, he intends on letting Nick know it. Instead, he accidentally kills Nick's horse, which kicks the plot into an entirely different and strange direction.

This is a typical Ben Stiller character prone to humiliation, fits of uncontrollable rage and self-deprecating physical comedy. Stiller is funny in this familiar comic persona though it would be nice to see him try something different.

This however, is not a typical Jack Black character and that is where the film goes wrong. In Envy, the comic whirling dervish that is Jack Black is slowed to the point of normalcy. Black's character has all sorts of wacky outfits and a Jim Carrey circa Ace Ventura haircut but his character is a neutered version of the manic over the top comic we have enjoyed in School Of Rock and High Fidelity. It doesn't help that Black's character is often shoved well into the background as the plot spins out of control around the horse and the bum.

Christopher Walken is a welcome presence playing yet another classic Walken character with one or two of those way out there monologues that only he could deliver. However, his character is a distraction from the center of the film, which should be Stiller and Black.

Subplots are added and discarded as director Barry Levinson spins wildly from one comic idea to the next, looking for a purpose. The horse thing takes up too much of the film, while a more intriguing idea hangs just off screen as a controversy erupts over where the dog-doo goes when the spray makes it disappear. It's gross but it's a funnier idea than anything that happens with the horse. The dog-doo idea is introduced and discarded and then brought back without explanation and then left unresolved as if it were a comic idea that they thought worked but did not and the filmmakers were forced to edit around it.

The whole film feels like it was assembled in the editing room without a clear purpose of what the filmmakers had filmed. Thus, there are some funny moments in the film but no cohesiveness to the plot. It's a series of ideas with no central purpose. The ending is especially slapdash and unsatisfying. There may have been a good film in there somewhere but what ended up in the final cut is basically all potential and no payoff.

Movie Review Enigma

Enigma (2001) 

Directed by Michael Apted

Written by Tom Stoppard

Starring Dougray Scott, Kate Winslet, Jeremy Northam, Saffron Burrows, Tom Hollander

Release Date April 19th, 2002 

Published October 8th 2002 

A little more than two years ago, the film U-571 caused a small controversy when it portrayed an American sub crew as the first Allied soldiers to capture a German code-breaking machine. It was not the Americans but rather a British sub that captured the first Enigma machine. And Enigma shows that it was the British who first cracked (and then cracked again) the German’s supposedly unbreakable codes.

At Bletchley Park, a converted British farm, a group of Britain’s top mathematicians are holed up combing through jumbled numbers and letters, attempting to uncover German troop movements. As we join the story we meet Tom Jericho (Dougray Scott), possibly Britain’s top code breaker. Jericho was the first to break Germany’s Shark code—the code used by German U-boats. Jericho is returning to Bletchley Park after recovering from a nervous breakdown that his colleagues believed was work induced; however, we come to realize that it was caused by a failed romance with a mysterious blonde named Claire (Saffron Burrows).

It is Tom’s goal to return to Bletchley Park and win Claire back, but upon his arrival, he finds Claire has gone missing and the code he had spent so much time cracking is now useless. As Tom is distracted by his search for Claire he must also deal with once again cracking this uncrackable code. In his search for Claire, Tom enlists the help of Claire’s best friend,

Hestor (Kate Winslet). Tom and Hestor quickly discover that Claire’s disappearance and Jericho’s unbreakable code may be related. Jeremy Northam plays a lawman named Wigram who suspects that one of the Bletchley Park mathematicians may be a German spy and because of Jericho’s strange behavior he is at the top of Wigram’s list.

The code breaking in the film is quite complicated, to the point of being entirely confusing to anyone not well versed in mathematics. It was so confusing that a layman would not understand it; however, to dumb it down would be a disservice to the history of Bletchley Park.  

While the difficulty of that portion of the story makes Enigma difficult to follow at times, the actors, (notably Dougray Scott) do an excellent job ofkeeping the audience engaged. The scenes involving Scott and Northam are something out of classic Hitchcock as these two intelligent men match wits searching for a missing femme fatale and a spy who may or may not be the one in the same.

Had director Michael Apted indulged more of the Hitchcockian elements of Enigma, the film may have been far more entertaining. As it is, Enigma comes off more as a scholarly historical piece and less of an entertaining mystery. Still Enigma is a well-crafted piece worth a look for. It is shining a light on history that is too often colored by Hollywood. 

Movie Review: Ella Enchanted

Ella Enchanted (2004) 

Directed by Tommy O'Haver

Written by Laurie Craig, Karen McCullah Lutz, Kirsten Smith, Jennifer Heath, Michelle J. Wolf 

Starring Anne Hathaway, Hugh Dancy, Cary Elwes, Vivica A Fox, Minnie Driver, Joanna Lumley

Release Date April 9th, 2004

Published April 8th, 2004

You have to be a man very secure in his manhood to walk into a video store and rent a movie like Ella Enchanted. A lesser man would drag a child with them (niece, cousin, daughter, any girl under the age of 12). So on sheer manhood sacrificing, I deserve some respect. As a critic I say I have to watch it because it's there, but in all honesty I was kind of looking forward to the film. And no pervy insinuations about Anne Hathaway, I was intrigued by the film’s trailer and after seeing the film, I was right to get it.

Anne Hathaway, the rising star of The Princess Diaries (I haven't seen either PD films, this film was hard enough to rent), stars as Ella of Frell, a commoner who at birth is given a unique and horribly thought out gift by her fairy godmother Lucinda (Vivica A. Fox). The gift is obedience. Ella must do anything she is told to do by anyone.

The gift is obviously more of a curse, especially after Ella's mother passes away and commands her never to tell anyone about her "gift", she doesn't want anyone to use it against her. Years later, when Ella's father (Patrick Bergen) remarries to a harridan played by Joanna Lumley, a typecasting that Lumley may never escape, she brings along horrendous daughters who soon discover Ella's secret and begin using it against her.

Regardless of her curse/gift, Ella still grows up independently minded with a surprisingly political spirit. She leads protests on behalf of Ogres, Elves and Giants who have been enslaved by the evil King Edgar (Cary Elwes). Edgar is to give up the crown soon to his nephew Prince Char (Hugh Dancy). Think Prince Harry of England plus a rock star and you'll understand how much the girls of the kingdom love Prince Char. Ella however, as the plot dictates, isn't as impressed.

Ella and Prince Char are soon thrown together and it's dislike at first sight for Ella who believes the Prince is as evil as his uncle. The Prince is soon to win Ella over however and the two go on to fall in love. However there is still the problem of Ella's curse and the Prince's uncle who secretly plots to kill the Prince and remain king. The thrust of the plot is Ella's journey to find her fairy godmother and get her curse lifted and then save the Prince and get married, happily ever after, yada yada yada.

Simply take a little Cinderella with some cliffs notes Shakespeare and you can figure out where this plot is going. What works about Ella Enchanted, based on a popular book series by Gail Carson Levine, is the upbeat fairy tale style of the film. The film is bathed in a magical, pixie dust glow, saturated fantasy colors and modern touches for comic effect. There are malls, bicycles and modern politics. Don't worry it's all handled very lightly. All of it played for witty effect.

Director Tommy O' Haver crafts a wonderfully surreal fairy tale that evokes a live action Shrek in it's magic and whimsical fairy tale aesthete. O'Haver doesn't condescend to his young target audience, his musical choices, Elton John and Queen, are not known to younger viewers but are a treat to audiences who remember them. The songs are also weaved into the plot, the lyrics match the action onscreen, not an original concept but cleverly done.

Anne Hathaway has a terrific comic spirit that shows why those Princess Diaries movies have been so wildly popular. She is a tremendously likable presence onscreen. She is attractive with a mischievous glint in her eye. She has terrific comic chops and shows she's up for anything by singing two songs. Compared to contemporaries like Hillary Duff or the Olson Twins, she is a breath of fresh air.

The discovery here is Director Tommy O'Haver whose breakthrough feature Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss was a minor gem from 1998 that most people missed. O'Haver has a wonderful comic touch. This is material that could collapse if overdone but O'Haver never let's it get away from him. From the first frame the GGI kingdom grabs your attention, little comic moments float by as the camera floats to Ella's cottage for the first scene.

The Director really helped himself by filling his cast with talented supporting actors like Cary Elwes, who lends the film a little of that Princess Bride karma, Minnie Driver, and Parminder K. Nagra who is a little underused but terrific when she's seen. Hugh Dancy, in his first major role, holds his own opposite Hathaway whose presence could have overwhelmed a lesser actor. Dancy was unrecognizable in his small role in King Arthur so this film is the highlight of his resume.

For what it is, a kid's movie, a movie meant for young girls, Ella Enchanted ranks with the Pixar films in the way it provides thrills for audiences. Ella is not as funny or as artistically accomplished as Pixar's films or Shrek but by the lowered bar for family films that appeal beyond demographic boundaries, you can throw this film in the conversation with Nemo and the rest.

Movie Review: Edge of Madness

Edge of Madness (2002) 

Directed by Anne Wheeler

Written by Charles K. Pitts, Anne Wheeler

Starring Brendan Fehr, Caroline Dhavernas, Corey Sevier, Paul Johansson

Release Date January 1st, 2002 

Published May 27th, 2003

Have you ever seen a film that you would describe as remarkably average? It's an odd experience watching a movie that is so inoffensive yet so dull that you have literally no opinion of the film whatsoever. For someone like myself who writes about movies, it is a far stranger experience. How can I write about a movie that I have no opinion of? It's not a good movie but it's not a bad movie either. This is the quandary I find myself after viewing the mystery Edge Of Madness, a remarkably average thriller starring Brendan Fehr.

Set in 1850 in Manitoba Canada, Edge Of Madness is the story of a strange woman named Annie (French TV star Caroline Dhavernas) who arrives at county jail claiming that she has murdered her husband. The county constable, Henry Mullan (Paul Johannsen), is skeptical of her story, as she seems to have lost her mind. Nevertheless he takes her confession and places her in jail for the night. The next day when Annie becomes conscious and realizes where she is, the constable is surprised to hear her stick to her story about having bludgeoned her husband with a large rock.

In flashback, Annie explains how she met her husband, Simon Herron (Brendan Fehr) when he came to her orphanage and selected her to be his wife. Annie is excited to get out of the orphanage but she quickly realizes that her new husband is no savior. Rather, he is a brutal abusive man who doesn't want a wife but rather a sexual servant who can cook. On the bright side, Simon's brother George (Corey Sevier), a kind, sensitive soul befriends Annie and the attraction is so obvious that even dunderheaded Simon picks up on it. This causes Simon to fly into a jealous rage and abuse not only Annie but also his brother.

All of this leads up to Simon's death, and the film’s mystery surrounds who killed Simon. Annie or George? Did Annie claim she did it to protect George or was it as George claimed, an accident? To be honest, by the time the film began to unravel it's mystery I was already drifting off. It's not a bad movie but for short segments it grows a little dull. There were moments when I would look at the time, wonder what was on cable, and think of how much laundry I had to the next day. At one point I even took a short call on my cell and didn't bother to pause the movie. That may seem unprofessional but hey, if the film were more engaging I would have at least paused it.

Edge Of Madness is a well-made, well-acted period piece with interesting actors and interesting performances. Alas, it's easily forgettable at the same time. I admired the professional look of the film. It's well polished for a direct-to-video movie but the story simply isn't compelling enough to hold your interest. It makes for a good movie to fall asleep to because you can nap, wake up 20 minutes later and you haven't really missed anything. It's the absolute definition of an average film.

On a side note I must take issue with the film’s title, a cynical attempt by its marketers to fool people into thinking it's a horror film. On IMDB it's listed under the title A Wilderness Station, a title that makes more sense in the context of the film (Ed. Note - Wilderness Station was the Canadian title), but not nearly as cool sounding as Edge Of Madness, which sounds like the title to an Ozzy Osbourne album.

Movie Review Dressed to Kill

Dressed to Kill (1980) 

Directed by Brian De Palma 

Written by Brian De Palma 

Starring Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson, Nancy Allen, Dennis Farina

Release Date July 25th, 1980

Published August 14th, 2002 

There is something about a great twist ending that can make a seemingly average film great. Take the Sixth Sense, it's doubtful that film would exist without it's brilliant twist. Or Hitchcock's classic, Psycho, likely the greatest twist of all. Brian DePalma's Dressed To Kill isn't quite on par with Sixth Sense or Psycho, but it does have a fantastic twist ending that is frightening and a little campy but exciting. That is, if someone hasn't already ruined it for you.

In Dressed To Kill, Angie Dickinson is a bored housewife, sexually unsatisfied and desperate for a change. She has a husband she likes but doesn't love and a son (Keith Gordon from Back To School) who she worries is becoming a shut in. So she takes her problems to a well-respected psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Elliot (Michael Caine). He tries to help her but after she comes on to him, he ends the session, leaving her unsatisfied and still searching for adventure. This leads her to a museum and a chance encounter with a complete stranger.

From there the film takes a left turn into creepiness as Dickinson's housewife is murdered ala Janet Leigh in Psycho. A high-class hooker played by Nancy Allen witnesses the murder. Because Allen was the only witness, she is also the only suspect, according to Detective Marino (NYPD Blue's Dennis Franz). Now a target of the killer, Allen teams up with Gordon to find the killer before she finds them. Meanwhile Dr Elliot is getting strange phone calls from an ex-patient who is taking credit for the murder and threatening to kill again. In an odd choice, Elliot does not inform the police of the calls.

The whole film is an homage to Psycho, with the story, the plot devices and the camerawork. The killer is always shot in profile with quick cuts, she's there and gone very quickly giving the audience a glimpse of things unseen by the character. 

Dressed To Kill is a good movie, very weird though. The opening shower scene is something out of soft-core porn. Then there is the ten-minute museum sequence, which is done with no dialogue or score, just ambient noise and visuals and one amazing tracking shot that takes us on a tour of the entire museum.

Brian De Palma has often been criticized for his style over substance approach where his visual mastery overwhelms his story. Dressed To Kill is no exception. However, Dressed To Kill is a film where the visuals are far more important than the plot. They in fact ARE the plot. The ending hinges on two sensational visual sequences, one a dream and the other the shocking twist.

Sadly, someone ruined the ending for me so some of the shock was taken out of it. But De Palma's visuals more than make up for it. If you don't know how it ends then you will love it. If you already know the twist you will at least be dazzled by the visual flair.

Movie Review The Dreamers

The Dreamers (2004) 

Directed by Bernardo Bertolucci 

Written by Glibert Adair 

Starring Michael Pitt, Eva Green, Louis Garrel 

Release Date February 6th, 2004 

Published August 1st, 2004 

Bernardo Bertolucci is unquestionably a master behind the camera. He has a painter’s eye for spectacular visuals. Despite that the appeal of his provocative, sex soaked movies has escaped me. As lovely as Last Tango In Paris, and more specifically Maria Schneider were, I fell asleep during that film. There’s something about French politics (For the record I know Bertolucci is from Italy but he made his best known films in France), I find tremendously dull and their sullen attitude toward sex less than exciting.

For his latest film, Bertolucci adapts a novel by Gilbert Adair that takes place in a time and place that Bertolucci is quite familiar with. Paris, 1968. As cinema'de art and the cahiers du cinema were breaking ground, the French government sought to fight back against revolutionary filmmakers and what began as the simple closing of an influential theater turned into a political revolution.

Set against this real life background in The Dreamers is the story of three cinema-loving teenagers who are completely swept up in the art, politics and especially the sex all around them. Michael Pitt is Matthew, an American in Paris for a year of studying, or more often watching movies at the legendary cinematheque where Henry Langlois programmed any and every movie imaginable from Nicholas Ray (Rebel Without A Cause) to Jean Luc Godard (Breathless).

When the cinematheque is shut down and Langlois fired, Matthew meets a pair of fellow cinemaphiles and protestors, non-identical twin brother and sister Theo (Louis Garrel) and Isabelle (Eva Green). The sheer force of their attitudes draws Matthew to them. They share his passion and knowledge of film and they are drawn to his wide-eyed naivete. Before long, Matthew is completely away from his studies and living with his new friends.

While revolution rages outside, the kids, whose parents have taken leave for vacation, stay locked up in their apartment testing each other's limits in film knowledge, musical taste and sexuality. As Matthew quickly learns, the twins have a strange bond. They sleep in the same bed nude and when Theo loses a trivia challenge Isabelle has a punishment that would make even the most maladjusted dysfunctional think twice. It isn't just the twins testing their boundaries, when Matthew loses a trivia challenge Theo has him make love to Isabelle while he watches.

This I suppose is meant to be edgy but it's more uncomfortable than anything else. Michael Pitt is a terrific actor who has greatness in his future but there is an aimlessness to this role. Eva Green is a bold newcomer with a terrific presence but she is unable to sustain the sexual energy her character radiates in her first few scenes. Louis Garrel, who's father is a well known director in French cinema, has that spiky French attitude and his love of film is well conveyed. However, when it comes to politics, sexuality and otherwise, he seems nothing more than a petulant child. Maybe that was the intent.

That is the problem with The Dreamers, we aren't sure what Bertolucci's intent is with these characters. Are we to admire the adventurousness of their experimentation as his camera seems to or are we supposed to feel sorry for these children when they are exposed for the underdeveloped personalities they are? The problem with feeling for them is that there is little depth to their psychology beyond “I blame my parents” pop psychology. Mommy and Daddy are never home, no one loves me, wah wah wah.

I admire this film for its beauty. Bertolucci paints a spectacular canvas of visuals both outside and in the sprawling apartment which is filled to overflow with cinema history. I also admire the film’s love of cinema, a literal worship of filmed art that pours out of the screen, especially when Eva Green's Isabelle imitates her favorite films. Educated filmgoers will get a real thrill recognizing the many cinematic homages throughout the film.

It's just a shame that Bertolucci and writer Gilbert Adair did not put more thought into forming their characters into something more than petulant children, whining and screwing while history unfolds around them.

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 The Cat in the Hat

The Cat in the Hat (2003) 

Directed by Bo Welch

Written by Alec Berg, David Mandel, Jeff Schaffer

Starring Mike Myers, Alec Baldwin, Kelly Preston, Dakota Fanning, Spencer Breslin

Release Date November 21st, 2003 

Published Published November 20th, 2003

Like any kid born after 1957, the books of Theodore Geisel, better known as Dr. Seuss, were an important part of my childhood. From Green Eggs and Ham to How The Grinch Stole Christmas to The Cat In The Hat, the Dr's rhyming wordplay and gloriously odd drawings are what helped form my imagination from the time I was able to read.

When The Grinch was turned into a blockbuster starring Jim Carrey, director Ron Howard was able to retain some of the magic of the book while still allowing Jim Carrey to do his thing. The Grinch wasn't a great adaptation but a skillfully crafted one. The same cannot be said of Bo Welch's adaptation of another Seuss classic, The Cat In The Hat which is neither great nor skillful. Rather it's a dreadful exercise in Hollywood blockbuster cynicism.

Mike Myers steps into the fur of the Cat in the Hat, the six foot feline who simply appears out of thin air to reek havoc and entertain a couple kids trapped at home in the rain. The kids in the film adaptation are Conrad (Spencer Breslin) and Sally (Dakota Fanning), brother and sister and different in every way imaginable. Conrad is destructive, messy and out of control. Sally is fastidious, organized and uptight. Their mother (Kelly Preston) works as a real estate agent and is having a party at their house tonight and the house must be perfect for her boss Mr. Humberfloob (Sean Hayes).

Mom has to work and must leave the kids with the narcoleptic Mrs. Kwan, a woman who could sleep through a train wreck in the living room. After a serious scolding from mom the kids agree to keep the house clean while mom works, but once she's gone the plan goes out the window with the sudden arrival of the Cat In the Hat. Thus begins an adventurous day of trying to keep the house from falling down around them and learning a lesson about how to have fun.

Mike Myers is almost indiscernible under piles of fur and rubber. His schtick however, is unmistakable as he bounds from character voice to character voice as if channeling Robin Williams at his manic worst. Myers plays the Cat as a combination of his Austin Powers persona and former flamboyant center square Charles Nelson Reilly. Myers never for a moment resembles the Cat you remember from the book, save of course for the signature red and white stovepipe hat. Aside from the hat however this Cat is a complete creation of Myers and makeup artist Mike Smithson. Much like the recent Austin Powers films, the performance is very hit and miss.

Director Bo Welch, helming his first feature, shows a terrific flair for set design which is not surprising because that is where he got his start. The Cat In The Hat has spectacular sets, production design, costumes, and makeup. If only the same attention had been paid to the script and especially the jokes. The script is credited to three former Seinfeld writers, Alec Berg, David Mandel and Jeff Schaffer. Odd choices to begin with but then the script received a number of uncredited rewrites by Myers who likely wasn't credited because his work was all improvisations on the set.

Being that The Cat In The Hat was not a long story to begin with, the writers had a lot of time to fill. The unfortunate choice to fill that space with fart jokes and other forms of low humor are a deathly decision that destroys any chance the film had to be entertaining. Modernizing the story, allowing Myers to riff on pop culture is fine. Those elements worked to a point with Jim Carrey in The Grinch, but Carrey was at least somewhat restrained by Ron Howard's skilled direction. Bo Welch seems completely at a loss to reign in his star and can think of nothing better than the dreadful grossout humor that would turn Theodore Geisel's stomach.

Adding to the pain is producer Brian Grazer and his Imagine Entertainment marketing staff who cram every frame with disgusting product placement. The producers have already put the Cat in every imaginable commercial from pop to pregnancy tests and the commercials don't stop even after the movie begins. Myers even does a riff reminiscent of his Wayne's World product placement bit. In Wayne's World it was a wonderfully knowing incisive joke. In The Cat In The Hat, it's overkill.

Watching this film’s producers prostitute this wonderful piece of literary history is almost as disheartening as it's disgusting and unnecessary bathroom humor and scatology. In fact, I'm not sure which is worse. Thankfully, there is the lovely young actress Dakota Fanning who gives another terrific performance in a film well beneath her talents. Dakota Fanning deserves a far better film and the book The Cat In the Hat doesn't deserve this treatment. 

Movie Review: Dodgeball A True Underdog Story

Dodgeball! A True Underdog Story 

Directed by Rawson Marshall Thurber

Written by Rawson Marshall Thurber

Starring Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller, Christine Taylor, Justin Long, Stephen Root, Jason Bateman

Release Date June 18th, 2004

Published June17th, 2004 

USA Today has dubbed them The Frat Pack. Actors Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller, Owen and Luke Wilson and Will Ferrell. Each has a tendency to appear in each other’s movies either as co-stars or in cameos. They tend to work with the same directors and writers. Most importantly they have teamed to make some of the funniest movies of the past few years. In Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, it's Vaughn and Stiller teaming up and once again the Frat Pack's brand of scatological insanity is in full effect for one very funny movie.

Vaughn stars as Peter La Fleuer, the slacker owner of a rundown little gym called Average Joe's. Peter takes a rather laid back approach to running the gym, patrons come and go as they please and pay for their memberships whenever they feel like it. It's no surprise that Peter's management now finds the gym in debt for about 50 grand in unpaid bills.

According to the bank's investigator, Kate (Christine Taylor), if Peter can't raise the cash in 30 days the gym will be sold to White Goodman (Stiller) the Napoleon-esque owner of Globo-Gym. White wants to flatten Average Joe's and turn it into a parking lot. He also wants Kate, who wants nothing to with him. despite her better judgment she is interested in Peter and his collection of wacky gym rats.

While Peter seems perfectly comfortable with closing the gym, his regulars including high school cheerleader Justin (Justin Long), obscure sports loving Gordon (Stephen Root) and Steve the Pirate (Allen Tudyk) who honestly believes he is a pirate, want to fight to save it. Their only hope is a 50,000-dollar grand prize dodgeball tournament in Las Vegas. Win the tournament and save the gym.

Of course Dodgeball is not about it's wacky tournament but the comic touches surrounding it and the hysterically over the top characters pulling it all off. First-time director Rawson Marshall Thurber is raw but knows a funny gag when sees one. The script is kind of a combination of Baseketball and a straight sports movie. Surprisingly though, there is little of the grossout humor expected of this kind of movie. Somehow the film earned a PG - 13 rating and you never would have noticed.

Ben Stiller and Vince Vaughn work terrifically together with Vaughn's slacker charm balancing Stiller's manic schtick. Some have compared this Stiller dunderhead to his character in Zoolander, similar low-IQ narcissism. However when you look further back into Stiller's career to his villainous turn in the kids movie Heavyweights, you see he has played this role before. Of course the same could be said of Vaughn who perfected this likable frat boy routine in Old School.

Regardless of the character recycling Dodgeball stands on it's own as one of the funniest movies of 2004. Right up their with another Stiller -Vaughn teaming, Starsky and Hutch. As long as the movies continue to be this funny, they can recycle as much as they want.

Movie Review: Dirty Dancing Havana Nights

Dirty Dancing Havana Nights

Directed by Guy Ferland

Written by Boaz Yakin

Starring Diego Luna, Romola Garai, Sela Ward, John Slattery, Jonathan Jackson, Mika Boorem

Release Date February 27th, 2004

Published February 27th, 2004

The dirty little secret of dancing is that sometimes it's just sex with your clothes on. If you don't believe me, go to a club or see Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights where a trip to a Cuban dance club is like Plato's Retreat with a dress code. It's where sweaty over the clothes humping stands in for dancing. Don't get me wrong I like sweaty over the clothes humping, especially with the attractive group of people in this movie. But in a mainstream movie being marketed to puritanical Americans based on the love of a semi-chaste American fairy tale, don't you think it's a little out of place?

The original Dirty Dancing is a camp-tastic melange of teenage wish fulfillment and cheeseball acting and dialogue. It's star Patrick Swayze was both alluring to it's teenage fanbase (and their mothers) and anathema to anyone with a brain. Jennifer Grey on the other hand with her smart smile and that unusual nose was the perfect stand in for every average teenage girl in the audience who never believed they could be pretty and get the guy.

In this new version the Jennifer Grey role is filled by Romola Garai, a beautiful woman who could never be mistaken for the average American teenager. Her miscasting is not the film’s biggest problem but one of many. Garai is Katey, 18 years old and preparing for college in the fall. On her way to Class Valedictorian and the perfect wasp fantasy of Radcliffe college in the 1950's, she is suddenly whisked away to Cuba where her father (John Slattery) has taken a promotion from the Ford Motor Company. He will make more money but the family must move to Cuba and Katey must finish her senior year away from her friends.

It's not all bad though, Cuba is lovely and warm and Katey quickly attracts the attention of James (Jonathan Jackson), who happens to the son of her Dad's boss. She couldn't care less about him, Katey is interested in the handsome young Cuban waiter Javier (Diego Luna). After being left behind at school and forced to walk home in the dangerous streets of Cuba, Katey encounters Javier dancing to street musicians with his friends. He offers to walk her home and the two fall into puppy love.

You know what happens next, dance contest, lie to parents, secret dance lessons, yada yada yada, but before we get to that there is a scene of such relatable, casual cruelty from our lead actress that you momentarily think you won't forgive her. On a date with James she suckers him into taking her to a club where Javier is dancing with his friends. Once there she drops James to dance with Javier, well... not exactly not more like the over the clothes humping I mentioned before. All of this while nice guy James is being intimidated by a group of locals espousing Fidel Castro's revolutionary politics that include throwing the white people off the island.

(On a side note the film is set in 1958 pre-Castro Cuba and despite it's teen appeal romance genre does try to evoke it's time and setting. Castro, Communism and revolution have no place in this pop entertainment and it's embarrassing to watch the filmmakers try and shoehorn it in.)

That scene is followed by another mind-blowing scene in which the screenwriters try to throw our sympathies back to Katey by turning James into a lecherous jerk. Then the James character is all but kicked out of the movie except that the rest of the plot turns on a decision he makes not to expose Katey and Javier’s relationship, something that would stop the film in it's track. This is a decision the character makes offscreen! Without any real motivation other than the plot needs it.!

There are yet more problems for Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights, not least of which is the nostalgic inclusion of Patrick Swayze in a cameo as a nameless dance instructor. The Swayze still has the bronzed look, a tad withered now but according to my sister, still handsome. He's also still ridiculous and cannot deliver a line of his dance guru dialogue with inducing derisive laughter. Any melodramatic momentum the film generates immediately dissipates at his appearance as the entire audience reels back to remember Johnny Castle.

Another problem is the film’s soundtrack a combination of classic Latin rhythms and modern Latin infused pop. There are moments when the film’s dancing threatens to entertain you but then the producers throw in some modern radio friendly pop tune and you are reminded that this is not a movie but a sales pitch for a soundtrack album.

As for the stars, Garai is sadly miscast. She is pleasant and has an awkward comedic charm but she's no Jennifer Grey. Diego Luna, best known for his work in the remarkable Y Tu Mama Tambien, does well to dull his acting senses to the mindless melodramatics of the plot. He clearly out classes the material in front of him but does what he can to make it palatable. And he can dance.

What a surprise that this 81 minute three act crowd-pleaser was written by the master of manipulative fluff Boaz Yakin whose Remember The Titans is the single wimpiest sports movie ever. How any director could make Denzel Washington so bland is beyond me. But after seeing Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights and his last directorial effort, Uptown Girls, Yakin shows himself to be the master of bland.

Yakin did not direct Havana Nights, that thankless task went to Guy Ferland, a television veteran who knows how to send the audience home in less than sixty minutes. Here, extended beyond the confines of commercial breaks, he is at a loss to send anyone home happy. The films ending is one of the worst you will see this year, a sappy, sugary confection of forced goodwill that even a TV show would balk at.

What Havana Nights truly lacks is a good deal of camp. The original was not a good movie but it was absolutely howlingly funny in the kitsch sense. Honestly who can't say that famous Johnny Castle line "Nobody puts Baby in a corner" without at least a smile on your face. That is pure camp and it's what makes Dirty Dancing so memorable. It's why I bought the DVD. To sit around with friends on a Saturday night and go all Mystery Science Theater on Dirty Dancing is one of my all time favorite memories.

There will be no parties for Havana Nights, or really any memories for me at all of this movie beyond this review. And that is this film’s biggest failure.

Movie Review The Day After Tomorrow

The Day After Tomorrow (2004) 

Directed by Roland Emmerich

Written by Jeffrey Nachmanoff, Roland Emmerich

Starring Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal, Sela Ward, Ian Holm, Emmy Rossum

Release Date May 28th, 2004

Published May 27th, 2004 

Being a liberal Democrat and environmentalist, I am supposed to be excited that a major summer blockbuster is taking up a cause I care about.

I’m not.

I am not at all excited that a topic as important as global warming is getting the Hollywood treatment, especially from the director who brought us Godzilla. The Day After Tomorrow plays at being important in its marketing campaign only to cover up its utter goofiness as a movie.

Dennis Quaid stars as Jack Hall, everyman Paleoclimatologist with a thing for the end of humanity because of global warming. So into saving future generations from what he believes is a coming ice age, he has lost contact with his wife (Sela Ward) and his son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal).

Jack spends most of his time with his partners Frank (Jay O. Sanders) and Jason (Dash Mihok) traveling the polar ice caps. Their most recent excursion uncovered something dangerously unexpected that proves Jack’s theory about the ice age. Unfortunately, when Jack pitches his theory at a conference in New Delhi India, he is blown off by the Vice President of the United States (Kenneth Walsh). The VP is more concerned about American wallets than the survival of the human race.

Of course, Jack’s theory applies to an ice age in say 100 years from now, which may be why the VP is less than impressed. Nevertheless, something good comes out of it when Jack meets Dr. Terry Rapson who will play an important role when Jack’s theory comes true much sooner than he expected.

Jack’s theory is that melting polar ice caps will cause the jetstream to stop delivering warm air to much of the Northern Hemisphere, leaving it a frozen wasteland. We are tipped to some serious trouble when Japan is hit with bricks of hail, Los Angeles is devastated by multiple tornadoes and New York City turns into a swimming pool.

More bad news for Jack, his son Sam along with some schoolmates, Brian (Arjay Smith) and Laura (Emmy Rossum) are in New York and trapped by the rising waters in the top floor of the New York Public Library. Now Jack and his team must trek through the rapidly freezing countryside from Washington DC to New York to save his son. Meanwhile, his ex-wife must decide whether to stay with a dying child and wait for a rescue that might not come or join the hordes of Americans heading for the safety and warmth of Mexico.

The film has a solid three act structure, act one the storm, act two the survival and act three the rescue. Of course, director Roland Emmerich who also wrote the film’s script, can’t resist throwing in extraneous touches like a boneheaded sendup of the Bush administration that even the most ardent Bush haters will roll their eyes at. The dying child I mentioned before, exists only to give Sela Ward something to do and is resolved with little drama.

And then there are the wolves. Yes, for some reason wolves have escaped from the New York Zoo and attack our heroes at the most opportune time.

Now the thing that is garnering the most attention about this film is its tenuous grasp of global warming and environmental issues. To the film’s credit, there is no mention of saving the planet, Emmerich has at least grasped the idea that saving the environment is not about the planet, it’s about saving human beings. That said, his ridiculous ideas about global warming, polar ice caps and so-called SUPER storms are more fiction than science.

There may indeed be an ice age in the future but that is part of the cyclical nature of the planet. There has been an ice age before and there will be one again, whether we cause it or not. There is little evidence we could cause it and that is where the film’s specious logic goes beyond its dramatized idea of a six day ice age and into the dangerous situation of casting a negative light on real environmental issues.

The fact is that a summer blockbuster is no place for such big ideas. Summer blockbusters are to dazzle the eye with cheap thrills and loud noises, if they can also be entertaining on top of that, it’s truly an accomplishment. This portentous idea of a blockbuster with global concerns only serves to denigrate those concerns by dragging them down to the level of the big, dumb, loud blockbuster.

On top of all those problems is that the film is just dull as dirt. While some of the special effects are impressive, every bit of character including the usually reliable Dennis Quaid and Jake Gyllenhaal are annoying, cloying caricatures of melodramatic TV drama characters. This is WB level drama, especially the group of misfits at the library.

The film is interminable halfway through, where the storm and the impressive effects are pretty well over. After that, the film’s atrocious dialogue must carry the day. At 2 hours plus, The Day After Tomorrow makes you wish it were really tomorrow and the movie was a distant memory.

Movie Review Hellboy 2: The Golden Army

Hellboy 2 The Golden Army (2008) 

Directed by Guillermo Del Toro

Written by Guillermo Del Toro

Starring Ron Perlman, Jeffrey Tambor, Anna Walton, Doug Jones, Luke Goss

Release Date July 11th, 2008

Published July 10th, 2008

The most disappointing film of the summer, thus far, is Hellboy 2: The Golden Army. As a fan of the 2004 Hellboy movie from the exceptionally talented writer-director Guillermo Del Toro, I was stoked to see his follow up. Now, I wish he had just moved on to his next project, The Lord of the Rings prequel The Hobbit.

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army returns Ron Perlman to the role of Hellboy, a red demon fighter for humanity. For the uninitiated, Hellboy was discovered by the Nazis but raised by an American scientist. Working for the Bureau of Paranormal Affairs, a secret arm of the government, Hellboy fights battles that no one is supposed to know about.

Four years since Hellboy lost his father, played by John Hurt, and won the heart of Liz (Selma Blair), Hellboy remains a cantankerous, rebellious soul who can't resist getting his picture in the paper, over the objections of his boss (Jeffrey Tambor) who's forced to come up with ever more elaborate spin to convince people Hellboy doesn't exist.

Keeping Hellboy under wraps however becomes far less important once a former member of the Elf royal family, Prince Nuada (Luke Goss), decides to end a centuries long truce with humanity. His goal? Destroy humanity and bring the creatures darkness into the light.

To do so Prince Nuada will call on the Golden Army, indestructible soldiers made of solid gold. Standing against him is his sister Princess Nuala (Anna Walton) who wants to keep the truce in place. She turns to Hellboy for protection and to Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) Hellboy's fishy best friend who falls head over gills in love with her.

Hellboy vs The Golden Army sounds like it should be a pretty awesome battle and as a special effect it's impressive

Unfortunately, it also will by the end be fought with little context and consequence to the story. Writer-director Guillermo Del Toro simply loses interest in the story and turns his attention to crafting creatures and giant special effects.

Some will find Del Toro's choice of visual splendor over storytelling to be dynamic and imaginative. For me however, I was quickly bored with the creatures and the giant effects and longed for the characters to deepen and the story to take on some meaning. I wanted the dueling love stories of Hellboy and Liz and Abe and the Princess to gain meaning.

And finally, I wanted the vibe of cool that Hellboy carried in the first film to return. In the first movie, Star Ron Perlman cultivated a Bogart-like air of detached cool mixed with vulnerability. In Hellboy 2 that vibe is replaced with a bizarre sense of humor that ranges from Men In Black lifts to references to Barry Manilow.

Hellboy 2: The Golden Army has a number of unformed ideas that could have been more interesting. At one point in the movie Prince Nuada gets in his head about how humanity doesn't appreciate Hellboy, asking him why he still helps them. For a moment Hellboy is conflicted. The conflict lasts for about a minute and is then discarded. Worse yet, the same idea was played out with more depth and understanding in the X-Men movies. Essentially, the most interesting idea Hellboy 2 has has been done already and done far better.

With its bizarre sense of humor and focus on creature creation over story development, Hellboy 2: The Golden Army becomes an odd mélange of disappointments and undermined ideas. Yes, it's a good looking movie. But who cares.

Movie Review: Dahmer

Dahmer (2002) 

Directed by David Jacobson

Written by David Jacobson 

Starring Jeremy Renner, Bruce Davison

Release Date June 21st, 2002 

Published July 28th, 2002

The mind of the killer is one that has fascinated filmmakers for decades. The question of what drives someone to kill is very conducive to drama. It involves conflict, emotion, action and intellect. Films like Silence of The Lambs or Henry: Portrait Of a Serial Killer attempt to make sense of psychotic behavior. In the new to video, Dahmer, writer director David Jacobsen looks into the mind of real life serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, and like Silence and Henry it comes away without any real answers.

The story of Jeffrey Dahmer is well known; he was sentenced to 900+ years in jail for murdering and eating 19 men. What isn't well known is what drove Dahmer to be a killer. The film has two competing theories, first is his struggle with his homosexuality. Dahmer was openly gay but still ashamed of his sexuality.

The other theory involves the divorce of Dahmer's parents when he was 18. In flashbacks we meet Jeffrey's father well played by Bruce Davison as a cold but caring father completely at a loss when trying to understand his son’s odd moods.

In the present tense we meet one of Dahmer's victims, a 14-year old Asian boy who Dahmer offers to buy shoes for in exchange for letting him take his photograph back at his apartment. We see Dahmer's mind twisting and turning as he decides just what to do with his victim. We also meet the potential victim that would go on to be Dahmer's downfall, a young black hustler named Rodney (Artel Kayaru). Dahmer meets Rodney at a hunting shop where Dahmer purchases a hunting knife. They have an immediate attraction and are soon at Dahmer's apartment.

Jeremy Renner plays Dahmer and looks strikingly like the Dahmer I remember from TV. That greasy haired creepiness. Renner is very good at playing Dahmer's strange insecurity. It's one of the most unusual parts of Dahmer's story that many of his gay victims would have come to him willingly, but Dahmer still choose to drug them before having his way with them. Renner and Artel Kayaru as his last victim have a fantastic series of scenes where they challenge each other with intelligent dialogue and each scene has an undercurrent of twisted humor as Rodney trades irony-laced dialogue with Dahmer while not knowing how ironic it is.

Renner and writer director avid Jacobsen succeed in humanizing Dahmer, not so much that you identify with him, but enough that you understand why his neighbors were so shocked by his crimes. Dahmer was a quiet gay, a chocolate factory employee who kept to himself and never bothered anybody. Isn't that what they all say after they find out their neighbor was a serial killer? The film Dahmer gives you a sense of why they say that.

While the film isn't entertaining, it works on an intellectual level as a psychological profile of Jeffrey Dahmer. And while we will never really know what drove Dahmer to such sickness, we can at least learn a lesson from this film in perhaps how to spot the next Dahmer.

Movie Review Rendition

Rendition (2007)

Directed by Gavin Hood

Written by Kelly Sane 

Starring Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep, Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgard, Alan Arkin

Release Date October 19th, 2007

Published October 18th, 2007 

Those who advocate intelligence gathering techniques that extend beyond our constitution have a compelling argument. They cite intelligence gathered by extraordinary measures that have saved lives and how men who are truly bad guys have received the treatment they deserve for the things they did. This argument holds sway until you hear from Arizona Senator John McCain, a real life torture victim.

Senator McCain, a right wing, pro-war hawk opposes any action that associates America and torture. McCain's point is that torture simply doesn't work. That a tortured man will tell you anything you want to hear. The movie Rendition makes McCain's point in dramatic fashion as it tells the interlocking story of how torture effects the lives of so many different people in so many different ways.

Jake Gyllenhaal stars in Rendition as Douglas Freeman a CIA pencil pusher who finds himself thrust into the job of case worker in northern Africa following a terrorist attack. His new job will be to observe the tactics of a man named Abasi Fawal (Yigal Naor), tactics that are considered torture under American law. It will be Abasi who will attempt to glean information from the latest subject of what American law refers to as Extraordinary Rendition.

On his way home from a business trip in South Africa, Anwar Al Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally) is detained by police and then the CIA. It seems that he has received calls on numerous occasions from a terrorist named Rashid, calls he claims to be unaware of. Al Ibrahimi was returning home to Chicago where his very pregnant wife Isabella (Reese Witherspoon) and his six year old, American born son are waiting for him.

When he doesn't return and somehow disappears from the flight log, Isabella travels to Washington where an ex-boyfriend, Alan (Peter Sarsgard) works for a Senator (Alan Arkin). Using his connections, Alan finds out as much as he can about Anwar's disappearance. The trail leads all the way to the head of the CI, Corinne Whitman (Meryl Streep).

Those are the main players in Rendition and their relative positions. Where director Gavin Hood moves them from there is quite compelling and heart rending. Running parallel to this main story is the modest love story of Khalid (Moa Khouas) and Fatima (Zineb Oukach), the daughter of Abasi Fawal, the lead torture expert.

The melding of these two stories is where Rendition struggles and becomes sluggish and where director Gavin Hood employs a narrative trick that will irritate many in the audience as much as it did me. There is a moment, and I won't go into detail, late in the film where the timeline shifts and what we get is a scene that lets the air out of what was an electrically charged and tense series of scenes.

From this point on the films dueling stories become fractured and I was left struggling to connect these stories at all beyond the most tenuous of bonds.

A man, if tortured long enough, will tell you anything you want to hear. Whether what he says is true or not, doesn't matter to the torturers whose reward is for information. The truth is someone else's business. Rendition is extraordinarily powerful in bringing home the same message that Senator John McCain has always talked of, how torture simply doesn't work. Indeed, as the film states plainly, if you torture one man you create ten more who will rise up to fight back to protect them, or rescue them.

According to the Bush administration, Americans don't torture. No, we don't. By laws installed during the Clinton Administration, we hire less reputable countries to torture on our behalf. Ah, but Rendition doesn't let us off so easily that a liberal like myself can be satisfied with the answer that our policy of rendition is simply wrong. The lead torture expert in the film is portrayed as a good man who loves his family and believes he is doing the right thing.

Meryl Streep's CIA agent may be cold hearted and portrayed as something of a monster but her point about the lives she believes have been saved by information gathered through extraordinary rendition is powerful and logical. With the blinding certainty of a zealot, not unlike a certain President of the United States, she sees only the possibilities of this practice, not the collateral damage to our national conscience.

The love story between Khalid and Fatima is used to illustrate what some experts would call blowback. Militarized by the torture death of his brother, Khalid is enticed to become a suicide bomber. Fatima becomes his reason to live and there is a good deal of emotion invested in this subplot. It might have been more powerful without director Gavin Hood's narrative cheat late in the film that sucks all of the suspense out of the movie.

Yet another film in this early Oscar season, like The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, like Michael Clayton, Across The Universe or Elizabeth: The Golden Age, Rendition is a film with Oscar pretensions that falls just short of expectations. A grand cast of Oscar nominees and winners, compel us from beginning to end but narrative trickery and a strung together plot; let the air out of what should have been a potboiler of real emotion and suspense.