Movie Review The Good Shepherd

The Good Shepherd (2006)

Directed by Robert DeNiro 

Written by Eric Roth

Starring Matt Damon, Alec Baldwin, Michael Gambon, Joe Pesci, Eddie Redmayne 

Release Date December 22nd, 2006

Published December 21st, 2006

Playing a super spy has been great for Matt Damon's career. As secret agent Jason Bourne, Damon has found world wide stardom and massive blockbuster returns. Now for his latest super spy role, Damon goes an entirely different direction. As Edward Wilson the protagonist of The Good Shepherd, Damon helps track the founding of the Central Intelligence Agency and the rise of real life spycraft.

With no karate moves, or even a gun, Damon crafts yet another exceptionally watchable spy character; though not one likely to be sequelize.

Edward Wilson's (Matt Damon) initiation into the spy game was heartbreaking. Wilson was approached by an FBI agent (Alec Baldwin) and informed that his favorite professor (Michael Gambon) was a Nazi sympathizer. Using his trusted position in the professors inner circle, Wilson attended a party with the professor and a Nazi intelligence officer during which Wilson steals the evidence necessary to hang his mentor.

Of course were you to believe any of what you see in the spy game, you are not really much of a spy. Robert De Niro's unique, sometimes breathtaking, always absorbing spy drama The Good Shepherd is filled with twists and turns that will leave lesser audience members dazed and confused. With a complicated time shifting narrative, and a close to the vest, poker faced performance from Matt Damon, The Good Shepherd can, at times, seem impenetrable. Audiences willing to invest in the film's complications will be rewarded with one of the better spy pictures they've seen in a long while.

Charting the founding of the CIA with the fictional story of a man who became that institution's backbone, The Good Shepherd indulges in some spy cliches but justifies those cliches by acting as if this film invented them. Check the multi-layered double talk that Damon engages in throughout. If you are paying attention you might be able to decipher what the characters are saying. If however, your attention span doesn't allow for languid pacing and complicated scripting, you might want to sit this one out.

The Good Shepherd draws you in slowly and rewards you with a movie watching experience that is absorbing and almost hypnotic. Damon's performance is aloof but daringly so. His Edward Wilson is consistently duplicitous and frighteningly quiet and calculating. At the same time, the secretive nature of the character is seductive. He puzzles you with his elusiveness so that in the rare moment that we catch an emotion flash across his face; it nearly takes your breath away.

Robert DeNiro's direction of The Good Shepherd is precise without ever becoming mechanical. His warm, dark visual style works at  odds with a coldly efficient story. The Good Shepherd is classic, old school filmmaking, reminiscent of the kind of complex storytelling prevalent in the 60's and early 70's when movies weren't dominated by the need to satisfy younger demographics. This is a smart, adult minded movie that works at its own pace. If it drags in the middle; it's as much a function of the modern attention span as it is DeNiro's expensive form of storytelling.

The Good Shepherd is an absorbing, though slightly overlong, spy tale that features yet another career-making performance by Matt Damon. Robert DeNiro's direction is understated and underestimated. All of those years working with Scorsese have paid off in DeNiro's great eye and scene setting ability. And, thankfully, the story is as strong as the acting and direction.

The Good Shepherd needs a bit of a trim around the middle, but overall, this is an easy film to recommend. A smart, adult minded thriller with a classical sense of how to tell a story.

Movie Review Rocky Balboa

Rocky Balboa (2006) 

Directed by Sylvester Stallone

Written by Sylvester Stallone

Starring Sylvester Stallone, Burt Young, Antonio Tarver, Milo Ventimiglia 

Release Date December 20th, 2006

Published December 20th, 2006

When I first heard Sylvester Stallone was reviving the Rocky series I rolled my eyes and dismissed the idea as a desperate attempt by an aging star to save his flagging career. That, indeed, was the case. Stallone's career has been flagging for years with one disappointing film leading to another to eventually Stallone being unable to open his movies in theaters.

I wasn't the only dismissive skeptic. MGM, the company that holds the rights to the Rocky character, had no interest in another Rocky. It wasn't until Stallone raised the production capitol on his own that MGM agreed to release the film and now that film has been made and to the shock and amazement of many Rocky Balboa is more than just a star's desperate attempt to reclaim the spotlight.

Pretending that the last installment of the Rocky movies, one that found a brain damaged Rocky brawling in the streets with a younger, dumber fighter (played by real life boxer Tommy Morrison), this Rocky picks up the story with the champ running a successful restaurant in his old neighborhood in Philly. A Lot has changed but most devastatingly, Rocky's beloved wife Adrian has passed away.

Spending countless days visiting Adrian's grave and his nights commiserating with his pal Pauly (Burt Young), Rocky somehow gets it in his head that he's got something left in the tank for another fight. His decision to fight again happens to coincide with an ESPN video game stunt that pitted a virtual Rocky in his prime against the current world champion Mason 'The Line' Dixon (Antonio Tarver). Virtual Rocky wins the fight and this sparks interest in seeing Rocky get back in the ring.

Much of Rocky Balboa plays like Rocky's greatest hits. The training scenes have their usual grit and grunts. Bill Conti's score is soaring and inspirational and yes, Rocky is back on the steps running all the way to the top. This sounds like a negative criticism but I must say, as greatest hits go, these are pretty good ones. Think of it like this, you wouldn't turn up your nose at your favorite rock bands greatest hits, so why turn your nose up at Rocky's.

Sylvester Stallone stars in, wrote the screenplay, produced and directed Rocky Balboa and this one man movie company does quite an impressive job. Shooting on handheld digital, Stallone takes Rocky back to his low budget days and it's terrific how the handheld digital is so visually reminiscent of the original film. The big budget slickness of Rocky's 3,4 and 5 were part and parcel of the disgusting excess that took the once beloved character and made him a joke.

Of course,Rocky Balboa culminates with a big time boxing match and as in Rocky 1 and 2 this one doesn't disappoint. The fight between Rocky and real life boxing champ Antonio Tarver never resembles anything remotely like a real boxing match, but as a Rocky version of boxing; it's as rousing and invigorating as the two bouts with Apollo Creed that provided the crescendo of the first two Rocky movies.

The death of Talia Shire's Adrian provides the film with a powerful emotional punch. Adrian is arguably as iconic a character as Rocky, though Talia Shire was never properly honored for her work. This film is a beautiful love letter to Rocky's anchor, the one character who managed to maintain her dignity through the ever more ludicrous sequelizations of Rocky.

Is Rocky Balboa a cynical, last gasp at stardom by an aging action hero desperate for the spotlight? Yeah, maybe a little. But, surprisingly, Rocky Balboa is also a well told story that takes advantage of our nostalgia for a beloved character to tell a pretty engaging and dramatic story. Most of all the film is a reminder of why we fell in love with this character and it leaves us with the memory of Rocky that was taken from us by the goofiness of the other sequels. For that reason alone Rocky Balboa is worth the price of a ticket.

Movie Review Letters from Iwo Jima

Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) 

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Written by Iris Yamashita 

Starring Ken Watanabe, Kazunari Ninomiya 

Release Date December 20th, 2006

Published December 18th, 2006

Clint Eastwood's bold decision to take on both sides of the battle of Iwo Jima, one of the bloodiest and most devastating battles of World War 2, has paid off with not one but two extraordinary films. Flags of Our Fathers covered the American side of the war from the battle on the field to the battle at home. Now Letters From Iwo Jima has arrived with the story from the Japanese perspective. If Iwo Jima is slightly more successful than Flags it's because it is more battle focused with a cleaner narrative line. Together they mark a cinematic achievement that only a true master could have created.

With the Americans closing in on the Japanese homeland a tiny sliver of land is all that keeps the Japanese from being overrun. The tiny isle of Iwo Jima is a strategic spot in the pacific where the American forces hope to launch a full scale invasion of Japan. If the Japanese army can somehow hold Iwo Jima that may not win the war but they could stave off the invasion.

Leading the defense of Iwo Jima is the great General Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe). Having been trained by the Americans, General Kuribayashi is ideally suited to counter the American invasion. Rather, he would be ideal under better circumstances. On Iwo Jima, the general will find himself desperately outnumbered with no air support and reserve troops withheld to protect the next island in the chain.

On the opposite side of the command structure is a draftee named Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya) who was a humble baker and now finds himself facing death on Iwo Jima. Saigo is a terrible soldier. It's not that he doesn't love his country, just that he was never bred to be a soldier.

The General and the grunt tell the story of Iwo Jima in letters they mail back to the homeland. The letters of the real life General Kuribayashi were the basis of Iris Yamashita's book Letters From Iwo Jima. With an assist from Oscar winning screenwriter Paul Haggis, Yamashita adapted the letters into the story of this legendary battle in all of its terrifying, doomed glory.

The look of the film has the same washed out, dreary, grays of Flags of Our Fathers. The bleakness of battle is conveyed by the lack of color, aside from the red of blood which, while it isn't enhanced by effects, is the only color that really stands out. Working with cinematographer Tom Stern, who did the same job on Flags of Our Fathers, Clint Eastwood tells the story of Iwo Jima as much with his visuals as with his compelling human drama.

Ken Watanabe was a natural to play the honorable General Kuribayashi. His face is a map of dignity, grace and stern steadfast dedication, qualities that the real life General, no doubt, would have had. His voice overs in the letters begin with a resigned courage and patriotism and slowly evolve with the courage intact but an increasing amount of sadness and disappointment. These are all extraordinarily subtle touches and Watanabe makes them all count.

Setting the story entirely on the battlefield gives Letters From Iwo Jima a tighter focus than Flags Of Our Fathers which limped a little when telling the story of soldiers at home after the battle. The few brief sojourns off the battlefield, flashbacks to the General's time in America, are brief and serve the purpose of deepening this already fascinating character.

Taken together Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima are the kind of bold cinematic achievement that only a great master could conceive. Clint Eastwood was already a legend, now he is truly an auteur. Even those audiences that are opposed to war movies will be moved by the compelling and very human drama of both sides of the battle of Iwo Jima.

Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima are movies that demand to be seen.

Movie Review The Pursuit of Happyness

The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) 

Directed by Gabriel Muccino 

Written by Steven Conrad

Starring Will Smith, Thandie Newton, Dan Castellaneta, Jaden Smith

Release Date December 15th, 2006

Published December 14th, 2006

Will Smith is the biggest box office star in the world. His golden touch has extended from big time action movies (Bad Boys, I Robot) to light hearted comedy (Hitch). Now he looks to extend that golden touch to the genre of the golden statue, the oscar bait drama. However, do not mistake The Pursuit of Happyness, Smith's take on the inspiring life story of Christopher Gardener, as merely an attempt at Oscar glory.

The Pursuit of Happyness stands on its own as a solid crowd pleasing drama that just happens to feature a career best performance by the biggest box office star in the world. That the role happens to be in just the kind of film the academy loves to honor is a bonus.

Christopher Gardener was convinced that sinking his family's savings into a sales venture involving medical supplies would be a great idea. It wasn't, the medical community was resistant and Chris struggled to make enough sales to put food on the table. Meanwhile, his put-upon wife (Thandie Newton) worked double shifts and became more and more distant until finally she gave up and left.

Chris took their five year old son Chris Jr (Jaden Smith) and set about making a better life for himself. That better life meant accepting a difficult, if not impossible, job at Dean Witter investment services. The position was in the training program and it paid nothing and didn't even guarantee a job when the training was over.

This meant that Chris and his son would have to go without a regular home. Sleeping in fleapit motels, homeless shelters and on subway trains, Chris stayed up most nights studying and spent his days on the phone hustling while his son languished in a low rent korean daycare.

The story of Christopher Gardener was featured on 20/20 and was written up in newspapers across the country as the homeless man who became a multi-millionaire. It's an inspiring story but as played by Will Smith and directed by Gabriele Mucchino, in his American film debut, The Pursuit of Happyness avoids becoming yet another feel good, inspirational story, and develops real, heart rending drama.

Mucchino and writer Steve Conrad take the risk of making The Pursuit of Happyness a rather dark slog through economic insecurity. The bad things that happen to Christopher Gardener happen repeatedly, to the point where he becomes a jobian figure of woe. The fears that I'm sure many of us share about the possibility of losing everything, of falling so far behind that you can't get out, are what makes Christopher's story so compelling  and hard to watch.

Anyone of us could be where Chris Gardener was. A bad investment here, a lost job there, a large unmanageable medical crisis and we could find ourselves hustling for a place to stay and a warm meal. The Pursuit of Happyness has an edge of relatable fear to it that makes Chris's situation so much more dramatic and at times hard to watch.

The film, in fact, threatens to collapse under the weight of Christopher's oppressive situation. This is where the casting of Will Smith becomes so integral to making this film. Only an actor with Smith's charisma and strength of character, and massive cache of audience goodwill; could keep The Pursuit of Happyness from becoming so oppressively sad that even the happy ending couldn't raise the specter of gloom. We  like and enjoy Will Smith so much as a personality, as a persona that the ever present gloom of Christopher Gardener's struggle never settles.

Will Smith's performance in The Pursuit of Happyness is the most nuanced and complex of his career since his fondly remembered debut as a gay hustler in Six Degrees of Seperation. As Christopher Gardener, Smith uses his starpower to establish our sympathies with him and then opens the role up to scrutiny, to sadness and to some harrowing self examination. It's a profoundly touching performance that never gives in to treacle or simple sentimentality.

Working opposite Will Smith, in an impressive screen debut, is Jaden Smith, Will's son with wife Jada Pinkett Smith. Young Jaden, at only five years old, is already showing some of his dad's wit and natural charm. His is a naturalistic performance that is never cloying or typically kid cute. It likely helped Jaden to be working comfortably with his dad, but there is clearly a lot of natural talent in this kid.

The biggest flaw in The Pursuit of Happyness is the poor use of the very talented actress Thandie Newton. In a thankless role, Newton is shrewish and unreasonable and it's a real shame because her character offers a number of interesting dramatic possibilities. There is a chance to quickly examine how romantic love is often sublimated by practical concerns. Clearly, theses two people loved each other once, sadly real life intruded on that romantic fantasy and drove them apart.

That is an idea for another movie. It's just a shame that with an actress as talented as Thandie Newton that director Garbriel Mucchino and writer Steve Conrad couldn't write a better, more complex role. As it is, Linda Gardener is treated as a one note villain character in a movie that really doesn't need a villain.

The Pursuit of Happyness could have devolved into a simplistic, inspiring and uplifting story of a man pulling himself up by his bootstraps. Thankfully, because of the caring, nuanced performance of Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happyness is so much more than that. This is a movie that directly confronts the economic insecurity so many people have felt at one time or another. It's a movie about a father and a son, a movie about grit and determination and a story about an extraordinary man who overcame exceptional sorrow.

Movie Review: Eragon

Eragon (2006) 

Directed by Stefan Wangmeir

Written by Peter Buchman 

Starring Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, Sienna Guillory, Robert Carlyle

Release Date December 15th, 2006

Published December 15th, 2006

What if you took the Lord of the Rings and removed the visual wonder? Then added the Star Wars mythos without any of the genuine spirit. Why if you did that you would get Eragon a dopey sci-fi fantasy that for good measure throws in the wussiest dragons in movie history on top of it's ludicrous LOTR-Star Wars pretensions.

In some ridiculously under-produced middle ages land; dragons are a dying breed. Only the tyrant king (John Malkovich) has one. However, the king also has a dragon egg which has been stolen by the rebel queen Arya (Sienna Guillory). Though she is quickly captured by the king's top henchmam Durza (Robert Carlyle), she manages to stash the dragon's egg with a farm boy who happens to be the egg's natural master.

Eragon is the farm boy's name and it turns out that it was his destiny to be a dragon rider. With the help of a drifter, and former dragon rider, named Brom (Jeremy Irons), Eragon learns what being a dragon rider is all about. With his dragon Saphira (voice of Rachel Weisz), Eragon must learn to become a magician and a warrior and lead a resistance army against the tyrant king.

It's a story so simple it could have been written by a teenager. In fact, it was written by a teenager. 16 year old Christopher Paolini wrote the novel on which Eragon was based and has written a series of books based on this character. Having never read the books I can't tell you how well they compare to the movie. I can say that I am impressed that 16 year old would have such a great imagination, the movie version could have used a little imagination.

Directed by Stefan Fangmeier, in his debut feature, Eragon is a goofball sci fi fantasy that tells a dopey, Lord of the Rings inspired adventure with half the imagination and little of the visual wonder. The film has pretensions of Star Wars as Brom acts as Eragon's version of Obi Wan Kenobi, including a nobel death, while Garrett Hedlund shows up as wimpy Han Solo clone Murtagh.

Robert Carlyle is an extraordinarily effete version of Darth Maul from Episode 1 and Malkovich chews the scenery as both Darth Vader and Chancellor Palpatine.

Of course Eragon is a bad facsimile of both LOTR and Star Wars but; the film it most resembles is the brutal Dungeons and Dragons movie from 2000. That film at the very least featured dragons with some backbone. The dragon in Eragon is a sensitive girl who can't breath fire for most of the film. I love Rachel Weisz but having her voice a dragon just confirms that this is the wussiest dragon since the original Shrek when the red dragon romanced a donkey.

Eragon is an example of why parody us nearly impossible in this day and age. How can parody something as ludicrous as Eragon. On the surface the film seems ripe for caricature. However, the film is such a travesty in and of itself that parody seems redundant. Check the performance of Robert Carlyle who with his pudgy face and long locks and middle ages dress, looks like the ugliest girl at the prom. His goofy accent and lisp don't help matters much either.

John Malkovich eats the scenery as if his performance was an homage to co-star Jeremy Irons while star Edward Speleers turns in a teary, bleary performance that only Hugh Jackman in The Fountain could truly appreciate. Some critics could fairly point out that both Elijah Wood in LOTR and Mark Hammill in the original Star Wars didn't exactly cut manly heroic figures; but Speleers in Eragon makes both of those actors look like John Wayne in comparison.

Eragon remakes Dungeons and Dragons without the geek cache. The dragons are wimpy, the acting brutal and over the top, and the special effects are worse than anything the legendary Z-movie director Uwe Boll has turned out. If only Eragon had had Uwe Boll behind the camera. That, at the very least, would raise the camp level. Kitsch is really the only thing that could rescue even a few moments of pleasure from this abysmal fantasy.

Movie Review: Blood Diamond

I believe a movie can make itself valuable simply by telling an important sory. The new action thriller Blood Diamond starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Connelly tells the story of diamonds mined in Africa by rebels and terrorists and sold to fund dictatorships, genocide and terrorism. This is a story that has been ignored to long and just telling it lends a certain gravitas to Blood Diamond.

That said, the film is still, for the most part, a packaged Hollywood product. An action thriller with plenty of bullets, blood and bombs going off. The action is high octane but because the story is so true and so sobering it's difficult to accept the giddy thrill that such slick Hollywood action often elicits. This leaves one with a mostly mixed impression of the well intended Blood Diamond.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars in Blood Diamond as Danny Archer; a diamond smuggler who acts as the go between for terrorists and warlords and the diamond syndicates in London and America who purchase the so called "Conflict Diamonds", diamonds often covered with the blood of innocent africans. As the movie notes, more than 15 percent of diamonds sold in world are conflict diamonds and the billions of dollars made off of the sale of these diamonds is funding terrorism and genocide throughout Africa.

Danny Archer does not take much time to reflect on his ethics. The opportunistic Danny is constantly searching for a score and when he happens on a farmer named Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) who escaped forced labor at a rebel diamond mine after he stashed a rare pink diamond, Danny seizes the opportunity. Offering to help reunite Solomon with his family, made refugees by a rebel attack, Solomon reluctantly agrees to lead Danny to the diamond.

Joining the search is an idealistic journalist named Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) who is after Danny in search of proof of the link between conflict diamonds and the world's leading diamond dealer. Using her connections, Maddy gets Danny and Solomon back to the jungles where Solomon hid the diamond, in exchange Danny gives her the story she is looking for.

Ed Zwick, the director behind The Last Samurai and Courage Under Fire, directs Blood Diamond with a great care for the reality of this disturbing story. That means he had to be true to the horrific violence that surrounds the African diamond trade. Blood Diamond is brutally violent in depicting how rebel forces recruit their slave labor workforce. Women and children are murdered indiscriminately while able bodied men are either tortured or forced to work in the mines. Limbs are lopped off at will and children are recruited to become warriors with machine guns.

These images are disturbing and shocking and yet; as presented by  Ed Zwick they have a certain Hollywood slickness to them. There is a puncturing of the reality of these scenes because Zwick and cinematographer Eduardo Serra choose to shoot the film on traditional film stock. If ever a subject called for the gritty realistic look of handheld digital it's Blood Diamond. Shot as a traditional Hollywood picture the highly stylized and clean photography of Blood Diamond undercuts the brutal story being told.

The disconnect is jarring. At once you are watching a classic Hollywood action film with guns and explosions that usually illicit giddy thrills but here are tempered by a very serious sobering subject. Blood Diamond is an experience that is difficult to enjoy and indeed may not have meant to be enjoyable as a typical popcorn program picture. Yet the film looks; and the action feels like a typical Hollywood action epic.

Aside from the important subject, the reason to see Blood Diamond is the performance of Leonardo DiCaprio. Evincing a tough guy menace that is unexpected of him, even after his similar tough guy role in The Departed, Dicaprio delivers a powerful performance that is far more complex and unique than most action movie heroes.

Really; DiCaprio's Danny Archer is no hero, he is as much a villain as he is a brave man. When he decides to go for the diamond he is opportunistic and cold blooded and when called upon to be heroic, DiCaprio plays the conflicted nature of Danny Archer extraordinarily well.

Director Ed Zwick preached his way through The Last Samurai and Courage Under Fire and The Siege, hammering home ham fisted points about the complicated measures of patriotism with in your face earnestness. He can't resist doing a little more preaching in Blood Diamond, even when preaching about a seemingly unrelated topic like the war in Iraq.

In a minor and slightly humorous scene, Djimon Hounsou has a brief conversation with a lost villager who laments the violence of the diamond trade but hopes they never discover oil in Africa or else they will be in real trouble. A darkly funny exchange but an entirely unnecessary scene.

I am recommending Blood Diamond based on the important story it tells and the performance of Leonardo DiCaprio. His is a performance that is worth of the the buzz that has Leo vs Leo at the Oscars in March; with his performance in Blood Diamond versus his performance in The Departed. I don't see that happening but both performances are more than worthy of Academy consideration.

Blood Diamond is a flawed Hollywood action picture that garners unwarranted importance from its subject matter. That is a subject that desperately needs public attention does manage to redeem what is otherwise just another Hollywood action movie.

Movie Review Tenacious D The Pick of Destiny

Tenacious D The Pick of Destiny (2006) 

Directed by Liam Lynch 

Written by Liam Lynch 

Starring Jack Black, Kyle Gass, Ben Stiller, Paul F. Tompkins, Dave Grohl

Release Date November 22nd, 2006 

Published November 21st, 2006 

Jack Black has become a big star in recent years thanks to lead roles in School Of Rock, Shallow Hal and Nacho Libre. Before the lead acting roles came along however, Jack Black got his start performing at comedy club open mic nights with his partner Kyle Gass. Together Jack and Kyle were known as Tenacious D; a pair of metal head rockers with acoustic guitars imitating their favorite metal gods.

Tenacious D got a big break when they were given their own HBO TV show where sketches depicting their quest for fame and fortune as they perform their foul mouthed, hysterical, over the top metal tunes. Now Tenacious D is on the big screen and though the only difference between the TV show and the movie is a much larger budget, fans of Tenacious D will be more than satisfied with The Pick of Destiny.

Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny is essentially an origin story. Like great comic book heroes we are told the story of how Jack Black left behind his repressive father (Meatloaf), made his way to Los Angeles and met an exceptional street guitarist named Kyle Gass. At first; the arrogant Kyle is not interested in joining forces with J.B but eventually he does take him under his wing. And thus is born the greatest rock band in the world, Tenacious D.

As a power duo, rocking metal madness on acoustic guitars, JB and KG get their start performing at open mic shows in hopes of winning enough prize money to pay the rent. In order to become the greatest band in the world, and to solve a bout of writer's block, JB and KG make a pilgrimage to the Rock N Roll museum to obtain the Pick of Destiny. It is a guitar pick used by Eddie Van Halen, Angus Young and Pete Townsend.

Crafted from the broken tooth of Satan himself (Dave Grohl), the pick of destiny has the power to turn average rockers into legends.

That is a mere sketch of what passes as a plot in Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny. For the most part the movie, directed by Liam Lynch, is just an extended sketch that would be right at home on the HBO TV show. The film is made up of sketches, dream sequences and celebrity cameos. Ben Stiller, Tim Robbins and Amy Adams are just a few of the celebs who drop in. There is also John C. Reilly reprising his role as Sasquatch, the same role he played on the Tenacious D TV show. The film opens with a rollicking musical number that pits Meatloaf as Jack's overbearing father against Ronnie James Dio in a musical battle for JB's soul. Easy to figure who won that one.

I wish the film had a stronger narrative line. As a series of sketches and dream sequences, Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny is very funny. However, there are moments when the film meanders and gets lost waiting for the laugh. A tighter, more focused version of The Pick of Destiny could be the funniest movie of the year.

In an era when musicals are out of fashion, Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny is boldly a rock n roll musical. Jack and Kyle's unique brand of rock is a tribute to and satire of the heavy metal that both grew up loving. The songs in the movie include a duet by Meatloaf and Ronnie James Dio, a battle between the D and Satan (played by Dave Grohl), and my favorite song in the movie, Dude (I totally miss you).

The soundtrack alone is more than enough to recommend Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny but there is more. Check out the guest list which includes Ben Stiller as guitar shop employee, Tim Robbins as a homeless german rocker and John C. Reilly reprising his role as Sasquatch from Tenacious D's HBO comedy show.

As a long time fan of Tenacious D there was little chance that I would not love The Pick of Destiny. Still, I wasn't completely satisfied. The movie is just a little too much like an extended version of the TV show. It's a great TV show, but as a fan I was hoping for something more. I am recommending The Pick of Destiny for fans of Tenacious D. For those new to the D phenomenon, you should probably check out the TV show, now on DVD, before investing in The Pick of Destiny. 

Movie Review Happy Feet

Happy Feet (2006) 

Directed by George Miller 

Written by George Miller

Starring Elijah Wood, Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, Robin Williams, Brittany Murphy, Hugo Weaving 

Release Date November 17th, 2006 

Published November 18th, 2006

The trailers for Happy Feet have been in theaters for more than a year ahead of the release of the film. The trailers promise a big, brassy, pop musical with a cast of celebrity singers with impressive range. Now that the film has arrived the promise has not been delivered. Happy Feet has music but is no musical. Rather, Happy Feet is a sweet, well intention-ed, environmental parable about over-fishing in the world's oceans that will have little kids fidgeting in their seats and mom and dad struggling to stay awake.

Mumble (Elijah Wood) is the only penguin among thousands who doesn't have a heart song. He simply cannot sing, a terrible embarrassment to his mother (Nicole Kidman) and father (Hugh Jackman) who met through a beautifully sung medley. Mumble however, does have a unique talent, he can dance. Unfortunately his Happy Feet are not something the older penguins appreciate.

The penguins are in trouble. As we join the story; there are less and less fish in the ocean and the situation is getting desperate. Mumble has heard from a bird that aliens have been stealing most of the fish, leading some birds to even attack penguins, a fate that Mumble just barely escapes. On his first fishing trip, Mumble separates himself from the group to search for the aliens. He wants to reason with them and get them to share the fish.

Joining Mumble on his quest are a group of latin infused penguins lead by the hot blooded Ramon (Robin Williams). Also coming along is a penguin shaman named Lovelace (also voiced by Robin Williams). Together this ragtag band braves the coldest portions of Antarctica and the dangerous sea lions out to make them into lunch, to get to the alien encampment where Mumble's dancing skills might just make all the difference.

Directed by George Miller, who made the Oscar nominated kids flick Babe, Happy Feet is gorgeously animated but extraordinarily dull. The trailers promised music but aside from an opening mash-up of Prince's Kiss and Elvis's Heartbreak Hotel sung by Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman and Brittany Murphy crooning a lovely rendition of Queen's Somebody To Love, the music is scant throughout Happy Feet.

The real thrust of the film is an environmental parable about how humans are overfishing the oceans and how it's affecting wildlife. That is a relevant environmental issue well suited to documentary filmmaking. Happy Feet is obviously not a documentary but an animated movie aimed at small children. Now, environmental responsibility is a lesson I wish more kids were taught but if Happy Feet is the vehicle; most kids won't remember the message.

The message is delivered in such a slow moving, serious minded fashion that the message is likely to go over the heads of the target audience of Happy Feet who are more likely to spend their time climbing on the theater seats or trying to keep mom and dad from dozing off. As forgettable as they are, the Ice Age pictures deliver an environmental lesson far more effectively and entertainingly than does Happy Feet.

The animation of Happy Feet is exceptional. It really is a work of art in some moments. If the story weren't so trudgingly dull, Happy Feet might have been a masterpiece. I loved George Miller's lovely watercolor landscapes and the animated dancing penguins is a real dazzler. If you love great animation, from a technical perspective, you might find something to love about Happy Feet.

The soundtrack to Happy Feet is also tremendous, if only there had been more of it. Prince contributes a brand new song, "Song Of The Heart", that plays over the closing credits. The soundtrack CD features Pink, covering Rufus and Chaka Khan's "Tell Me Something Good", The Beach Boys and the long forgotten but much loved Brand New Heavies. Songs sung, all too briefly, by the cast are also included on the CD.

If this were a music review it would be a rave.

Great animation, great music, and yet a sleeping pill of a film, Happy Feet is one of the more disappointing films of the year. The trailer promised a pop musical, the movie is a lesson in overfishing around Antarctica, even an environmentalist like myself found it difficult to keep my eyes from rolling. If you want to send an environmental message to little kids at least dress it up with some great pop tunes, Happy Feet tried that and abandoned it far too quickly in favor of dull preaching.

Movie Review: Casino Royale Starring Daniel Craig

Casino Royale (2006) 

Directed by Martin Campbell 

Written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Paul Haggis 

Starring Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Jeffrey Wright, Dame Judi Dench 

Release Date November 17rh, 2006 

Published November 16th, 2006 

I've never been a big James Bond fan. I have always perceived OO7 to be my fathers kind of hero not mine, I'm more Han Solo than Bond. So I didn't get all that worked up over the controversy that surrounded the selection of a new James Bond and the unceremonious ouster of Pierce Brosnan. The most recent Bond flicks had begun to devolve into kitschy exercises in gadgetry and snark.

The new James Bond is a little more my style. Grittier, more violent, darker in tone than any of the other Bond pictures, Casino Royale, starring Daniel Craig, is an action packed, quickly paced thriller with more in common with Jason Bourne than James Bond.

In this version of Ian Fleming's legendary spy series, James Bond (Daniel Craig) is a rising star in British Intelligence. Having just attained his double-oh status, James is a prickly thorn in the side of his superior M (Dame Judi Dench). On a mission in Africa, Bond killed a government witness in full view of witnesses and a security camera and, though the death was justifiable in context, the tabloids want someone to blame.

Rather than feeding the junior spy to the media, M sends Bond on holiday; knowing full well that he is not finished with his current mission. Tracking a terror target to the Bahamas, James reveals his talent for hold'em poker and his charm with the ladies by showing up a terror suspect at cards and then seducing the man's wife.

Eventually this trail leads Bond to a high stakes poker game in Montenegro where the world's leader in funding terror groups, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelson) is holding court. Le Chiffre is a highly competitive and seemingly unbeatable player. It is up to Bond and his government accountant Vesper Lind (Eva Green) to stop Le Chiffre from winning the money he needs to continue supporting terrorists.

That is a semblance of the plot of Casino Royale. The plot, of course, is superfluous to a movie so much more interested in looking cool. Director Martin Campbell and star Daniel Craig are the perfect combination of style and cool. With his cold blue eyes and chiseled physique, Craig is the most intimidating Bond in the franchise history. Director Martin Campbell makes great use of Craig's assets, placing him in more hand to hand combat than ever before and eliminating the series' stale reliance on gadgetry.

Danish actor Madds Mikkelson is a Bond villain not unlike Charles Gray's Blofeld, at least early in the film. Mikkelson's Le Chiffre is a hands off villain whose talent is moving money for far more dangerous villains. He's unlikely to get physically involved with Bond, especially one on one. As demonstration of his vulnerability, Le Chiffre cries blood when he's frustrated.

There is however, a torture scene where Le Chiffre shows a more sadistic side than any Bond villain has likely ever shown. I won't detail what happens in this scene, let's just say it involves that most sensitive part of the male anatomy. The torture scene along with some of the violent hand to hand combat left me wondering just how the MPAA gave Casino Royale a PG-13 rating. The hand to hand battles are brutal and bloody and the torture scene is nearly unbearable, not anything you want to take the kids to see or allow your young children to see on their own.

There is much that I enjoyed about Casino Royale; but, the film is not without noticeable flaws. At two hours and 20 minutes, Casino Royale desperately overstays its welcome. The movie ends atleast twice before finally resolving with a major sequel tease. Just as the film seems to be over for the first time, new villains are introduced out of the clear blue sky and with little to no connection to the main plot. That's irritating enough but when the film continues on with a second false ending, I nearly walked out in disgust.

There are a good 20 minutes, at least, that could be cut to make Casino Royale a leaner, more focused and far better film than it is.

The most exciting thing about Casino Royale is the absolutely extraordinary chase scene that opens the film immediately after the credits. As Bond and a fellow agent scope out an African bomb maker, Bond's partner accidentally tips off the bad guy and Bond is forced to give chase. The chase is one of the most mind blowing action sequences ever filmed as stuntman/actor Sebastein Foucan demonstrates a style of free running called Parkour that shows off his abilities as a human special effect. Foucan's leaps, jumps, dives and twists and his incredible speed make Jackie Chan look like Jackie Gleason.

I wanted more of Sebastien Foucan and would love to see him get together with Tom Tykwer for a Run Lola Run sequel. Foucan really steals the show in Casino Royale.

As always one of the most eye-catching things about a James Bond picture is the Bond babe and Eva Green, the sexpot star of Bertolucci's The Dreamers, really fits the bill. Though little is required of Green in terms of plot, character or action, she is terrific eye candy and that is the very least you can ask of a Bond babe. Yes, I know the term Bond babe is passe in this day and age, but what about Bond is not anachronistic in the age of the techno thriller.

An excellent debut for new Bond Daniel Craig, Casino Royale is a rollicking, old school action flick that could have ranked amongst the best action pictures of the decade with a little more work in the editing room. At nearly150 minutes Casino Royale is a chore to sit through, especially the irritating triple ending.  Still, Casino Royale contains just enough action and sex appeal to make for some terrific popcorn entertainment.

The film received a PG-13 rating but I do not recommend the film for kids under 18 years of age. The film is darkly violent with a callousness and brutality that belies the teen friendly rating. Parents use your discretion.

Movie Review: Bobby

Bobby (2006)

Directed by Emilio Estevez 

Written by Emilio Estevez 

Starring Laurence Fishburne, Anthony Hopkins, Helen Hunt, Lindsay Lohan, Demi Moore, Elijah Woods

Release Date November 17th, 2006

Published November 17th, 2006 

For most of its 2 hour and 10 minute runtime Bobby is a bad movie. The dialogue stilted. Extraneous characters crowd each other for screen time and lame montages remind us that the film is set in the 1960's, as if the death of Bobby Kennedy weren't enough of a reminder. That said, the last 20 minutes of Bobby take on the emotional equivalent of a giant boulder rolling down a hill. Somehow after all of the bad dialogue and bad characters, we find ourselves invested in the tragedy of it all.

Most of it is our own emotion about how Bobby Kennedy may have changed the world had not Sirhan Sirhan changed it in an entirely different way. There is no denying however, that what writer-director Emilio Estevez does with these last 20 minutes is powerful, affecting work. If only he could have done that with the whole film, I could actually recommend it.

On June 6th 1968 a joyous crowd of supporters and hotel employees awaited the arrival of Bobby Kennedy, the man many believed would be the next president of the United States. Kennedy established his California headquarters at Los Angeles' famed Ambassador Hotel and it was expected that night he would be there to celebrate his victory in the California Democratic primary. Indeed Bobby Kennedy did win the primary but moments after delivering his victory speech, Bobby joined his brother John in the annals of history, gunned down by an assassins bullet.

Emilio Estevez's Bobby is not about Bobby Kennedy and is only tangentially about the assassination. For the most part Bobby is a reassembling of the moment in 1968 when Kennedy was killed. Calling together a Love Boat sized cast of stars, Emilio Estevez wastes much time finding something for everyone to be doing rather than relating them all to the death of Bobby Kennedy.

The cast is far too large to detail who everyone is, Estevez himself can barely make time to give name to each of his many characters, better still to list just some of the Fantasy Island cast of Bobby. Sharon Stone, Lindsey Lohan, William . Macy, Nick Cannon, Heather Graham, Helen Hunt, Martin Sheen, Laurence Fishburne, Joshua Jackson, Shia Le Beouf, Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore, Anthony Hopkins, Christian Slater, Harry Belafonte and even a role for director Estevez as well.

With a cast this large; all Estevez can do is create a revolving door where characters are brought on screen at random and quickly shuffled off before we get to know to much about them. Many of the minor subplots created for these stars could, with great ease, be excised with no damage to the movie, and some edits would even improve the movie.

Take for instance Ashton Kutcher who plays a drug dealer who sells LSD to a couple of Kennedy volunteers. The LSD montage that follows is like a reminder that these things took place in the sixties. In case we may have forgotten, Nixon was the enemy, vietnam was bad and an LSD trip is always accompanied by psychedelic rock music and goofy camera angles. These scenes could be cut from the film and the only change to the movie would be removing Kutcher's name from the movie poster.

The same could be said of Kutcher's real life paramour Demi Moore. Moore plays a fading caberet star who performs in the Hotel night club. Her function is allegedly that she will be the one to introduce Bobby Kennedy that night. However, when the scene comes, Moore is nowhere to be found. Estevez uses historical footage of Kennedy taking the podium and delivering his speech.

Moore and Estevez's own role as her husband in the film are two more characters who could be easily eliminated to clear up some of the clutter that is the cast of Bobby.

The one actor who gets enough screentime and invests that time well is Freddie Rodriguez. The former Six Feet Under star plays Jose a young busboy who had planned on seeing Don Drysdale set the consecutive shutout record that night when he was told he was needed at work. When Bobby Kennedy was lead through the kitchen he came face to face with Jose and suddenly next to him, but unseen by him, a man with a gun. As Kennedy lay on the floor Jose is their comforting him.

The real Jose was named Juan Romero. He was just 17 years old, which makes the 31 year old Rodriguez an odd choice for the role. However, verisimilitude is not a big part of Bobby. Estevez changes the names of many of the people involved including those of the people who were also shot in the spray of bullets fired by Sirhan Sirhan. Why Estevez chose drama over historical accuracy is curious but inconsequential.

The best thing about Bobby is the ending of the film which manages to corral a few of the films many extranneous characters and turn a few of them into important players. Elijah Wood plays a newly married young man who ends up in the kitchen near Kennedy when he is shot. Helen Hunt as the trophy wife of Martin Sheen also ends up in that kitchen. Heather Graham and Joy Bryant in the ballroom deliver strong reactions. And Nick Cannon as a Kennedy volunteer with dreams of a job in the White House captures the emotion of the moment just after Kennedy was taken from the hotel.

These characters finally take on meaning as they become our emotional stand ins. The overwhelming emotions they express allow us identification and the opportunity to share in the grief of this history changing death. The reactions of these characters are played beneath the audio of one of Robert Kennedy's wonderful speeches about the devastation of violence and the promise of the future.

Is the movie cheating a little using Kennedy's speech to comment on his own assassination rather than crafting something of it's own? Yeah, maybe, but it works. So does the few moments of historic footage of Kennedy greeting throngs of people who lined up to see him wherever he went. Audio from his many speeches open and close the film making you wish that Estevez had simply made a documentary of this footage and audio rather than attempting to remake Crash with Bobby Kennedy.

Crash is indeed the template for Bobby. An expansive cast, plots that revolve and collide with one another and a moment of devastating connection. The difference is that Crash is more focused and far better written than Bobby. Crash writer-director Paul Haggis managed to place his cast in a context that was at once believable and dramatic. Emilio Estevez fails to create characters and situations that exist beyond types and what they represent of 60's culture. There is no emotional context until the last 20 minutes when the death of Bobby Kennedy draws some but not all of these characters into the same movie.

The ending of Bobby is undeniably powerful, but, for the most part, most of Bobby is simply a bad movie. Put in all the starpower you want, you can't magazine cover your way into a good movie. Bobby is stilted and awkward and meandering and despite the great ending, and the terrific work of Freddie Rodriguez, Bobby is far too messy and unfocused for me to give it a pass.

Movie Review: A Good Year

A Good Year (2006) 

Directed by Ridley Scott

Written by Marc Klein

Starring Russell Crowe, Albert Finney, Marion Cotillard, Abbie Cornish, Tom Hollander, Freddie Highmore

Release Date November 10th, 2006

Published November 10th, 2006

Can I recommend a movie based on one lovely line of dialogue? I'm serious, there is a line of dialogue in the new romantic comedy A Good Year starring Russell Crowe, that put an uncontrollable smile on my face. I was so excited by this one line that I sent it as a text message to a friend while the movie was still on because I wanted to make certain I did not forget it. Other than this one line of dialogue, A Good Year is an entirely underwhelming, by the numbers, romantic comedy with less weight than the film it's printed on.

Max Skinner (Russell Crowe) is in the business of making money. As a stock broker in London he gets up early in the morning to game the bond system and earn the ire of every other broker in the country. As we meet Max he has just made millions of dollars in some sort of shady bit of business. Max has no remorse for his actions, he proudly takes a victory lap at a bar frequented by fellow brokers. After things on the market calm down, Max receives a letter informing him that his Uncle Henry (Albert Finney) has passed away. Max hasn't seen his uncle in nearly a decade. However, since Max is Henry's only living relative; he gets all of Henry's estate including a sizable vineyard in Provence France. Seeing an opportunity to cash in, Max leaves for France intending to sell the vineyard.

Max spent many wonderful summers at his uncle's vineyard. His greatest childhood memories are linked to this place and to his beloved, larger than life uncle. As these memories begin to flood back, as Max works with his uncle's long time employees, Du Flot (Didier Bourdon) and his wife Ludivine (Isabelle Candelier), to restore the vineyard, Max begins to wonder if he should keep the place. The plot of A Good Year is as predictable as a sunrise in the east. Max, the soulless stock broker, regains his soul at the vineyard. Wacky supporting characters help and cause trouble in equal portion and a beautiful French girl, Fanny Chenal played by Marion Cotllard, will steal Max's heart. Oh and yes, there is the obligatory roadblock; in the form of Christie (Abbie Cornish) who may or may not be uncle Henry's daughter and the rightful heir to the vineyard.

As the mechanics of the plot click away on rusty gears, star Russell Crowe does all he can with the material, not least of which includes a little of the kind slapstick humor more suited to Adam Sandler than to a former Oscar winner. There are moments in A Good Year where Crowe bounces from dignified and classy to Benny Hill style goof to Tom Hanks romantic. The schizphrenic performance still manages to be rather entertaining and when it comes time for Crowe to deliver the romantic zinger that seals the movie's good vibes, he nails it, belts it all the way to the back of the room and takes a bow.

Director Ridley Scott is far better known for the histrionics of Gladiator than he is for his soft and cuddly side. Much unlike the director who piled up the bloody bodies of Gladiator or Kingdom Of Heaven, the Ridley Scott of A Good Year is a purring pussy cat, lying in the sun and lounging on windowsills in A Good Year. Scott's efforts here don't extend much beyond an opening scene in which he tosses in an odd, out of place camera trick that would be more at home on the Gladiator battlefield than in this cookie of a romantic comedy.

Ridley Scott's joy in filming something as superfluous and lightheaded as A Good Year comes through in the little touches. The softly lit flashbacks to Max and his uncle (young Max is played by the terrific child actor Freddie Highmore), Russell Crowe's bouts of uncomfortable slapstick -awkward but fun- and of course the filming of that one line of dialogue that I love so much. So should I give you the line that makes this movie? No, I think you should actually see the movie. Get your significant other, get some popcorn and some candy, sit in the dark and marvel at the simple, elegant ease of such a predictable romantic comedy plot. Then when you hear that line that I'm talking about, and I honestly don't see how you could miss it, kiss your date and smile.

A Good Year is movie candy, empty calories, nothing but sugar. It has the potential for an upset stomach but it tastes so good going down. A Good Year for all intents and purposes is not a very good movie. It is however, modestly entertaining and then there is that one line. That amazing, lyrical, poetic, romantic line of dialogue so well delivered by Russell Crowe. This one line made me smile so much I can't help but forgive the many minor flaws of the softhearted, slightly softheaded A Good Year. Watch the movie and let me know if you catch the line I'm talking about.

Movie Review: Flushed Away

Flushed Away (2006) 

Directed by David Bowers, Sam Fell

Written by Dick Clement, Ian Le Frenais, Chris Lloyd, Joe Keenan

Starring Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Bill Nighy, Andy Serkis, Jean Reno 

Release Date November 3rd, 2006

Published November 6th, 2006 

Aardman animation, the home of Wallace & Gromit and Chicken Run, makes its first foray into computer animation with Flushed Away. This comedy about a rat borne London in the sewers beneath the city combines the charmingly flawed look of Aardman's traditional claymation characters with computer animation from the home of the Shrek movies, Dreamworks animation.

It's quite a successful transition for Aardman who move seamlessly into computer animation that remains true to the artistry of the company's past.

Flushed Away stars the voice of Hugh Jackman as Roddy a pet rat indulging in a high class lifestyle while his human owners are out of town. With the humans gone Roddy is up and out of his cage, watching the big TV and even satisfying his sweet tooth. Roddy's high class vacation from the humans is interrupted by the arrival of a disgusting sewer rat named Sid (Shane Richie) who soon ends up sending Roddy on a shocking trip

In trying to get Sid to leave, Roddy tries to convince him the bathroom toilet is a Jacuzzi. Sid, however, knows a toilet when he see's one and sends Roddy careening down the pipes himself. Finding himself in the shocking midst of a bustling rat metropolis that replicates real London using found materials, Roddy seeks help to get himself back to his high class home.

The person who can help Roddy get home is Rita (Kate Winslet) a fearless independent ships captain who knows every inch of the London sewer. Before she can help Roddy, however, Rita must escape rat mobsters and their boss; the toad (Ian McKellen) who want Rita to give them a jewel she recovered that may or may not have falled from the crown of Queen Elizabeth herself.

After some friction, Roddy and Rita form a good partnership; fending off the mob as they navigate Roddy's way home and Roddy discovers that the toad has more sinister plans than merely retrieving the Queen's jewel from Rita.

Flushed Away was directed by first time directors David Bowers and Sam Fell who tell a lively and fun adventure story. The real success of Fllushed Away however, is the animation which seamlessly combines computer animation with Aardman's signature claymation look that despite having been digitized manages to retain that flaws in the clay charm ala Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.

Much of the enjoyment of Flushed Away comes from the voice cast lead by Hugh Jackman and Kate Winslet. Jackman gives a playful and fun vocal performance that is reminiscent of his self deprocating work as the host of the Tony Awards. Winslet is pitch perfect in giving Rita's voice strength and vulnerability. The supporting cast, which features Bill Nighy, Andy Serkis and Jean Reno really liven things up with Nighy and Serkis delivering terrific comic relief as mob rats.

There is a hint of romance in Flushed Away between Roddy and Rita. However, because directors Bowers and Fell are making a movie for kids they seem unwilling to commit to a romance between the lead characters. Despite great vocal chemistry between Jackman and Winslet, there is a great awkwardness in the writing and directing of this romance plot. The filmmakers seem to want to make it romantic but because this is a kids movie they just couldn't commit to it.

I can't escape the idea that Flushed Away should be funnier than it is. The film is pleasant and safe for the kids but it lacks the kind of big laughs that a movie like Cars or Shrek provide. That doesn't mean it's not humorous, rather that the humor is rather timid and riskless. See again the romance plot to which the filmmakers can't seem to commit. The romance has a lot of potential, comic or otherwise, but becuase the filmmakers can't decide if they want it or not the whole thing just sorta sits there.

As a product for kids you could do far worse than Flushed Away. The film is a technical marvel in its combination of CG technology and Aardman claymation. The story is pleasant and inoffensive which is a double edged sword. It's safe for the kids but far too safe to be really interesting and funny. I recommend Flushed Away for family audiences but for movie fans looking for the next Cars, Incredibles or Shrek, Flushed Away is not for you.

Movie Review: Catch a Fire

Catch a Fire (2006) 

Directed by Phillip Noyce

Written by Phillip Noyce 

Starring Derek Luke, Tim Robbins, Bonnie Henna

Release Date October 27th, 2006

Published October 27th, 2006

The life of Patrick Chamusso is interesting and dramatic but no more so than other African men who joined the fight against Apartheid. So why is the life story of Patrick Chamusso now being told in the action drama Catch A Fire? Writer-director Phillip Noyce has no answer for that in terms of why Patrick Chamusso appealed to him in particular.

However, elements of Patrick's life do lend themselves to a particular political point that Noyce wants to make about the current war on terror. Thus, the life story of Patrick Chamusso is basically a coat hanger for an over-arching metaphor about our current state of geo-political affairs. Whether you agree with Noyce, as I do, you can't help but feel overwhelmed by the hammer like; lack of subtelty in Catch A Fire and the way Patrick Chamusso's story is abused for a political purpose.

Derek Luke stars in Catch A Fire as Patrick Chamusso a responsible family man who has managed to find a strong measure of success in the white dominated world of South Africa. Working in management at an oil refinery Patrick has a nice home, two beautiful children and his wife Precious (Bonnie Mbulli) is a former beauty queen.

So how did Patrick Chamusso go on from a man who fit so well in the rigid Boer dominated society of South Africa to become a revolutionary in the African National Congress, training to become a soldier in the war against Apartheid?

Late one night the refinery is bombed by the ANC. Patrick and two of his closest friends are arrested for the crime. Patrick has an alibi, he was visitiing his son by a different mother; an indiscretion he refuses to admit so that his wife will not find out. This leads to Patrick being tortured for weeks on end by a team of government security officers under the direction of Nic Vos (Tim Robbins).

After Patrick's wife is subjected to torture as well, Patrick confesses to the crime he did not commit. His confession however, is disregarded by Vos who decides he was not guilty afterall and let's him go. With his family in shambles and his pride damaged by being unable to protect his wife, Patrick feels he has no other option but to fight back against the white establishment that attacked him without reason.

The point that Phillip Noyce wants to make here is that sometimes terrorists aren't born, they're made. This same point has been made by talking heads all over world in relation to the American invasion of Iraq. Men who feel their country or family is under attack have gone from businessmen running a fruit stand to an enemy combatant willing to give his life to stop the American invaders.

Consider the photos that came from Abu Ghraib prison. Now imagine the average Iraqi citizen seeing how fellow Iraqis are treated and deciding to fight against America. How about the victims of America's so called Shock and Awe campaign that began the war in Iraq. Though American bombs were as accurate as they could possibly be, many went off course and killed Iraqi citizens, more than enough reasoning for a relative or friend to decide they will fight against America.

Consider those things and consider that outside of their metaphorical significance, none of these things have anything but  a tenuous connection to the life of Patrick Chamusso. When thinking of the life of Patrick Chamusso you can see cinematic elements but nothing more cinematic than the life of any number of A.N.C members who gave their life to fighting apartheid.

Telling Patrick Chamusso's story is simply not the point of Catch A Fire.

Derek Luke gives a credible dramatic life to the role of Patrick Chamusso. Unlike director Noyce, for whom Chamusso is just a useful tool, Luke respects the story of Patrick and takes care in bringing it to life. Unfortunately for Luke, Chamusso is a pawn in this plot. There is little dramatic arc here. Patrick Chamusso's life turned on the decision to fight back against the government that wronged him. Had the government not tortured his wife he likely would never have become militant, never would have fought back.

Is what Phillip Noyce does with the story of Patrick Chamusso so wrong? No. What happened to Patrick Chamusso provides a strong metaphorical correlation to the story of any number of Iraqis who became militant in the face of invading Americans that they felt were not liberators but were in fact attacking them, their family's and their way of life. (If you want an essay on the good of the Iraq invasion, write it yourself).

What bothers me about Catch A Fire is the lack of any subtlety in making this metaphorical point. Somewhere along the line someone genuinely wanted to tell the story of Patrick Chamusso and Phillip Noyce came along and decided to use that story for his own purposes.

Noyce's intentions are not stated overtly onscreen except in the casting of noted war protestor Tim Robbins. Now, Robbins does deliver a very strong performance in Catch A Fire. However, his presence is yet another signalling of the overarching metaphor. Robbins himself has in past interviews made the point about how the invasion of Iraq has created as many enemies as it's killed, now in Catch A Fire he has given a dramatic presentation of that point using the life of Patrick Chamusso as a tool.

Before my conservative readers get the wrong impression about Robbins role in Catch A Fire;  take note. Robbins' Nick Vos is no simple villain, nor is his villainy a representation of American soldiers, interrogators or even politicians. Robbins' character is very conflicted about the actions he feels he is forced to take in order to ensure the status quo in South Africa. Vos honestly believed what he was doing was the right thing and that he was just following orders when he engaged in torturing men he believed were terrorists.

Catch A Fire is a well made political drama about a good man who goes beyond himself to right the wrong of Apartheid and to get some measure of revenge for the ills caused to his family. That his story is abused by director Phillip Noyce to make a tortured metaphoric point about his and others opposition to the war in Iraq is not a reflection on how interesting or uninteresting, worthy or unworthy, Patrick Chamusso's life story is.

Phillip Noyce had a point he wanted to make and he used the life of Patrick Chamusso to make it. I wish he might have brought a little more nuance or subtlety to the evocation of this metaphor but that didn't happen. Thus like repeated hammer blows, the point of Catch A Fire is made over and over until the story of Patrick Chamusso is just background noise.

Movie Review Marie Antoinette

Marie Antoinette (2006) 

Directed by Sophia Coppola

Written by Sophia Coppola

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

Release Date October 20th, 2006

Published November 19th, 2006 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movie Review: Flicka

Flicka (2006) 

Directed by Michael Mayer

Written by Mark Rosenthal, Lawrence Konner

Starring Alison Lohman, Tim McGraw, Maria Bello, Ryan Kwanten

Release Date October 20th, 2006

Published October 22nd, 2006

My Friend Flicka starring Roddy McDowell is a family movie staple. The story of a troubled boy and the horse who saved his life and inspired him is a staple of the family movie genre, a story reformed and retold in a number of different ways. More than 50 years later Flicka returns to the big screen, a different gender at it's center, but the same basic story of family, growing up and beautiful horses in place.

Empty and uninspired, this new Flicka is, thankfully, not a total rehash of the original film but is not much of an improvement either.

16 year old Katie (Alison Lohman) has just flunked her end of year exam. Rather than writing the essay required of her, Katie spent 2 hours staring out the window dreaming of her horses back on her family farm. She is returning home when the test is over and will once again get to feel the wind in her hair on the back of a horse, her favorite feeling in the world.

Katie returns home to a loving family that includes her father; Rob (Tiim Mcraw), Mom; Nell (Maria Bello) and older brother; Howard (Ryan Kwanten). Her father soon finds out that she has failed the important test and the testy dynamic of this father-daughter relationship is set. Despite dad's admonitions, the first chance Katie gets she is on the back of a horse and hitting the backwoods trails.

It is on this backwoods jaunt that Katie comes across a wild black mustang that she comes to call Flicka. Her father, fearing a mustang that might rattle his domesticated quarter horses, orders Katie to stay away from the mustang. However, when the mustang rescues Katie from a cougar attack, he is brought to the farm. Can Katie train Flicka and come to ride her or will dad sell Flicka to a rodeo manager (Nick Searcy) who has developed a dangerous new sport around wild horses.

If you think that the horse's wild, untamed spirit matches that of our heroine, well, of course your right. That is the most basic distillation of the plot. The horse and Katie are one in the same and that is the movie's fundamental premise. That, along with dad coming to understand his rebellious daughter and Katie beginning to grow up and reign in her wild ways make up a very simple three act structure as predictable as the alphabet.

Director Michael Mayer, whose Home At The End of the World was a lovely paean to a unique dysfunctional family, directs Flicka as if he were a factory film director his whole career. The film is machine made and polished, lifted from typical family movie molds and reaching theaters seemingly untouched from screenplay to screen.

Little girls love horses and Flicka bursts at the seams with loving shots of horses in stride. Flicka herself is a beautiful black horse with a gorgeous untamed mane and a wild spirit. Scenes of Alison Lohman riding Flicka framed against the mountain ranges of Wyoming with the sun beaming down are truly splendid images that will dazzle any horse lover.

Country star Tim McGraw acquits himself well as Katie's strict but loving father. His contribution to the films soundtrack however, the single My Little Girl, is one of the most gut wrenchingly sappy tunes this side of Barry Manilow. My Little Girl is the first song in McGraw's career that he has written and produced himself, he may want to consider never doing that again.

Rote family movie conventions rendered against a lovely sunlit, mountain background, Flicka is quite attractive but still an empty vessel. As the coming of age story of a troubled young girl; Flicka hits all of the expected notes and hits them about as well as they can be hit. If you can endure predictable, manufactured family movie devices meant to elicit tears and hugs, then Flicka is the movie for you.

Movie Review: Flags of Our Fathers

Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Written by William Broyles Jr, Paul Haggis

Starring Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford, Adam Beach, Paul Walker, John Slattery, Barry Pepper

Release Date October 20th, 2006

Published October 18th, 2006

Clint Eastwood has always been one of our most beloved and respected artists. However, it wasn't until recently; with the release of Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby that Eastwood rose to the rank of auteur alongside men like Scorsese and Altman, directors whose work is awaited, debated and more often than not breathlessly praised.

Clint Eastwood's latest effort is the most ambitious of his career. A two part film series that takes on the extraordinary battle of Iwo Jim from the perspective of both the Americans, in Flags of Our Fathers and the Japanese, in Letters From Iwo Jima. First up is Flags of Our Fathers, an epic of heroism, sacrifice, sadness and war.

When his father passed away James Bradley -on whose book and real life experiences the movie is based-began searching thru his things and found that his father was one of the flag raisers at the battle of Iwo Jima. The artifacts lead James Bradley to seek out Iwo Jima veterans and tell his father, Doc Bradley's (Ryan Phillippe) story.

Ostensibly, Flags of Our Fathers is the story behind, arguably, the most famous photo ever taken; the raising of the flag atop mount suribachi during the battle of Iwo Jima. What many may not realize is that the flag raising was not a gesture of having won the battle. The flag was raised a mere five days into what would become a 35 day conflict.

The photo was not what it seems either. The first flag raising wasn't captured well and when a politician who saw the photo requested to have the original flag a col, played by Robert Patrick, asked to have the original flag brought to him and a new flag raised. That second flag raising is what Joe Rosenthal immortalized but that was not the story that was sold to the American people.

Of the men who raised the flag; only three survived the remaining battle. The fame of the photo leads the three survivors, Doc, Rene (Jesse Bradford) and Ira (Adam Beach) to a modicum of celebrity. Plucked from the pacific theater and plopped into the middle of the war machine ad campaign, the so called 'heroes of Iwo Jima' became a rallying point for renewed American support for the war.

In 1945 support for the war was flagging. The economy was reeling from the expense and the treasury needed to raise 13 billion dollars to fund the war or risk giving in to Japanese demands. That was when Joe Rosenthal's iconic photo landed on the front page of every newspaper and reassured a weary country that this war was being won.

Becoming spokesman for the war and being hailed as heroes wherever they went was not as easy for the flag raisers as it might seem. Each man is haunted in their own way by what they witnessed and what they did during the battle. Most troubled of all is Irv who slowly comes apart at the seams over the horrors he witnessed.

Adam Beach gives a heart rending performance in Flags of Our Fathers. In war he was brave but overwhelmed. On the tour to raise funds for the war the horrors, combined with heavy drinking, begin to catch up with him. He eventually is given the chance to return to what is left of his unit but nothing could ever relieve him of the nightmares and his life is a tragic one. Beach's performance is nuanced and heartbreaking and the stuff Academy awards are made of.

The rest of the cast struggles to be separated from one another. Ryan Phillippe does a credible job as Doc Bradley, however, during the battle scenes you struggle to tell doc from any of the other soldiers on the field. The same could be said of Jesse Bradford as Rene who never saw much in the way of action as he was more often kept to the rear of the battle as a runner.

Rounding out the cast are a few more recognizable faces. Jaime Bell gives another riff on the clueless but loyal manchild he played in King Kong as Doc's loyal pal Iggy. Paul Walker and Barry Pepper give effective performances simply for showing up and being so recognizable. Because the battle scenes are so chaotic there is no time to meet everyone. Our psychic connection to these men is sympathy for their basic humanity but it is deepened by these recognizable faces.

Structurally Flags of Our Fathers bounces around time periods from modern times, where veterans recall the battle, to scenes prior to and during the battle that are intercut with scenes from the heroes tour of America. The lurching about can be confounding but this is not fatal flaw. Clint Eastwood's work is far too extraordinary to be damaged by some minor editing choices.

The battle scenes in Flags of Our Fathers rival the carnage and heroics of Speilberg's Saving Private Ryan, and Speilberg is a producer on Flags. The carnage, the torn and tortured bodies of thousands of American soldiers who gave their lives for this sliver of land, no bigger than New York City, is exceptionally and stunningly rendered.

Clint Eastwood's calm and assured direction of Flags Of Our Fathers helps us settle in to an unsettling and violent experience. Brilliantly balancing honoring our heroes while not overly sentimentalizing them, Eastwood crafts a film that pays tribute without begging for your love and your sympathy. Never falling back on patriotic asides, Flags of Our Fathers earns your admiration by telling a true story in a most compelling and heartbreaking fashion.

Letters From Iwo Jima, Eastwood's Japanese based follow up to Flags of Our Fathers will be released in February. Ken Watanabe stars as the leader of Japanese forces in the battle. The verisimilitude of this venture only serves to deepen the stories being told. On it's own Flags of Our Fathers is a powerful, moving even heartbreaking story. Imagining what it will be like once we see it from the other side makes Flags of Our Fathers even more fascinating.

Flags of Our Fathers is a must see movie.

Movie Review Man of the Year

Man of the Year (2006) 

Directed by Barry Levinson

Written by Barry Levinson

Starring Robin Williams, Christopher Walken, Laura Linney, Lewis Black, Jeff Goldblum, Amy Poehler

Release Date October 13th, 2006

Published October 20th, 2006

Robin Williams is not hip. He's funny, energetic and a legit star but he is not hip. That makes his role as a star political comic, ala the undeniably hip Jon Stewart, in the new movie Man of the Year more than a little ill fitting. Williams is quite funny in notching a number of smart and quite pointed political barbs but also a number of jokes that are a little past their sell by date.

Of course, if Williams' hit and miss jokes were the film's only problem with Man of the Year it would not be so bad. Unfortunately, director Barry Levinson throws in one terribly awkward subplot that takes Man of the Year from merely flawed to flailing.

Tom Dobbs (Williams) has a top rated cable show on which he talks about the issues of the day with edgy, politically incorrect humor. One night before the show an audience member gives Tom a crazy idea, why doesn't he run for president. Floating the idea on the show, Tom gets a huge response on the internet that leads to him declaring his candidacy and getting on the ballot in 13 states.

On the campaign trail with his showbiz manager Jack (Christopher Walken), and his head writer Eddie (Lewis Black), Tom's approach to the campaign is serious and joke-free. Tom desperately wants to be taken seriously as a candidate. That plan goes out the window when Tom gets into the presidential debate and begins riffing on the hot button issues of the day as acerbically as he might on his show.

His debate performance garnered a lot of attention but there is no way he could possibly win. Or is there? Somewhere out in the San Fernando Valley a computer company has earned the contract nationwide to provide electronic voting systems. The system has a serious bug in it that is discovered by Eleanor (Laura Linney), the company's lead programmer. On election night when Eleanor realizes the bug she found was not fixed; she decides she must blow the whistle, something the company will not allow to happen (cue ominous music).

The computer company subplot is a thriller element that this film absolutely botches. After launching an interesting concept, a comedian elected president, director Barry Levinson gets distracted by the details of how such a thing could happen. Tossing together this computer voting/thriller plot, Levinson gives us a plausible reason as to how a comedian could get elected president but misses the more interesting plot, how would a comedian run the country.

Watching Man of the Year I kept hoping that Levinson would cut through the thriller plot and show more of Tom Dobbs comedian figuring out how to be the most powerful man in the world. His thoughts on this rather momentous occasion beyond the jokes might be some place to start. But Levinson, I gather, just didn't believe audiences would buy Tom getting elected without some chicanery.

It's a fair bet that many people might not buy the premise without the computers, but that really isn't the point. We are at a place right now where most of the country is in the center and the rest are divided to extremes and make most of the noise. The idea that the center might rally to a centrist candidate, say a charismatic comedian, is an interesting and timely idea. Man of the Year has that idea but tosses it in favor of a dull thriller plot.

In early 2002 Robin Williams did a standup special on HBO that absolutely killed. His comedic skills having been tarnished by a few years worth of really bad movies, Patch Adams-Jack-Bicentennial Man, he bounced back with a tremendously funny concert set. That concert, in which Williams mixed his wildman schtick with some very smart and pointed humor, is the template for the character of Tom Dobbs, wildly energetic and very smart.

Part of the genius of Robin Williams in that HBO special and here in Man of the Year is the risks he takes with his humor. Always on the edge between funny and cringe inducing, Williams rides that razors edge in Man of the Year by recycling Clinton era humor that makes you snore while making timely references to the middle east quagmire, gay marriage and racism. When he's on, Williams rivals Jon Stewart and Bill Maher in irreverence and smarts, when he's off however he's Carrot Top crossed with Richard Jeni.

Thankfully, Williams is on far more than he's off in Man of the Year. It's just a shame he doesn't get more time to be on or off. Williams is forced off screen far too often in Man of the Year to make room for the thriller plot. I love Laura Linney but there is nothing that even someone of her tremendous talent can do with this ill-fated material. The way that Barry Levinson brings her and Williams together in the film, marrying the thriller and comedy plot in a romantic subplot, is almost less believable than the crappy thriller plot.

Robin Williams hasn't been this good in awhile. It's a shame that his efforts are often squandered in a film that just can't commit to a good premise. Politicians need courage of convictions, at least the few good ones do, and the Man of the Year too needed a little courage. The courage to craft a comic idea that is timely and relevant. Unfortunately, Barry Levinson lacks that courage and instead falls back on plot mechanics and thriller beats that interrupt what might otherwise be a pretty good political farce.

What a shame.