Movie Review The Family Tree

The Family Tree (2011) 

Directed by Vivi Friedman

Written by Mark Lisson 

Starring Dermot Mulroney, Hope Davis, Chi McBride, Max Thieriot, Selma Blair, Christina Hendricks

Release Date August 26th, 2011

Published August 25th, 2011 

The Family Tree, starring Dermot Mulroney and Hope Davis is nuts, in a really great way. This dysfunctional family comedy about a family going to pieces is populated by a wonderfully game all-star cast that sacrifices dignity at every turn to deliver more than a few ridiculously funny moments.

The story is thus, Dermot Mulroney stars as Jack Burnett, a below average suburban working stiff. Hope Davis is his bitchy wife Bunnie and Max Theriot and Britt Robertson are their screwed up kids Eric and Kelly. Eric is a Jesus freak with a love for guns while Kelly portrays herself as loose though she’s not really.

What happens to this family during The Family Tree includes infidelity, a very unique accidental death–an acquaintance, not a family member—drugs and some divine intervention. All of the action is captured by first time director Vivi Friedman in a madcap fashion that plays like American Beauty through the prism of the Coen Brothers.

The phenomenal supporting cast includes Chi McBride’s funniest and most unexpected performance in years as Burnett's neighbor. McBride is joined by a veritable Battle of the Network Stars size supporting cast that includes Burn Notice star Gabrielle Anwar, Mad Men’s Christina Hendricks, Jane Seymour, Selma Blair, Madeline Zima, Keith Carradine, Rachel Leigh Cook and Bow Wow, among others.

Corralling all of this talent into one wonderfully wild movie is first time director Vivi Friedman. Working from a script by a veteran TV writer, and I do mean veteran, the guy who wrote for Hart to Hart, Mark Lisson, Friedman takes her cast and just keeps whipping them into a weird comic frenzy right up to the odd, highly unlikely but still strangely satisfying ending.

Hollywood tried to turn Dermot Mulroney into a hunky leading man a few years ago but it never took. He’s better off without the romantic comedies; character roles like this one in The Family Tree may just be his niche. Mulroney finds a note of suburban white guy awkwardness in The Family Tree that never fails to find the most unexpected laughs.

Hope Davis is a terrific match for Mulroney as a Real Housewife of just outside Beverly Hills. I don’t want to spoil all the trouble that Davis’s Bunnie finds in The Family Tree, but I’ll just say that after her character comes out of a brief hospital stay she becomes endearing and adorable in strange and interesting ways.

I could go on for a while about the rest of the cast but as I said, I don’t want to spoil the movie. The Family Tree is not without its flaws, the guy in the tree… sorry, no spoilers. That aside, I laughed a lot and quite hard while watching this terrific little indie comedy that will without doubt sneak up and surprise you if you give it a chance.

Movie Review: Vanity Fair

Vanity Fair (2004) 

Directed by Mira Nair

Written by Julian Fellowes

Starring Reese Witherspoon, Eileen Atkins, Jim Broadbent, Gabriel Byrne, Romola Garai, Bob Hoskins

Release Date September 1st, 2004 

Published September 1st, 2004 

In its day, William Makepeace Thackeray's Vanity Fair, written in 1847, was a witty and scathing rebuke of the British society in which it was set. In the ensuing 157 years, even as society in Britain and elsewhere has changed, the wit of Thackeray's words has remained and Hollywood has taken notice more than once. First adapted in 1935 in the very first film ever in Technicolor, Thackeray's novel was renamed for its heroine Becky Sharp and won an Oscar nomination for star Miriam Hopkins.

The book found its greatest exposure in the mini-series format where it has been adapted three times. Because of the large number of characters, subplots, and endlessly witty dialogue exchanges the mini-series seems to be the truly ideal format for this story. A perfect example of that is the latest film adaptation of Vanity Fair by Mira Nair and Oscar-nominated screenwriter Julian Fellowes which evokes the images of the story but has no time for the depth and breadth of it.

Reese Witherspoon takes on the difficult role of Becky Sharp, the razor tongued social climber who in the book is not the most sympathetic creature. In the film, after a little back story about how Becky was the orphaned daughter of a starving artist sent to live and work in a finishing school, we find Becky taking advantage of the one friend she has made in her life Amelia Sedley (Romola Garai). In this scene at least Becky seems genuine, if a bit devilish towards her ex-schoolmates and teachers.

Becky is leaving the school to join Amelia and her family for a week before she begins life as a governess for Sit Pitt Crawley (Bob Hoskins). In the week with Amelia's family, Becky hopes to take advantage of her friend’s kindness and find herself a way into high society. Becky's chance opens up when Amelia's brother Jos returns from his military post in India. Jos is shy, overweight and easily mislead, the perfect patsy for Becky who would marry anyone to get into high society.

Unfortunately for Becky, Amelia's fiancé George Osbourne (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) is far savvier than Jos and helps the fat man see through Becky's scheming. With no fiancé to help her climb the social ladder, Becky is off to the home of Sir Pitt Crawley where a whole new scheme must begin. It doesn't take someone of Becky's street smarts long to insinuate herself into an important position in the Crawley household. She makes an especially strong impression on the most important Crawley, Sir Pitt's sister Miss Crawley (Eileen Atkins) the one with all of the family's money.

Miss Crawley and Becky are fast friends as both have a quick and savage wit. Miss Crawley claims to detest the class system and any system that would place her dull witted clan ahead of someone like Becky simply because of breeding. However Miss Crawley's true feelings are tested after Becky elopes with Sir Pitt's youngest son Rawdon (James Purefoy) who was Miss Crawley's favorite and the one most likely to inherit the family fortune.

This is a lot of plot and I have not yet mentioned Rhys Ifans as Major Dobbin and Gabriel Byrne as Steyne both of whom are pivotal in the book but get a bit of a short shrift due the films 2 hrs 17 min. runtime. Even the plot I have already described is embellished a bit on my part from what I know from reading the book. Having read it, I can fill in the gaps that Ms. Nair and Mr. Fellowes rush over in order to get a more salable runtime.

Clearly there was some sort of studio mandate on runtime because there is simply no other way to make sense of the cuts made by the talented director and writer. People who have not read the book will often be left wondering what just happened as the plot points are introduced and left behind in mere moments as the narrative jumps ahead years in leaps and bounds. Important plots about deaths, births and cross-continental moves are left on the cutting room floor leaving the audience unsatisfied, with little to no catharsis or consideration.

To be fair Thackeray wasn't much interested in catharsis as he was in the witty, sexy, and devilishly clever banter of his characters, especially Becky Sharp. At the very least in the book, you have Thackeray as narrator offering some commentary on these life-changing events, usually with a very witty aside. There again points to another problem with the film, it lacks Thackeray's voice which is the books true source of humor. Like the cattiest of gossips, Thackeray's narration let us inside the thoughts of each character and spelled out important motivations.

The filmmakers rely heavily on their actors to deliver the characters inner lives and while this is a talented group of actors who communicate insight, intelligence, and humor the audience members aren't mind readers and the filmmakers can't just assume people will get it. That is unless you read the book then maybe you do get it. Maybe the film’s biggest issue is the way Thackeray's biting satire has been softened to appeal to a more mainstream audience.

That appeal to the mainstream extends to the casting of Reese Witherspoon as Becky Sharp. Ms. Witherspoon is a terrific actress who has the perfect face to play Becky Sharp, with that devilish glint in her deep-set eyes and that hint of a snarl in her smile she evoked my vision of Becky. The problem is her star power and presence overwhelms the lesser-known cast members that surround her. In scenes where the film shoehorns in the subplots about Romola Garai's Amelia or Rhys Ifans as Dobbin we are left wondering where is Becky. Also to accommodate someone of Ms. Witherspoon's obvious likeability, many of Becky's sharp edges have been softened so as not to offend her fanbase.

The only cast member that is able to make a real impression outside of Ms. Witherspoon is Eileen Atkins as Miss Crawley, probably because she is the only character other than Becky allowed to employ Mr. Thackeray's wit. Other characters make strong impressions in the book but have no time to do so in this film and may hav been better off left on the cutting room floor. More focus on Becky and her plot would seem to be the only way to make this film work.

Ms. Nair nails the period in her direction and embellishes it with the Indian imagery that she is known for from her wonderful Bollywood movie Monsoon Wedding. Thackeray himself was born in India and includes a number of references to British military outposts in that country and how the culture was part of the zeitgeist of the time amongst British aristocrats. That zeitgeist is well captured in a scene that wasn't in the book, a dance scene in which Becky and other high society woman perform a traditional Indian dance for the King of England. For a film budgeted at a mere 35 Million dollars this a lavish production.

The crux of the problem with Vanity Fair is a war between the filmmakers and the producers with Ms. Nair and the creative team looking to do a faithful adaptation and producers fighting to make the film more commercial. The many compromises made along the way, run time, casting amongst others, are obvious and distracting. The films ending is definitely a victim of these compromises as it comes completely out of left field and depends on one credibility testing bit of luck and timing.

Vanity Fair was supposed to signal the beginning of the Oscar campaign season. However when the film missed its original fall 2003 opening and was dropped into the first week of September, many in-the-know Academy watchers threw up red flags. Our suspicions were correct, Vanity Fair is unlikely to challenge for any of the major awards at the end of the year. Compromise, it seems, is not always a good thing. 

Movie Review: Don't Let Go

Don't Let Go (2019)

Directed by Jacob Aaron Estes

Written by Jacob Aaron Estes

Starring David Oyelowo, Brian Tyree Henry, Storm Reid, Mykelti Williamson

Release Date August 30th, 2019

Published August 29th, 2019 

Don’t Let Go is a pulse-pounding stunner of a time travel thriller. David Oyelowo stars in Don’t Let go as Detective Jack Radcliff, an L.A cop with a very close relationship with his niece, Ashley (Storm Reid). Ashley’s dad, played in a cameo by Bryan Tyree Henry, is a troubled songwriter and part time drug dealer, who has recently gotten deep in over his head. It’s led him to neglect his daughter, and place his family in danger. 

How much danger? When Jack goes for a visit to his brother’s home, he finds the door standing open. Inside, he finds his brother’s wife on the floor, shot dead. Upstairs, Jack finds the body of his brother, dead from a gunshot wound to the head which we see in grisly detail as Jack’s grief overcomes him and he clutches his brother's gaping skull, attempting to hold closed the already fatal wound. 

The most devastating blow however, is yet to come. After finding his brother’s body, Jack goes looking for Ashley and finds her shot to death in the family bathroom, her attempt to flee through a window cut short. It’s a stunning scene and one played by David Oyelowo with a forlorn resignation and jarring emotionality. Oyelowo may be slight in build but his emotional stature is towering and in this scene, devastating. 

In another universe, we would get a straight ahead cop procedural in which Jack tracks down the killers, held back by the rules of law and probably some insider corruption that keeps the baddies ahead of his every move until he’s able to outwit them. That’s not, however, what Don’t Let Go is. This is nothing remotely typical. Written and directed by Jacob Estes, best known for the indie thriller Mean Creek, Don’t Let Go has a time travel conceit that subverts expectations in wonderfully inventive and genuinely surprising ways. 

Days after laying his family to rest, Jack’s phone rings and the display claims that the call is coming from Ashley’s phone. The calls keep coming until finally Jack answers and finds Ashley on the other end. No, she’s not survived by some miracle, she’s actually calling from two weeks in the past, a time before the murder. How is this possible? The filmmakers don’t appear to care about that and neither should we. 

The most important thing to consider in order to find Don’t Let Go as compelling and excited as I did, is not to get caught up on why this is happening. For me, the rest of Don’t Let Go is so interesting, so unique and attention grabbing, I simply bought into the story and went where the movie wanted to take me. I bought into the suspense, I bought into the blood and guts and I bought into this complicated premise that might prove to be a dealbreaker for less committed audience members. 

You cannot overestimate how incredible David Oyelowo is in Don’t Let Go. Oyelowo has remarkable instincts, his eyes are so alive and compelling. You never catch Oyelowo acting and yet the look on his face demonstrates wheels turning and remarkable effort. The blood, the sweat, the dirt, Oyelowo lives this role and I found his intensity and commitment impossible to resist. The same could be said of his young co-star, Storm Reid. Reid impressed me in Ava Duvernay's wonderful, A Wrinkle in Time and she's equally as impressive here as she attempts to solve her own murder. 

Don’t Let Go absolutely came out of nowhere for me. The generic title made me believe this was going to be a minor and forgettable and perhaps that low bar helped a little. Writer-director Jacob Estes makes a strong case that Don’t Let Go with its unusual time travel premise and heart-stopping suspense is just a really great thriller. The pace is perfectly calibrated and the film score is among the best of 2019. 

Don’t Let Go is exceptional and at a time where we lack in great thrillers, the film stands out that much more for being a classic piece of genre filmmaking.

Movie Review: Big Fan

Big Fan (2009)  

Directed by Robert D. Siegel

Written by Robert D. Siegel 

Starring Patton Oswalt, Kevin Corrigan, Michael Rappaport, Josh Trank

Release Date August 28th, 2009 

Published September 15th, 2009 

The rise of the man-child is one of the darkest moments of our culture. This basement dwelling cretin, personified by his lack of social grace, living with their mother and desperate clinging to childish things, has risen to prominence in just the last ten or so years and is becoming something of a force.

The movies are a haven for these overgrown children, as the career of Adam Sandler and his minions attests. In these movies the lifestyle of the man-child is critiqued but most often accepted and assimilated into the lives of exceptionally forgiving, stunningly attractive adult women in a tacit approval of the man-child life choice.

“Big Fan” is the rare film that takes the man-child to task for his childish proclivities. Directed by Robert Siegel, Oscar nominated screenwriter for “The Wrestler,” and starring comedian Patton Oswalt, “Big Fan” is a dark, ironic, parody of the man-child and his obsessions.

Paul Aufiero (Patton Oswalt) is obsessed with the New York Giants. He lives and dies with the team’s wins and losses. His nights at work, he's a parking attendant, are spent scribbling scripts for late night phone calls he places to a sports radio station. There he is Paul from Staten Island, a legend among other man-children for his passionate defenses of the Giants and attacks on their opponents. Paul even has a mortal enemy on the radio in Philadelphia Phil (Michael Rappaport). These witless battles of wit are at the center of Paul's being.

The plot of “Big Fan” kicks in when Paul and his man-child buddy Sal spot their favorite player, Quantrell Bishop (Jonathan Hamm) in their neighborhood. They choose to follow him and track QB back to Manhattan and a very pricey strip club. There, Paul gets up the nerve to approach his hero and wakes up several days later in the hospital.

Quantrell beat the holy hell out of Paul after he confessed that he and Sal had followed him. Now, as Paul awakes from a coma his only concern remains whether the Giants won or lost while he was out. When asked about the assault; Paul’s fan-boy nature kicks in and he develops amnesia. Will he turn in his hero or keep the secret to save his team?

The answer is not so much the subject of “Big Fan.” Rather, it’s something of a foregone conclusion by the time the answer arrives. “Big Fan” is not a mystery or a crime thriller but a darkly humorous, endlessly ironic observation of severe arrested development.

What Director Robert Siegel and star Patton Oswalt are after is a critique of man-child fan-boys whose obsessions have rendered them ill-equipped to deal with the fully formed adults around them. In movies like “Failure to Launch” starring Matt McConaughey or “Big Daddy” with Adam Sandler this childishness is played as charm. In “Big Fan” it is realistically pathetic.

Taking the critique further, director Siegel adds a disquieting homo-eroticism to Paul’s hero worship. Paul has a poster of Quantrell over his bed. He dreams about Quantrell, sweating and snarling, shirtless in his three point stance. Though Paul is too timid and immature to get it, he is a frustrated, closeted homosexual whose frustration is channeled into his love of sport.

Whether it’s Tom Brady or Han Solo this level of obsessive hero worship tinged with homo-erotic undertones is part of the culture of the man-child. Are all man-children closeted homosexuals? No, but frustrated sexuality and sexual identity are an aspect of the man-child most often unexplored.

Patton Oswalt is fearless in exploring these aspects of Paul Aufiero. Though he does well to keep Paul in the dark about his true self, Oswalt and director Robert Siegel are downright elegant in the ways they reveal and subtly ridicule Paul’s ignorance. In sending up Paul they send up those like Paul, the emotionally stunted, childishly obsessed man-child.

Darkly humorous, endlessly clever and revealing, “Big Fan” is a punch in the mouth to the growing man-child culture. Where so many movies let these overgrown children off the hook, “Big Fan” holds a mirror up to them and reveals them for who they truly are. It’s not a pretty picture.

Movie Review The Gambler

The Gambler (2014) 

Directed by Rupert Wyatt

Written by William Monahan

Starring Mark Wahlberg, John Goodman, Brie Larson, Michael K. Williams, Jessica Lange

Release Date December 25th, 2014

Published December 25th, 2014

Mark Wahlberg’s star power sustains “The Gambler,” a talky, existentialist meditation on gambling, addiction and self-destruction.  Without a star of Wahlberg’s charisma “The Gambler” would be a tough hike. Though playing against type as a philosophy-spouting, Dostoevsky-quoting college professor, Wahlberg finds just the right mix of magnetism and machismo to give life to the role of Jim Bennett. 

When we meet Bennett, he’s having an epic run of bad luck at a private casino owned by Asian gang members. In short order, Bennett goes way up and winds up way down -- $240,000 down. Desperate for help, Jim turns to his mother Roberta (Jessica Lange) who gives up the cash only for Jim to blow this $240,000 just as quickly. From there Jim begins a high-stakes scam, playing the money of one mobster against other mobsters, including Michael K. Williams as Neville Baraka and John Goodman as Frank. 

As good as Wahlberg is in “The Gambler,” he’s upstaged at every turn by Williams and especially by Goodman, who is Oscar caliber here. If you see “The Gambler,” see it first for a lesson in what Frank calls “Fuck-You Money.” This brilliant, sprawling monologue is delivered with such style and wit that you feel as if you really have learned something important, even if Jim doesn’t feel the same way. 

Also in Bennett’s orbit are a couple of students: Amy (Brie Larson), a talented writer, and Lamar (Anthony Kelley), a talented college basketball star. That Jim draws both into his massive scheme against his criminal debtors is an illustration of Jim’s twisted morality. Jim seems to have little empathy for others when his needs are involved. At least Wahlberg instills a heavy air of guilt in Jim’s manner. 

“The Gambler” was inspired by the 1974 film of the same title starring James Caan. The original was far colder and far more effective than the modern take. Where Wahlberg has guilt, James Caan has zero compunction about what he does to other people in his search for his next fix. Caan’s Axel was more obviously self-destructive than Wahlberg’s Jim. The only qualities the two characters really share are a shifty intelligence and charisma. 

Is Jim addicted to gambling? “The Gambler” doesn’t seem to be all that interested in that question. Certainly, Jim doesn’t seem capable of simply stopping. But his classroom oratories offer up an alternate theory for his gambling: a desire to feel something. As Bennett sounds off on Shakespeare or other legendary writers, he’s quick to share asides about his failure as a writer, where life has failed him and will fail his class. This gives strong indications about why he seeks out the highs and lows of high-stakes gambling as a way of coping with his life. 

“The Gambler” comes up short of greatness. It’s a little overlong in some areas and the soundtrack, though quite good, distracts from time to time. Nevertheless, the film is engaging and, with Wahlberg, it has a star who easily takes hold of our sympathies. Surrounded by Goodman, Williams and Larson, Wahlberg doesn’t always stand out front, but that’s to be expected because he’s among such an incredible ensemble of performers. 

Movie Review: Cedar Rapids

Cedar Rapids (2011) 

Directed by Miguel Arteta 

Written by Phil Johnson

Starring Ed Helms, John C. Reilly, Anne Heche, Isiah Whitlock, Sigourney Weaver

Release Date February 11th, 2011

Published February 11th, 2011

It's “The 40 Year Old Virgin” minus the Virgin part. That's a pretty solid description of “Cedar Rapids” which stars a former Daily Show correspondent turned star of The Office, Ed Helms, and tells the story of an innocent man-child slowly drawn toward debauchery by a coterie of bad influences who happen to make great friends.

Directed by Miguel Arteta (“Chuck & Buck,” “Youth in Revolt”), “Cedar Rapids” is the story of Tim Lippe (Ed Helms) a Wisconsin insurance salesman who gets the opportunity of a lifetime after the unfortunate passing of a co-worker (a delightfully awful cameo by Reno 911's Thomas Lennon as a top salesman who dies, off-screen, from auto-erotic asphyxiation.)

Tim is headed to Cedar Rapids for an annual conference of Insurance Company salespeople where the head of the industry, midwest division, Orrin Helgeson (Kurtwood Smith) will hand out the coveted Two Diamond Award, something Tim's late co-worker had walked away with each of the past two years.

While in Cedar Rapids Tim is instructed by his boss, go to character actor Stephen Root, to stay out of trouble as Orrin is a pious man and expects the same of all Two Diamond Award winners. Unfortunately for Tim staying out of trouble will be hard while rooming with his new best friend, the ingratiating Dean Ziegler (John C. Reilly) who has no designs on the Two Diamond Award, only on having a real good time.

Also caught up with Tim and Dean is convention regular Ronald Wilkes (Isiah Whitlock) and mom turned Cedar Rapids party girl Joan Ostrowski Fox (Anne Heche); each of whom will help Tim come out of his shell in ways the naive Wisconsinite could never have imagined.

Miguel Arteta has a particular talent for characters like Tim Lippe. The innocent cast into a fast paced new world has been an area of expertise for Arteta in movies like “Youth in Revolt,” where Michael Cera created a French alter-ego to deal with the quick witted girl of his dreams leading to drug trips and a crime spree as well as in “The Good Girl” where a teenage Jake Gyllenhaal experienced love for the first time with a sad housewife played by Jennifer Aniston.

Arteta brings an immigrants eye view to these characters. Born in Puerto Rico, Arteta came to the US is the 80's where he fostered his love of movies at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. Like Arteta at Wesleyan, his characters seem to be learning a whole new language and culture in their new environments and like Arteta they are quick on the uptake even as the experience is a mind-blowing change.

Ed Helms captures the eager to please Wisconsinite with just the right mix of man-child and upstanding citizenship. We meet Tim for the first time as he accepts a booty call from, of all people, his former grade school teacher played with voracious cougar-ness by Sigourney Weaver. Naturally, Tim thinks this relationship is going somewhere while we in the audience and the teacher quickly feel sorry for him.

Helms has the ability to earn sympathy and laughs in equal measure and it makes him an ideal innocent in the debauched, snowy airs of the big city, Cedar Rapids. John C. Reilly, Anne Heche and Isiah Whitlock make the perfect crew for Tim; Reilly the obnoxious, drunken ‘ladies man,’ Heche as the Cedar Rapids style 'femme fatale,' and Whitlock the stalwart good guy who we know has Tim's back with an assist from Omar from the HBO series 'The Wire.'

”Cedar Rapids” is a glorious satire of supposed big fish in small ponds everywhere. The overblown importance of the “Two Diamond Award,” Cedar Rapids as the Las Vegas of the Insurance sales game, and Tim's general awe at his surroundings set flame to the overstuffed egos of anyone who can't understand why the movie is so funny.

One of the major buys of the Sundance Film Festival, “Cedar Rapids” is poised to be one of the breakout comedies of 2011. Will Ed Helms become the next Steve Carell? Only the box office can decide that. For now bask in the glory of Tim Lippe and his wild weekend in “Cedar Rapids.”

Movie Review: Tsui Hark's Vampire Hunters

Tsui Hark's Vampire Hunters (2002) 

Directed by Wellson Chin

Written by Tsui Hark

Starring Danny Chan, Lam Suet, Michael Chow

Release Date 2003 

Published February 4th, 2003 

Tsui Hark must be Hong Kong's answer to Wes Craven. The new movie Tsui Hark's Vampire Hunters was not directed by the legendary Mr. Hark but bears his name. Unlike Craven though, Hark doesn't just slap his name on a project, and Vampire Hunters is proof of that.

The film is written by Hark and is as exciting, gory and funny as if he had made it himself. As another critic brilliantly cited, Vampire Hunters is Crouching Tiger meets Evil Dead, in a combination straight out of Hong Kong.

We begin in a darkened monastery where a master explains to his young charges that the legends they have heard about vampires are true and that it is their duty to stop them from devouring humanity. Oh, but not just vampires, there are also zombies who become vampires when they taste human blood. The master, with the help of his four most trusted students, Thunder, Lightning, Rain and Wind (each named for the element they control), search for the Vampire King. Once found, the King Vamp kills a number of the students and seemingly the Master as well. Rain, Thunder, Wind and Lightning survive and continue seeking out and destroying vampires.

Some months later the boys arrive at the home of Jiang, a strange old man who is celebrating the marriage of his oafish son to the beautiful Sasa. The odd thing is that the son has been married several times before with each of his wives meeting a strange end. This gets our hero’s attention, and using a unique vampire tracking compass find that the Vampire King could be the cause. Oh if only it were that easy. 

Unfortunately there is also an angry snake somewhere in the house, Jiang's odd-looking wife, and the collection of well-preserved dead people in Jiang's barn. There is also Jiang's legendary stash of gold which Sasa's brother has had his eye on since he allowed his sister to marry into Jiang's family. Jiang claims he invented the vampire myth to keep people from his gold.

The narrative of Vampire Hunters is muddled with romantic subplots for two of our heroes, a few red herrings to throw the audience off and couple of twists that seem either unnecessary or highly contrived. However, none of that matters in the least because Vampire Hunters is one of those films that is not about it's story or even it's characters (Who by the way never use the powers their names imply they have).

Vampire Hunters is about goofiness and gore and Director Wellson Chin delivers. Cheesy effects abound in Vampire Hunters, from hopping zombies to wire fights and tree jumping lifted from the Yuen Woo Ping school of movie fighting, though not nearly as fluid as the man behind the Matrix fights. The fighting in Vampire Hunters is played for laughs especially the climactic battle with the Vampire King, who looks like an oriental scarecrow.

The film isn't all laughs. some of it is excruciatingly gory such as the Vampire King's ability to suck the soul out of his opponents, leaving them a pile of used up bones and a small puddle. Eeewww. Tsui Hark's Vampire Hunter has cult classic written all over it. Though some will be left wondering if it might have been better with Hark himself behind the camera.

Movie Review The Family Stone

The Family Stone (2005) 

Directed by Thomas Bezucha 

Written by Thomas Bezucha 

Starring Diane Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Dermot Mulroney, Craig T. Nelson, Sarah Jessica Parker

Release Date December 16th, 2005

Published December 16th, 2005 

Streaming on Starz via Amazon Prime 

The amazing Diane Keaton has become an icon of grace and sensibility. Her Oscar nominated roles in Reds , Annie Hall and Something's Gotta Give are marvelous examples of her range and exceptional talent. Even lesser works like The First Wives Club are elevated by her presence. Casting Diane Keaton is like buying insurance against a bad script. Even a script as weak as the one for Keaton's latest film The Family Stone, looks a lot better for having her in it.

It doesn't hurt that Keaton's involvement helped entice an A-list of actors to play her children, Rachel McAdams, Dermot Mulroney and Luke Wilson, in this tepid holiday dramedy. Proof that a great cast can make the bitter pill of cliche go down like eggnog.

Diane Keaton stars in The Family Stone, as Sybil the matriarch of a large brood of grown children. With her college professor hubby, Kelly (Craig T. Nelson), Sybil is welcoming her five kids, and their various tagalongs, home for christmas. This year the Stone's are playing host to one particularly interesting guest. Her name is Meredith and if all goes according to plans she will soon be the oldest Stone son Everett's (Dermot Mulroney) fiancee.

Unfortunately for Everett, Meredith's stick in the mud, buttoned up personality has already rubbed his family the wrong way. Everett's youngest sister Amy (Rachel McAdams) has met Meredith and decided she hates her. Amy has busily poisoned the family well, including older sister Susannah (Elizabeth Reaser), middle child Thad (Tyrone Giordano) and his partner, Patrick (Brian J. White). Dad and his other son Ben (Luke Wilson) at least attempt to be open to Meredith.

The Family Stone breaks down to a sort of red state-blue state conflict. The Stones are liberal, ivy leaguers with a gay son who is also deaf and dating a black guy and Meredith represents the uptight, conservative business-minded red staters. The conflict is a battle for Everett's soul. Will he return to his old liberal open-minded self or marry Meredith and become a Bush voter?

Supposedly helping Meredith fight this battle is her sister Julie (Claire Danes) but unfortunately her late arrival only serves to make things worse.

The Family Stone attempts to mix screwball family comedy and heartfelt family drama with subplots including a dramatic disease and a chase scene to stop a character from leaving town forever. It's a difficult and well-worn mixture and one the film bears only because of the expert cast. There is nothing new or innovative about writer-director Andrew Bezucha's approach to this commonplace material, so he relies on this likable group of pro actors to carry it off and, to a certain degree, it works.

Sarah Jessica Parker delivers the film's best performance. Her Meredith is sympathetic as the outsider in a group of overbearing tightly knit liberals. In the hole from the moment she arrives, she has our sympathies.  However, Meredith is never merely a victim. Her lack of social graces and occasions of running at the mouth when she shouldn't combined with a complete lack of a sense of humor make some of the family's negativity toward her understandable. Parker plays the conflicts well, especially playing against her natural likeability.

Parker is let down on more than one occasion by the script that forces in nearly every well-worn trope of this genre. There is the aforementioned chase scene, a comically inept fight scene and of course plenty of spilled food for characters to roll around in. That we forgive many of these cliches is a function of the lovable qualities of this terrific cast.

The Family Stone is a cousin to a number of memorable family Christmas comedies like Home For The Holidays starring Holly Hunter, the romance and family drama from Love Actually and the movie-of-the-week style tragedy of Meryl Streep's One True Thing. Andrew Bezucha does not lift elements from these films as much as mimic them with his own twist. These are well known tropes that each of these films use to push dramatic buttons and The Family Stone is merely the latest film to engage them.

The cast of The Family Stone makes the familiarity work for them. Like watching old friends gather at a holiday party you can't help but enjoy the way the cast bonds, bickers and eventually falls in food. A more pessimistic viewer might expect more from this excellent cast but that is reviewing the film that The Family Stone is not. Remarking on the film it is, The Family Stone is not to be taken seriously and likely not to be remembered by this time next year.  It is just an average good natured holiday comedy.

Not for the cynical, The Family Stone is an overly familiar holiday family movie that pushes all of the same emotional buttons as is the norm of the genre. That it manages to be quite often funny and occasionally heartfelt is due to a cast of real pros. Like the revival of a favorite play, you know what is going to happen next because you have seen it so many times before, you watch to see this new group of actors give new life to the material. The Family Stone makes familiarity work by dressing it in a whole lot of star power.

Movie Review: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) 

Directed by Tim Burton

Written by John August

Starring Johnny Depp, Freddie Highmore, David Kelly, Helena Bonham Carter, Noah Taylor, Christopher Lee

Release Date July 15th, 2005 

Published July 15th, 2005 

Streaming on HBO Max

The first time Roald Dahl's childhood dreamscape Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was brought to the big screen, under the title Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the film became a beloved children's classic based on the gentle whimsy of Gene Wilder's cyanide-laced wit as Willy. However, writer Roald Dahl was never a fan of this adaptation.

The legendary writer passed on before another adaptation could be taken up. According to his wife Liccy, the latest adaptation, with the original book title, by director Tim Burton, is a version that Mr. Dahl himself would have embraced. We will never know for sure. What we do know is that Mr. Burton's version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a visionary and astonishing work of art from the set design to the music and the amazing work of one of our finest actors, Johnny Depp.

Willy Wonka's (Johnny Depp) chocolate factory in the center of London has been a source of mystery and wonder ever since Wonka fired all of his employees some years ago and shuttered the factory. When one day it reopened without hiring any new employees the mystery deepened. Now finally after years of being a shut in, Wonka has decided to allow five children to visit his factory. By finding a golden ticket inside a Wonka chocolate bar, five kids will have the adventure of a lifetime inside the legendary candy factory.

One of the children who prays for the opportunity to go to the factory is one Charlie Bucket (Freddie Highmore). Charlie lives in a ramshackle flat with an unintentional skylight above his bed. His bedridden grandparents (David Kelly, Liz Smith, David Morris, and Eileen Essell) take up most of the living room and we are never quite sure where Charlie's mom and dad (Helena Bonham Carter and Noah Taylor) sleep. Still the family is quite chipper given the circumstances.

Charlie, however, seems the least likely child to get the chance to capture a golden ticket. Charlie gets one chocolate bar a year on his birthday, essentially a one in a million chance. Things look especially hopeless after the first four tickets are discovered across the globe by over-privileged little brats who buy in bulk or crack the system for the chance at a ticket.

There is Veruca Salt (Julia Winter), a terribly spoiled little girl whose father (James Fox) gets her whatever she demands no matter what the price. Violet Beauregard (Annasophia Robb) is a vainglorious little brat whose mother also buys in bulk to get her daughter a ticket, despite the fact that neither actually eats chocolate. Augustus Gloop (Philip Weirgatz) is a plump little German boy who stumbled on his ticket only after taking a bite out of it. Finally we have a venal, little twit named Mike Teavee who discovers his ticket via the internet and his hacking abilities, one of many subtle updates of the source material.

Well of course Charlie Bucket does get his golden ticket and he and his Grandpa Joe (Kelly) are off to the mysterious factory where Joe once worked when it had employees. Inside is a magical world of wondrous candied delights. Mr. Wonka is a bit of a nutball-- an effete dilettante who, despite his child friendly products and his invitation to children to visit, doesn't seem to like children at all.

As the tour commences, the strange surroundings evolve into even stranger situations as one child after another falls victim to their excesses, each child disappearing with a Greek chorus of Wonka's new employees playing them off. These oddball new workers who have helped Willy restore the factory are Oompa Loompas, a tribe of identical individuals all played by the astonishingly deadpan actor Deep Roy.

The child actors are very well cast, especially young Freddie Highmore as Charlie. Highmore caught Mr. Depp's eye as one of the child cast of his Finding Neverland. Highmore was Oscar-worthy as the youngest of the children that inspired the writing of the children's classic Peter Pan in Finding Neverland. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, his bright, crooked smile and boundless enthusiasm is the perfect complement to Depp's weirdness and the loving and beautiful performance of David Kelly as Grandpa Joe.

Then there is the ethereal Deep Roy as all of the Oompa Loompas. A wonderful change from the creepy looking green elves of the 1971 film, Roy has a detached air that seems perfectly at home in the weird universe of Willy Wonka. The curious little song and dance routines of the Oompa Loompas that somehow match perfectly with the actions of what just occurred to their child subjects in the story are wildly entertaining and yet just a little creepy. Oscar nominated composer Danny Elfman wrote and sings each of the songs but it is Roy's dry, deadpan dance numbers that raise the music to hilarious comic levels.

Director Tim Burton disappointed slightly with his melodramatic fantasy Big Fish, but returns to artistic form with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a visual masterpiece like nothing Burton has ever created. It seems that having a good story to start with allowed Burton to focus all of his energies on creating a brand new universe for this well known story. His accomplishment is breathtaking in every detail and production designer Alex McDowell can begin prepping his acceptance speech.

Never having read Mr. Dahl's book I cannot speak to the faithfulness of Mr. Burton's film, though as I said earlier, Mr. Dahl's wife, Liccy, who is credited as producer on the film, claims he would have been pleased. We do know that Mr. Burton and screenwriter John August (Big Fish, Go) did add one subplot that may become an essential part of the Wonka lore.

Burton and August create a backstory for Willy Wonka, a glimpse of his childhood and what led a seemingly normal kid to build a strange and very unique candy paradise. The backstory includes a stellar cameo by the legendary Christopher Lee and deepens the character of Willy Wonka, taking us beyond his simple weirdness.

The essential element of making the character of Willy Wonka work is not on the page. Johnny Depp, in a performance that is as winning as his Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Carribean, creates a Willy Wonka that is earnest, deeply sincere and a little disturbed, but also quite savvy. His reasons for finally opening the factory to visitors are reasonable and intelligent with just a hint of overreaction. He has a sharp wit combined with the defensiveness of a small child. It is a multi-layered and wonderfully crafted performance.

While many critics lazily point out things they believe are inspired by the weirdness of Michael Jackson, a more active viewer will sense something far more original and brilliant. Completely at odds with the glib wittiness of Gene Wilder's take on the character, Mr. Depp takes the character in a direction that has more connection to his own Edward Scissorhands than with MJ or Mr. Wilder.

Charlie and The Chocolate Factory is a joy for children of all ages. Even diehard fans of 1971's Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory will not be able to deny the wonderful artistry of this re-imagining. There is talk of Burton adapting the Charlie sequel Charlie and The Great Glass Elevator. I'm normally not one to encourage a sequel but if it can be promised to be as brilliant as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory I will line up for my golden ticket right now.

Movie Review: A History of Violence Starring Viggo Mortensen

A History of Violence (2005) 

Directed by David Cronenberg 

Written by Josh Olson

Starring Viggo Mortenson, Maria Bello, Ed Harris

Release Date September 23rd, 2005 

Published September 23rd, 2005 

Streaming Rental through Amazon 

One unique trend in modern film is the connection between sex and violence. In thrillers and horror films these two disparate acts are often found at a crossroad. In horror; sex is punished, often with a bloody violent death, see Friday The 13th. In thrillers like Sin City sex and violence are married through characters. The prostitutes of Sin City are righteously violent vixens who mete out biblical justice when they aren't serving the few righteous citizens who prove worthy of their services.

In David Cronenberg's A History of Violence the sex-violence link is a little more murky. The sex is hardcore and the violence is bloody and excessive. There is no open link between sex and violence except that extreme forms of both are in the film. What in Cronenberg's mind links the two could be a philosophical circle of life, a birth and death connection. Or it could be that few things are more cinematically attention grabbing than sex and violence.

Whatever the reasoning, Cronenberg's A History Of Violence links sex and violence inside a thriller that never fails to titivate and fascinate.

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortenson) has achieved the American dream. Living in a small town in Indiana, Tom own's a diner, his wife Edie is a successful lawyer and their two kids, 16 year old Jack (Ashton Holmes) and 6 year old Sarah (Heidi Hayes) are healthy and thriving. The Stall family is the perfect Norman Rockwell idea of homey goodness.

Lurking beneath the surface of this small town paradise are some violent and dangerous secrets that come to life when two thugs show up in Tom's diner. We have seen these thugs in the opening of the film callously murder the operators of a small motel, now they have arrived at Tom's diner at closing time with the same ill intentions. In a scene that is stunningly violent and graphic, Tom manages to stop the thugs from robbing the diner and murdering his customers.

The violent nature of Tom's turning back these bad guys is overlooked by residents who are just thankful for Tom's heroism. However, when Tom's bravery makes the paper his violent acts and recognizable face draw the attention of people Tom may have been trying to forget. On the heels of Tom's heroic act, three more thuggish types arrive in town and at Tom's diner.

The leader of this group of bad guys is Carl Fogerty (Ed Harris) who claims to recognize Tom as a man named Joey who some years earlier disappeared from Philadelphia after having taken Fogerty's eye out with barbed wire. Tom incredulously explains that he doesn't know who Joey is and is eventually forced to call in the local sheriff (Peter MacNeill) to run Fogerty out of town. That doesn't work and eventually Tom is forced to face Fogerty at his home in front of his whole family.

While all of this drama with Fogerty is going on, tensions at home have amped up over Jack's sudden bursts of arrogance and violence. Being bullied at school, Jack finally retaliated and badly hurt one of the boys who had been harassing him. There is also tension between husband and wife over Fogerty's accusations and holes in Tom's past that he refuses or simply can't resolve. Fogerty confronting Edie in a shopping mall plants seeds of doubt in her mind that eventually leads Edie to believe her husband may not be who she thinks he is.

A History of Violence is a mystery and a thriller. Cronenberg deftly walks the line in teasing the identity of Tom and Joey, allowing for intriguing speculation and cathartic revelation. It's a difficult tightrope to walk and since this mystery plot isn't even Cronenberg's real subject, his skilled handling of it is that much more impressive.

In A History of Violence, David Cronenberg asks; is violence inevitable? Uncontrollable? Is it simply part of human nature? Cronenberg even wonders if violence is hereditary. Is it possible that because Tom is capable of so much violence that he has passed this genetic trait for violence to Jack? Geneticists have debated a violence gene but most feel it is often more nurture than nature. Man is inherently predisposed to certain forms of violence through evolution, the survival of the fittest, but the trait for a violent nature is not passed from one generation to the next through the genes.

Evolution and the survival of the fittest have been a favored subject of David Cronenberg for years. A History of Violence is yet another example of his fascination with the subject. The film displays a kill or be killed example of characters who show themselves to simply be superior in knowing how to survive. One character specifically demonstrates that he is the fittest of all.

Then there is the sex and violence I mentioned in my opening paragraphs. The sex and violence in A History of Violence are graphic and closely examined by Cronenberg's camera. The film opens with offscreen violence which we witness the aftermath of, large pools of blood and a pair of battered bodies, and a shocking finale that also takes place just offscreen, though is no less stunning for not having been seen.

The first sex scene between Tom and Edie begins right away with a bit of kink as Edie dresses the part of a cheerleader and Tom the captain of the football team waiting to take her virginity. The scene progresses to sex that is not often portrayed in a mainstream movie. The scene is not graphic per se, but it is surprisingly frank and revealing.

The violence once again erupts at Tom's diner when the thugs attempt the robbery. Tom defends himself and his customers with serious violence. First shooting one thug in the head, a scene in which Cronenberg captures this mans head exploding from the bullet impact in a vividly realistic flash cut. Tom then kills the other guy with a shot to heart that sends the thug flying through a window.

More scenes of violence proceed the films final sex scene which is completely opposite the tender, loving lovemaking of the first scene. After a major argument in which Edie wonders if Tom may really be Joey, Tom violently takes Edie on the stairs of the family home. The scene begins as a rape but soon an excited and very into it Edie begins to enjoy the violence. This is a highly controversial moment that Cronenberg couches as not being a comment on women and violence but as a comment on Edie's character and her own attraction to danger and the unknown. That's debatable, it's fair to say, many women will justifiably find this scene of violent sex hard to watch so be prepared.

What I really liked about A History of Violence is Cronenberg's depth and curiosity and his bravery in examining so many subjects inside one story. The film considers evolution, violence, sex, and genetics in a frank and intelligent manner. Cronenberg does not hold back at all. His violence is shocking, his sex is no holds barred and his mind is open to exploring; through these characters a wide variety of interesting topics.

There is also in A History Of Violence a smart mystery thriller plot. Is Tom really a mob thug named Joey? Does Edie know the truth? Who is this man Fogerty and who is this guy he works for who claims to be Joey/Tom's brother, played by Oscar nominee William Hurt? This thriller plot combined with Cronenberg's lively mind make a formidable movie.

A History of Violence can be written off as exploitative, but that is only if you look at the surface of the picture. Beneath the surface is a smart and always curious film in search of truths about human nature and our propensity for violence. Inside A History of Violence is a clever dissertation on the modern survival of the fittest.

We rarely acknowledge and certainly do not examine modern examples of the survival of the fittest and the various ways one human thrives ahead another. David Cronenberg is the rare person who is quite taken with this subject. A History of Violence, I believe, is just one of many examples of how Cronenberg has and will continue examining this fascinating and disturbing subject.

Movie Review: Brothers

Brothers (2009) 

Directed by Jim Sheridan 

Written by David Benioff 

Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Tobey Maguire, Natalie Portman, Sam Shepard, Clifton Collins Jr.

Release Date December 4th, 2009

Published January 10th, 2010

Streaming on Starz via Amazon Prime 

It's interesting how critics can disagree so thoroughly. When the movie Brothers was released in December of 2009 most critics praised the work of Tobey Maguire and touted him as an Oscar contender. When I considered the film I felt that Tobey Maguire's performance was the film's weakest link and that Jake Gyllenhaal was the standout.

Brothers arrives on DVD this week and you can weigh in on which actor you prefer or maybe you love them both. One thing is certain, while I have my reservations about Maguire's performance, this story of one brother thought lost in war and another finding himself in the company of family has moments of great power and deeply felt emotions.

Tommy Cahill (Jake Gyllenhaal) has long been the black sheep of his family. His father was a General (Sam Shepard) and his brother Sam (Tobey Maguire) has followed in dad's footsteps. While Tommy has bounced from job to job and finally a stint in prison, Sam joined the army, settled down with Grace (Natalie Portman) and had two beautiful daughters.

Despite their differences Tommy and Sam are close and Sam is there when Tommy gets out of prison. Soon after however he is off to war in Afghanistan leaving Tommy to try and reconnect with his family which because of strains with his dad is not easy and soon he is returning to some bad behaviors.

On a mission Sam's helicopter is shot down and he and another soldier are taken hostage. Grace is soon informed that her husband is dead. You likely know where this story is headed as Grace informs Tommy of his brothers seeming demise and the two begin to turn their mutual grief into a comforting romance that will become quite uncomfortable when Sam returns home.

Brothers was directed by the humanist director Jim Sheridan whose portraits of humanity In America and My Left Foot are filled such astonishing truth and beauty that it's no surprise they were mostly ignored by audiences though lauded by critics and awards givers. Sheridan's style focuses the action in the hearts and minds of tough, damaged characters and in Brothers that focus comes through in the remarkable work of Jake Gyllenhaal.

The actor once known as Bubble Boy continues to evolve into one of our finest actors and even when playing a role where he seems to have less range to play than his co-star he shines by so effortlessly bringing his inner turmoil to the surface with quiet dignity and not merely the grand gesture. 

Gyllenhaal's performance is illuminated next to the more showy and forceful performance of Tobey Maguire whose grandstanding shouting stand in for honest emotions and understanding. With far more range to play with from the trauma of war and perceived betrayal, Maguire fails to connect and simply falls back on scenery chewing. 

Natalie Portman is caught between the brothers and her performance is a little lost in the shuffle. Portman exudes pain and warmth in scenes with Gyllenhaal while cowering in fear in scenes with Maguire, Portman's performance struggles depending who she is sharing the screen with. 

Problems asides, Jim Sheridan's direction is masterful and the story evolves one powerful, emotional scene after another until it reaches exceptional climax. Gyllenhaal is MVP doing his best to ground the story in a believable emotional realm while Maguire overplays and Portman vacillates between the two extremes. 

Flawed but still moving, Brothers is worth renting for arguably the best performance in the career of Jake Gyllenhaal. Jake is making the big move to blockbusters in Prince of Persia this summer, here's hoping he brings the same strength he showed in Brothers to his first major blockbuster.

Movie Review: Armored

Armored (2009) 

Directed by Nimrod Antal

Written by James V. Simpson

Starring Matt Dillon, Columbus Short, Jean Reno, Laurence Fishburne, Skeet Ulrich

Release Date December 4th, 2009 

Published December 4th, 2009 

Streaming Rental via Amazon Prime 

Armored is the latest attempt by Hollywood to look engaged and aware of the current economic condition. At its center is a character making less than a living wage and about to lose his home and the desperate lengths he considers going to in order to save everything.

Columbus Short stars in Armored as Ty a former Iraq war veteran who returns home to a crumbling neighborhood and a teenage brother to take care of. The bank is looking to foreclose on Ty's house and the only job he can get is a part time gig as a guard working for an armored car company.

Ty's pal Mike (Matt Dillon) got him the job and does what he can to help him out. Mike has a plan, with the help of 4 other guards they will set up a robbery of their own trucks. 42 million dollars can go a long way toward solving Ty's problems but he only agrees to go along after a threat by child services to take his little brother away.

The plan comes off without a hitch, initially. Hiding the trucks in an abandoned industrial building the crew begins off-loading the cash when Baines (Laurence Fishburne) spots a homeless guy hiding in the building. He kills the guy and Ty realizes that things have gone too far. He locks himself in one of the trucks and sets off the alarm to try and draw attention. A cop (Milo Ventimiglia) does arrive and he too is shot. 

Ty makes an effort to save the cop and stop the bad guys and that is where Armored gets its juice. Directed by Nimrod Antal, Armored gets off to an exceptionally slow start but once it picks up some speed it gets pretty entertaining. Columbus Short is a likable actor who holds the screen well as well as our hero. Matt Dillon as the villain is backed up well  by Laurence Fishburne, Skeet Ulrich and Jean Reno.

As for how timely Armored is? The idea of a guy willing to rob an armored truck to save his house is more of a motivational conceit than a comment on our times. Armored isn't much related to our current economic conditions as it as a coincidence. This film has been made a few times before and could work just as well in a prosperous economy; there's always someone who’s struggling.

Armored is an old school action flick with good chase scenes, gunplay and a strong hero. Director Nimrod Antal takes a little while to get things going but the final act moves fast toward a satisfying action flick conclusion. If everything is tied up a little too neatly; call it a function of modern pop entertainment, modern audiences hate a down ending.

Movie Review: Avatar

Avatar (2009) 

Directed by James Cameron

Written by James Cameron

Starring Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez

Release Date December 18th, 2009 

Published December 18th, 2009 

Back in theaters September 23rd, 2022

Streaming Rental on Amazon Prime 

New generation tech in service of a Bush era mindset, W or HW, Avatar is James Cameron advancing film tech to a place no one has seen before while also a response to American imperialism as Cameron envisions it. The tech is phenomenal, the politics are so 2003. The story of Avatar begins just as James Cameron was crowning himself the King of the World. After his Titanic effort to bring an ocean set romance to screen, James Cameron surveyed the landscape of movies and saw that the form, as it was, could not capture his vision of his project.

So, the King of the World abdicated for several years, biding his time until movie technology caught up with his vision. After seeing Peter Jackson give life to Gollum in The Lord of the Rings Cameron finally saw something he could work with. Employing engineers and film geeks Cameron went to work advancing existing technology. That was 2006. Just about 3 years later, more than a decade after its conception, Avatar has arrived.

Sam Worthington stars in Avatar as Jake Sully a former Marine who was left in a wheelchair after a battle injury. Jake's troubles are increased with the death of his twin brother, a scientist who was to shove off for a very important mission. Since Jake has his brother's DNA he is capable of replacing him and does on a mission to a place called Pandora.

On Pandora Jake's new life will have him taking over an Avatar, a human hybrid of the planet's alien population called Na'vi. Jake's mind is transferred somehow into the body of a 10 foot, blue skinned, Na'vi warrior. He will use his Avatar to interact with the natives and convince them to move to another home, opening the way for an industrialist (Giovanni Ribisi) to move in and strip the area of a mineral called, I kind you not, Unobtainium. 

Jake's mission goes off course when he meets a sultry Na'vi princess named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). She brings him into the Na'vi inner circle after a sign from her god tells her Jake has an important role in the destiny of the Na'vi. Indeed he does; Jake will become a true warrior and a leader after he gives up his militaristic loyalty to his human masters.

No points for guessing that Jake and Neytiri fall happily into cross-species love. The story is eerily similar to Dances with Wolves, minus Kevin Costner's ludicrous facial hair. A soldier in a strange land falls in with the natives and switches sides. I'm not spoiling anything unless you have managed to miss every trailer, commercial or review of Avatar.

Even if you have been living under a rock James Cameron's exceptionally weak script does nothing to hide its twists and turns. The script mindlessly telegraphs its every plot machination and character choice. However, as every other critic in the world reminds us, the plot is meaningless when such wondrous visuals are offered.

There is no doubt about it James Cameron's remarkable dedication to new film technology has rendered a mesmerizing digital landscape unlike any ever before on screen. The characters are stunningly realistic; the landscapes are marvelous and wait till you see the battles between flying gun ships and Na'vi on flying lizard-like creatures. Cameron has even rendered 3D in a way that isn't clunky and unnecessary.

For many the visual delights of Avatar will be more than enough to sell them on the idea of Avatar as a great movie. And, I must admit, the tech is phenomenal. I, however, needed something more.

The story told in Avatar is dopey, derivative and features dialogue so awful as to have Michael Bay look down his nose. Expository dialogue, sometimes necessary, is mind numbingly repeated throughout Avatar. Worse still are the awkward attempts at humor, most of which are dated to around the time Cameron conceived of Avatar.

Even worse still is Mr. Cameron’s preachy, dated subtext about war and natives, 9/11 and terrorism. Cameron is not the first, merely the latest, to exploit 9/11 imagery in order to manipulate the audience. The visual reference to 9/11 is part of Cameron's throwback to the Bush era politique.

It's a rather scattershot bit of commentary that regurgitates liberal complaints about a war for oil, in this case 'Unobtainium,' and an American policy of pre-emptive war that could fairly be called imperialism. All well and good except that these are the complaints of yesteryear.

Is it Cameron's fault that the zeitgeist passed him by? No, but he has to take the lumps for being unable to adapt. He's made a criticism of a President who is gone in an era when a new President looks forward to ending the policies of the past. Whining about a war for oil (Unobtainium) is exceptionally passé.

The soldier going native is even more dated. Dances With Wolves is over 20 years old now. The battle between the American government and American Indians has inspired far better and far less preachy defenses of a native people defending their way of life.

Returning, however, to the main point of Avatar, the technology, you will see this movie because the tech is far too fabulous to be ignored. You really must see Avatar just to say that you have seen what everyone will be talking about in film culture until the next time Cameron revolutionizes the medium. Just be prepared to ignore everything other than the visual splendor.

Movie Review Invictus

Invictus (2009) 

Directed by Clint Eastwood 

Written by Anthony Peckham

Starring Matt Damon, Morgan Freeman, Scott Eastwood 

Release Date December 11th, 2009 

Published December 10th, 2009

Streaming Rental on Amazon Prime 

In 1994 the world heralded the ascendancy of Nelson Mandela to the Presidency of South Africa, just three years after his release from Robben Island Prison where he was a political prisoner for nearly 30 years. Mandela and the man who freed him, then President F.W De Klerk were awarded jointly the Nobel Peace Prize as the political system called Apartheid was brought to an end.

Outsiders were aware that Mandela's election was not without strife but how close Mandela came to losing his country to racial, civil war is a story stirringly brought to light for the first time on the big screen in Clint Eastwood's “Invictus.” On the surface you might assume Invictus is a sports movie, rugby after all takes a major role, but the real story is about a leader, a politician and a legend.

The Rugby World Cup was less than a decade old when it came to South Africa for the first time. It wasn't really to be all that notable for the South African national team known as Springboks, the team wasn't supposed to go far. Then something extraordinary happened. One afternoon the captain of the team, Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) received an invitation to tea with President Mandela.

It was at tea in the Presidential palace that Mandela asked for Pienaar's help in uniting the country. How could he do that? Win the Rugby World Cup. From there these two very different men were bound on a journey neither could have expected with Rugby becoming a unifying cause in a country on the verge of being torn apart forever.

Is that dramatic enough for you? Director Clint Eastwood's great achievement in “Invictus” is giving weight to Mandela's decision to make Rugby a political cause. In 1993-1994 Rugby remained a sport beloved only to whites. Mandela made the calculated decision to relate to the white population through Springboks, a decision not at all welcomed by black South Africans who had hoped the team and its green and yellow colors would be banished to history.

Pienaar's challenge is no less dramatic. Mandela made quite clear to Pienaar all that was at stake in this victory and what might happen if their gambit failed. Damon plays the conflict with humble determination. It's wonderfully subtle yet powerful work from the chameleonic Damon whose last role was a pudgy corn company executive.

As one might expect, Morgan Freeman perfectly embodies the man he has been destined to play, Nelson Mandela. As Roger Ebert and numerous others have pointed out, Freeman has been linked to a number of Mandela biopics over the years. Freeman has met and befriended Mandela and that pays off in “Invictus.” Freeman loses himself in Mandela's accent and manner from moment one, easily conveying the charm, savvy and cool of Mandela.

The real challenge for both Freeman and director Eastwood was not deifying Mandela. That has been the tendency of the handful of previous Mandela movies and they have mostly failed for it. Audiences generally agree with Mandela's greatness, his achievements speak for themselves, but the overly reverent approach puts audiences to sleep.

Freeman's take and Eastwood's direction focus on Mandela's humane charms. The soft voice, his frail health, Mandela suffered from exhaustion amongst other ailments from day one of his Presidency. These are not the outsized traits of a deity but the feel of a real, if exceptional, human being. Freeman's performance is so clever and charming that it may seem too small for some, especially those expecting something more sweeping and dramatic.

Sweeping, epic drama is not what you get in “Invictus.” This is not a film that pauses to marvel at its own dramatic importance. “Invictus” deepens and becomes important when we consider what Mandela and Pienaar accomplished. “Invictus” works by letting us weigh the historic importance while the movie focuses on the story at hand. It’s a remarkable work from a remarkable group of filmmakers and one of the best films of 2009.

Column The Best Sequence in Hereditary

Hereditary (2018) 

Directed by Ari Aster 

Written by Ari Aster 

The Best Sequence in Hereditary 

The big death scene in Hereditary is the best scene in any movie in 2018. This article is about to go into great detail about this scene so if you have not seen Hereditary, which I feel is the best movie of 2018, you should stop reading after this introductory paragraph and come back after you have watched Ari Aster’s remarkable, debut masterpiece. This article will openly reveal a pivotal and shocking death of one of the main characters in Hereditary. 

A primer: Hereditary stars Toni Collette as Annie, an artist and stay at home mother. Annie crafts elaborate models of daily scenes from her home life, from the seemingly mundane, to the funeral of her recently deceased mother. Annie’s mother has recently died as the story begins but Annie is strangely lacking in profound emotion. Annie’s husband, Steve (Gabriel Byrne), is dutiful and supportive. While Annie and Steve’s son, Peter (Alex Wolff), is a typically aloof and above it all teenager. 

Daughter Charlie (Milly Shapiro), however, appears to take her grandmother’s passing far harder than anyone else. Her emotion is not outward, per se, Charlie is a special needs child though the film is vague on her exact condition. Charlie expresses her grief in odd behaviors that include a disturbing fascination with a dead bird which she finds at school and brings home. What she does with the bird from there you can discover in the film. It’s a terrifying visual detail that pays off in terrific horror. 

Our scene is set when Peter wants to go to a party and his mother instructs him to take Charlie to the party with him. While Peter is off getting high at the party, Charlie has a piece of cake, unaware that the cake has nuts and she has an allergic reaction. As a paranoid and terrified Peter rushes Charlie to the hospital, Charlie struggles to breath and eventually leans her head out of the car window to get more air. 

An out of control Peter nearly crashes the car into a telephone pole but as he swerves to miss it, Charlie’s head strikes the pole and is taken completely off. Director Ari Aster never shows us what happened to Charlie. There is no outward gore in the scene. Instead, in a masterful, and far more terrifying move, Aster keeps the camera on Peter as the tragedy that has just taken place slowly dawns on him. 

A shocked Peter stays in the car, afraid to look behind him and confirm what has taken place. He lingers for some time before finally putting the car in gear and beginning to slowly drive away from the scene, a lonely, empty, highway not far from his family home but far enough from any city to remain empty for some time. Peter drives home and the only time Aster leaves Alex Wolff’s stunned face is to establish as Peter pulls into the family driveway, gets out of the car as if lost in a fugue state and wanders inside. 

We return to Peter’s incomprehensibly stunned face as he climbs into bed and lies there for hours unable to sleep and unable to remain awake to the terror that has befallen him. We sit with Alex as the night passes into morning. We stay on Alex’s face as the house comes alive with the sound of Alex’s parents rising and beginning their day. The camera never cuts away from Alex, the terror that is about to unfold is mostly in sound design and scraps of mundane dialogue. 

Annie and Steve call out for Charlie and Peter to come to breakfast. Annie begins to worry where Charlie is. She calls for her. She begins to go to the door, we hear only her footsteps and the sound of the front door opening, we’re still on Alex’s profoundly horrified and paralyzed face. The door opens, we hear the crunch of Annie’s footsteps on the rocks in the driveway, we hear her approach the car and finally, we hear a blood curdling scream before we finally cut away. 

Great directing is about choices and the choices that Ari Aster makes in this moment to stick closely to the face of actor Alex Wolff is a daring and ingenious choice. The horror of the moment can hardly match the horror of what we assume this moment looks like in reality. Our imagination fills in the horror and because we care for Peter, our horror is magnified by a deep and stomach churning empathy. 

This, for me, is among the finest pieces of direction I have ever seen in a horror or genre movie and really, among any kind of movie. It’s a relatively simple manipulation of our collective imagination and yet many directors would ruin it by trying to shock us with horror visuals. Aster knows that our imagination of this moment is more powerful than mere gore. Besides, the rest of the movie has plenty of gore to satisfy that part of our genre hunger.  

Movie Review Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Pt 2

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2 (2011) 

Directed by David Yates 

Written by Steve Kloves 

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Robbie Coltrane, Warwick Davis 

Release Date July 15th, 2011 

Published July 14th, 2011 

Streaming at BravoTV.com 

An epic end to an epic franchise; "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2" brought to close one of the most remarkable film series ever crafted. Over seven films we have watched three young actors give glorious life to three extraordinary characters; characters who will go down in cinema history for their impact on the box office and our popular culture.

Where Were We?

When last we left Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), in "Deathly Hallows Pt. 1," our heroic boy wizard had buried his late friend Dobby. Meanwhile, the evil Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) had discovered Dumbledore's crypt and taken possession of the deadly Elder Wand, one of the three Deathly Hallows.

The action of "Deathly Hallows Pt. 2" picks up with Harry confronting a goblin and coaxing him into leading him and Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) into Gringotts Bank. There, they hope to enter a vault belonging to the villainous Bellatrix LeStrange (Helena Bonham Carter) where one of Lord Voldemort's Horcruxes is being held.

What's a Horcrux Again?

A horcrux, for those unaware, is a piece of Voldemort's soul hidden in mundane form. Harry, Ron and Hermione have spent much of the past two films seeking several of these Horcrux and gone about destroying them. In the process they have weakened Voldemort but also made him angrier and ever more dangerous.

Our heroes believe that the final Horcrux resides at their old home, Hogwarts. This belief leads to a risky return to the school and a rendezvous with a few old friends who will play key roles in helping Harry in his final confrontation with He Who Shall Not Be Named. You really have to love the portentous language of the Potter Universe. In "Deathly Hallows Pt. 2" keep an ear open for the first time a character actually uses Voldemort's name, the reaction is priceless.

Movie vs. Book

I will go no further in talking about the plot as spoilers come far too easily. I will tell you that fans I watched the film with told me that book fans will be surprised and saddened by several of director David Yates's choices. Yates cut "Deathly Hallows Pt. 2" to the bone making it the shortest film of the series. In the process a few beloved scenes from the book have been excised and others have been shortened for time.

Fans I saw the film with were not angry about the changes from the book so don't expect to be too disappointed Potter-ites. Indeed, I don't believe anyone will walk away from "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2" disappointed. Director David Yates has done a masterful job of delivering adventure, excitement and pathos in heavy portions.

Powerful Emotional Punch

Thanks to the remarkable performances of Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint fans of the Harry Potter series will be left breathless one moment, elated the next and likely will have shed a few tears along the way. "Deathly Hallows Pt. 2" delivers more than a few really powerful emotional punches. I was particularly moved by one character's long time unrequited love.

For me, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2" is a perfect close to this epic series which thankfully has not overstayed its welcome. Yes, the series threatened to hang on too long but credit David Yates, screenwriter Steve Kloves, and this wonderful cast for helping to keep us patient and invested in this now decade long film series. Their remarkable hard work has made this final Potter adventure the best of the series.

Movie Review Horrible Bosses 2

Horrible Bosses 2 (2014) 

Directed by Sean Anders

Written by Sean Anders, John Morris 

Starring Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis, Jennifer Aniston, Jamie Foxx, Chris Pine 

Release Date November 26th, 2014 

Published November 25th, 2014

Streaming on HBO Max 

“Horrible Bosses 2″ is a strange experience. While it was happening I laughed and it seemed to be working. I step away from it however,  and time is unkind. “Horrible Bosses 2″ unravels like a homemade Christmas sweater when placed under a critical eye.

Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day are back in the roles of Nick, Curt and Dale and out from under the yoke of their horrible bosses that they attempted to kill in the 2011 original. Striking out on their own they have an invention that they hope will make them their own Bosses. Unfortunately, though the product does attract financiers, our heroes’ business instincts leave them in the hole and forced once again to extreme measures.

2 time Academy Award winner Christoph Waltz is the big bad Boss this time who quickly hoodwinks the trio out of their invention. Waltz’s Bert Hanson takes little time outwitting our heroes leading to the scheme that is the center point of the film: kidnapping Hanson’s son Rex (Chris Pine) in hopes to score enough ransom to save the company and the dream of not having a boss.

Starring Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, Charlie Day, Jamie Foxx, Chris Pine, Jennifer Aniston and Christoph Waltz

Energy is the main reason why “Horrible Bosses 2″ works in the moment but does not sustain itself in memory. The laughs that the film generates come from the immediate energy with which Bateman, Sudeikis, Day and Pine interact. Each segment of “Horrible Bosses 2″ plays out the same way: a scene begins with one character introducing a plot point and then the other actors riff on it until things get loud enough for Bateman to throw cold water on the whole thing as the straight man.

Scene after scene in “Horrible Bosses 2″ plays out in the exact same fashion and eventually the law of diminishing returns kicks in. As a change up, the third act turns nasty with an unexpected murder and the return to the plot of Jennifer Aniston’s sexpot and Jamie Foxx’s hustler each to lesser levels of excitement and humor.

I’m being hard on “Horrible Bosses 2″ and yet I really did laugh a lot during the movie. Bateman, Sudeikis and Day can’t help but be funny together and the obvious freedom they have to invent their dialogue allows them to bounce off each other in the colorful and familiar fashion of real friends.

Those interactions however, even as they are funny in the moment, don’t have a lasting quality. Nothing about “Horrible Bosses 2″ resonates long after you see it. The energy of the moment dissipates quickly after the movie ends and what remains is the vague memory of laughs and some of the nastier parts of the plot that failed to enhance the humor.

Essay On the Female Characters in John Wick

On the Female Characters in John Wick 

John Wick (2014) 

Directed by Chad Stahelski 

Written by Derek Kolstad 

Starring Keanu Reeves, Adrienne Palicki, Bridget Moynahan, Bridget Regan

There is an aspect of John Wick that has been nagging at me and that is the treatment of women in the film. The movie isn’t openly hostile to women but you can definitely sense that every person involved in the creation of the story was a man.

Two female characters exist in John Wick, three if you want to count women with dialogue, an extra has a line that could fit this discussion later. The first is John Wick’s wife, Helen, played by Bridget Moynihan. Helen is the driving force for John to abandon his profession as a professional killer and settle into suburban life in New Jersey.

Essentially, she exists to make John less of a man because she forces him to give up who he is, and while she’s not portrayed as anything of a harridan, he gave up his life as a killer quite willingly, it’s clear by how quickly and ferociously he returns to killing that she had attempt to rob him of his very essence, who he truly was. This is a common fear among weak men that women are constantly attempting to change them.

The second woman in the story is Ms. Perkins, played by Adrienne Palicki, Ms. Perkins is a particularly egregious creation because she’s hyper-sexualized and yet she’s supposed to be one of the boys, a fellow killer. If however, she were truly one of the boys would she have made such a clumsy and flawed attempt at killing John Wick.

Ms. Perkins is also portrayed as greedy, a classic, cliched, narcissistic male portrait of women. Ms. Perkins willingly flogs the rules of The Continental, a hotel for killers with rules specifying that no killing can be done on the grounds of the hotel, a rule that has seemingly held for years until Ms. Perkins broke the rules to satisfy her greedy pursuit of the 4 million dollar bounty on John’s head.

Spoiler Alert:

Ms. Perkins meets her end in John Wick with a sizable level of overkill. After betraying and killing Willem Dafoe’s John Wick ally, Ms. Perkins is called to return to The Continental. She arrives in a stylishly lit park area where she is ushered into the center and informed that she can never return to The Continental. The warning however, does not suffice, as four large men emerge from the shadows forming a box on all sides of her. She is then shot from all angles.

Being that she is the only LIVING female in the movie, essentially the female lead, a better movie might have allowed her fate to have some narrative necessity, instead she is used as a prop in a secondary story and then discarded like trash, literally, a mythic crime scene clean up crew, seen earlier in the film at John Wick’s home to retrieve the body’s of oodles of dead, faceless henchmen, arrive to sweep her away like trash after sporting event.

So, Ms. Perkins, (I can’t stress this enough) the only LIVING, female character in the movie ends the film as just another faceless goon. This after she had made her clumsy, faltering, greedy attempt to kill John Wick, a task she, of course, failed at. And don’t think I have forgotten her efficient killing of a random fellow hitman at the hotel. That scene does not demonstrate her competence as a killer, it demonstrates that she is simply, and purely evil. Being that she is the lone woman in the movie what does that say about the film’s opinion of women?

I briefly mentioned a third female type in John Wick and that woman is a bartender at the bar in the basement of The Continental. Her name is Addy and she is played by a very beautiful actress named Bridget Regan. Addy only has one scene and it’s not a very important one. She exists to build the cult of John Wick. She functions as a John Wick fangirl, fawning over his return to the world of killers. Now, there was certainly little time for the movie to give Addy much weight or presence, but she does demonstrate a lack of imagination on the part of the filmmakers to cast a woman in the role of the fawning fan. That lack of imagination however, extends to the entire film’s roster of female characters.

So what is the point of this essay? Do I not like John Wick because of the treatment of women in the film? A little, if I’m being completely honest. I noticed the film’s attitude toward women which certainly says something about how the film treats women. I’m sure there are many other examples of films with anti-female attitudes but it really stuck out John Wick and it does effect how I feel about the film.

In my podcast, I Hate Critics you will hear me praise John Wick for its dark wit and well choreographed action and the exceptional level of detail given to sidelights like The Continental or the cleaning crew. All of that praise is true, I loved those aspects along with the performance of Michael Nyqvist as the lead bad guy, and Alfie Allen as the bad guy’s son, the character who’s actions bring John Wick back to the world of killers. I also liked Keanu Reeves whose least interesting qualities are hidden behind the film’s well portrayed action and propulsive plotting.

It wasn’t until further reflection and the reading of a feminist essay on a completely different movie, that I thought to consider my reservations about the way women were portrayed in John Wick and my appreciation of the film morphed into something I now feel slightly guilty about.

These thoughts on John Wick may, in fact, lead to further investigation of the way women have been portrayed in recent Hollywood features. This isn’t the first time I’ve had these thoughts this year, a year in which it seems as if roles for women have been greatly diminished.