Documentary Review Lost in La Mancha

Lost in La Mancha (2002) 

Directed by Terry Gilliam 

Written by Documentary 

Starring Terry Gilliam, Johnny Depp, Jean Rochefort

Release Date August 30th, 2002 

Published September 25th, 2002 

It's said to be the project that consumed Orson Welles. The dream project of directors as far back as the dawn of cinema. The legend of Don Quixote, the Man of La Mancha. The legendary novel by Miguel De Cervantes has been adapted as a musical, a ballet, and a straight retelling on TV starring John Lithgow as Quixote. But it was Terry Gilliam who had the grand vision of a theatrical Don Quixote. For more than 10 years he had the story in his head, and with the right cast, budget and location it looked like his vision might come about. As the documentary Lost In La Mancha details, Gilliam had the vision, but vision and reality can collide in the most all consuming ways.

In August of 2000, Terry Gilliam arrived in Spain to begin pre-production on The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, his grand reimagining of The Man From La Mancha. With a budget of $38 million, all raised from foreign investors, the film would be entirely non-Hollywood and the largest European financed film ever. However with Gilliam's unique vision, it was also about half the money the production needed.

Production pressed on with costumes, sets and location scouting as problems emerged. One problem, the film had no stars. Though Johnny Depp and French actor Jean Rochefort had signed contracts, neither actor had found time to come to Spain for rehearsal. A bigger problem loomed with actress Vinessa Paradis who had verbally agreed to play the female lead. She had not signed a contract for some two weeks until shooting was to begin.

In Gilliam's story, Johnny Depp played Toby, a man who by some quirk is sent back to the time of Don Quixote who then mistakes him for his colleague Sancho Panza. Toby joins Quixote for a uniquely Terry Gilliam adventure through the book’s many wildly romantic adventures, tilting at windmills and such. It certainly sounds fascinating on the page, and with Gilliam's visionary resume (Brazil, Fear and Loathing Las Vegas and The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen), it was certain to be like no retelling of the legendary story ever.

Early on, even as shooting began, the clouds of doom hung over the production. Sometimes literally clouds hung over as a massive thunderstorm washed out two full days of shooting. The film's biggest tragedy however wasn't strikes from Mother Nature. Seventy year old Jean Rochefort, who was Gilliam's ideal choice for Quixote, who had taken 7 months to learn English for the film, fell ill. Before shooting began, Rochefort had a scare with a severe prostate problem. Once shooting began, the problem was made worse by the requirement that Rochefort ride a horse. As it turns out, Rochefort had two herniated discs in his lower back, which prevented him from riding a horse.

Because Rochefort was signed as a principal cast member, insurance contracts prevented the role from being recast without shutting down the production. Shut down the production and you lose your investors. You can't make Don Quixote without Don Quixote and so despite the visionary director and his talented crew The Man Who Killed Don Quixote was repossessed by the insurance company where it remains in limbo.

The story is somewhat small for a big screen rendition, essentially boiling down to a battle with an insurance company who aren't portrayed as bad guys, merely as realistic businessmen. The film’s foreign producers, Bernard Bouix and Rene Cleitman, are also not the bad guys, though somewhat unrealistic in their expectations of the production. They nevertheless seemed to have the best interest of the film at heart.

The one element that makes Lost in La Mancha a fascinating story is Gilliam. The few scenes where the visionary filmmaker is actually working are mesmerizing. Gilliam clearly has an amazing idea he wants to communicate. The film he wants to make would no doubt be brilliant if he could realize it.

Much like Orson Welles, whose vision of Quixote never made it to the screen (His was completed by another filmmaker after his death but not to Welles' specifications); the outsized romanticism of the project eluded Gilliam. Though if the elements could just come together as he sees them in his head, you know from Lost in La Mancha that it could be brilliant.

Movie Review Lost in Translation

Lost in Translation (2003) 

Directed by Sophia Coppola 

Written by Sophia Coppola 

Starring Scarlett Johansson, Bill Murray, Giovanni Ribisi, Anna Faris

Release Date September 12th, 2003 

Published September 12th, 2003 

Subtlety, a lost art. In the age of Austin Powers and Scary Movie, some would say it's not lost but dead. Before we pass such a judgment though, I would urge you to see Lost In Translation, a subtle, humorous meditation on alienation and intimacy between two strangers in a strange land.

Bill Murray stars in Lost In Translation as Bob Harris, an aging movie star arriving in Japan to shoot a liquor commercial. Staying in the same hotel is Charlotte (Scarlett Johannsen), the wife of a photographer (Giovanni Ribisi) who's work leaves her to roam the foreign country alone. As both Bob and Charlotte wallow in their loneliness and alienation they find each other in the hotel bar and commiserate over being the only English speakers in the room.

It's unclear whether Charlotte recognizes Bob the movie star, but she seems to immediately know Bob the person. Their connection happens quickly but not in the sexual way of most movies. It is an intellectual connection between two smart sardonic people who bond over conversation not carnality.

The plot description for Lost in Translation is difficult because of it's pseudo verite style. In almost documentary fashion we watch these two characters bond over their mutual intelligence and isolation. Director Sophia Coppola does a spectacular job of drawing the audience into a story that is essentially a series of conversations and gestures. It's remarkably absorbing.

Coppola also wrote the smart witty script and then went out and got two terrific actors to interpret it. Bill Murray has never been better. He's always had a terrific slow comic burn but here he doesn't lapse into schtick, he simply accepts the various indignities and we sympathize with him rather than laugh at his reactions. Johannsen, only 19 years old, is Murray's equal in every scene. Showing intelligence beyond her years, she is as smart as she is attractive.

This is a second brilliant outing for writer-director Sophia Coppola and as much as I loved her first film, The Virgin Suicides, I loved Lost In Translation even more. Coppola is not only a talented writer, she has a terrific directorial eye that is very subtle but definitely true. There are a number of terrific visuals in Lost In Translation with equal credit going to Coppola and Cinematographer Lance Acord.

This is a truly remarkable film. Smart, funny, sweet and beautiful. Believe the hype about this one, it's truly one of the best films of the year.

Movie Review Narc

Narc (2002) 

Directed by Joe Carnahan 

Written by Joe Carnahan 

Starring Ray Liotta, Jason Patric, Busta Rhymes, Chi McBride

Release Date January 10th, 2002

Published January 12th, 2002 

We have seen it dozens of times, movies about rogue cops who break all the rules to get the job done. Every actor in the world has played this role from Pacino and DeNiro to Scwarzenegger and Stallone. So what is it about Ray Liotta and Jason Patric in Narc that takes this overused concept and makes it fresh and intense? I'm not exactly sure, but Director Joe Carnahan taps into something that makes Narc a kinetic, high energy drama.

Jason Patric stars as Nick Tellis, an undercover narcotics officer. When we meet Nick for the first time he is chasing a drug dealer through the streets, frantically firing his weapon as the druggy uses a pair of drug needles as weapons on unsuspecting passers by. The confrontation comes to a head in a park where the junkie takes a small boy hostage holding a drug needle to the boy's throat. With little forethought Nick fires three shots, shooting the junkie in the head and saving the little boy. Unfortunately one of the other two bullets Nick fired hit a pregnant woman and killed her unborn child.

Cut to 15 months later, Nick sits in front of a review board rehashing the incident. Nick is under the impression that the meeting is simply to determine whether he gets his job back or not. In reality the meeting is to determine whether or not he will accept an assignment to a particular case, the murder of an undercover police officer. The outcome of this investigation will determine whether or not he gets his job back or not.

Reluctantly, Nick agrees to the assignment and is partnered with the dead cop's partner, Henry Oak (Ray Liotta). Oak is the typical movie cop, a hothead who breaks all the rules and always gets his man. The two men don't get along well, but share a mutual respect that allows them to work together. They also share a willingness to bend the rules, which they do frequently as their investigation progresses.

The film's conclusion is somewhat predictable but somehow writer-director Joe Carnahan rises above the clichés and predictability to make a pretty good cop movie. It all hinges on the performances of Patric and Liotta. The believability of these two great actors combined with Carnahan's awesome handheld camerawork gives Narc an immediacy and purpose that lends suspense to the predictable.

The film isn't a mystery, any intelligent moviegoer knows where this story is going but we accept that because both Patric and Liotta are so endlessly watchable. As Liotta's brutal cop allows his motives to become clear you see the disillusionment that most cops must feel when they get into this violent and harrowing profession. Combine the rigors of the job and a deep personal loss and you begin to understand if not sympathize with his violent rule breaking approach. As for Patric, few actors have played cops so well fleshed out. Nick Tellis shares the same disillusionment as Liotta's Oak, he shares the same penchant for crossing the line between cop and criminal. They are separated only by moments in time.

The film's ending is a kick in the gut finisher that leaves the audience in a daze and makes you rethink everything you had seen before it. Everything leading up to the end is typical, cop movie suspense stuff, made watchable by great acting and unique camerawork. But the ending belongs to Carnahan who also penned the script. Forget what you hate about cop movies and forget what you think you know about Narc. This is a shocking brutal crime movie with a serious kick.

Movie Review: Tropic Thunder

Tropic Thunder (2008) 

Directed by Ben Stiller 

Written by Ben Stiller Justin Theroux, Etan Cohen 

Starring Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr, Steve Coogan, Jack Black, Nick Nolte, Danny McBride

Release Date August 13th, 2008 

Published August 12th, 2008

Ben Stiller may seem all mild mannered and inoffensive but he has a rather pronounced dark side when he wants to. It came out when he played Jerry Stahl in Permanent Midnight. And that dark side was unfortunately on display in his ugly direction of The Cable Guy. But it is not until now, with the release of the savage Hollywood parody Tropic Thunder that we finally see Stiller at his darkest. Sending up full of themselves actors, greedy agents, and maniacal studio heads, Stiller pulls no punches and lands frequent, hilarious, body blows.

In Tropic Thunder Ben Stiller writes, directs and even stars as action movie legend Tugg Speedman. The star of the over-ripe action series Scorcher, Tugg's star is fading and he is craving the respect that only Oscar can bring. That is why he chose to star in Simple Jack, the story of a severely mentally challenged farm worker. The role was universally derided.

Speedman was lucky to land a role in Tropic Thunder a Vietnam book adaptation with an all star cast and Oscar written all over it. Sort of. The film has the gravitas of a Vietnam story but it also has a first time director (Steve Coogan), an inexperienced crew, and an out of control budget. And then there are his co-stars.

Jeff Portnoy is the star of the comedy franchise The Fatties in which he plays every character and every joke is a fart joke. Portnoy also happens to have a wicked heroin addiction to complete the package. Kirk Lazarus is a completely different kind of problem child. A multiple Oscar-Emmy-Golden Globe award winner, Lazarus is legendary for immersing himself so deeply in a role that he loses himself.

Once, after portraying astronaut Neil Armstrong, he was found in dumpster attempting to fly it to the moon. For Tropic Thunder Lazarus has undergone a medical procedure to dye his skin so he can play an African American Sgt. The cast is rounded out by a rapper named Alpa Chino (Brandon Jackson, read the name again if you didn't get it the first time), and a first time actor named Kevin (JayBaruchel).

Together the cast is such a pain in the ass that the director finally decides he has to change the whole production. At the urging of the writer of the book, a nutball vet nicknamed Four Leaf (Nick Nolte, in full Nick Nolte mode), the director is taking the cast into the real jungles of Vietnam where they will shoot the movie guerilla style with handheld and hidden cameras with real explosions, provided by an inexperienced tech guy (Danny  McBride) with an itchy trigger finger.

Unfortunately, not long after arriving in the jungle, the director goes missing and the cast is engaged by real life inhabitants of this jungle setting, drug smugglers who mistake them for DEA agents. Now the cast is involved in a real war only they don't know it.

Ben Stiller tapped out the script for Tropic Thunder with his pal Justin Theroux and they hold back nothing in demonstrating the self involved nature of most actors, directors and studio people. The studio head in Tropic Thunder is an especially delicious parody, of whom only Stiller and Theroux know for sure. Played by an unrecognizable Tom Cruise, the studio head is a maniac with a penchant for Diet Coke and hip hop dancing.

Cruise has never been this unrestrained and balls out hilarious. He bites into this role with the same verve and vitriol that he brought to his misogynists' guru in 1999's Magnolia and it's a contest to tell which character required more swearing.

Tropic Thunder is loud, violent, stupid and offensive. It's also, arguably, the funniest movie of 2008. If you can put aside the controversies, you are going to laugh a lot at this most deserving beatdown of Hollywood imagemakers. There are jokes in Tropic Thunder that are intended to make you uncomfortable or even angry and yet, you often can't help but laugh at just how outland and bold these jokes are. I don't want to here the R-word slur toward the mentally handicapped but it is hard to deny, in the context of Tropic Thunder, it's use apt and very, very funny. I'm deeply ashamed at laughing as hard as I did, but I did laugh. 

As for Robert Downey in blackface... well..... I was sure this would be the most controversial element of Tropic Thunder. Fortunately, Stiller and Theroux do try to defuse the situation with Brandon Jackson's Alpa Chino character calling out the blatant and disgusting racism at play. Meanwhile, Downey Jr himself does well to make sure Kurt Lazarus has few redeeming qualities, he's clearly a terrible person. The movie is hard on Hollywood by being hard on these characters who represent elements of the Hollywood in need of a serious punch in the gut. Downey's shots at the pretentious Method Actor, are terrifically, savagely funny.

Delivering unto the Hollywood elite the smackdown they so desperately deserve, Tropic Thunder is the rare Hollywood satire to throw punches and actually land a few. The public generally isn't interested in Hollywood talking about itself, even when it is being self critical, but with Tropic Thunder comes a Hollywood self examination that comes with big laughs that don't require you to have read obscure tomes about Hollywood legends and bastards.

Movie Review Why Him?

Why Him? (2016) 

Directed by John Hamburg 

Written by John Hamburg, Ian Helfer 

Starring James Franco, Bryan Cranston, Megan Mullally, Zoey Deutsch, Griffin Gluck 

Release Date December 23rd, 2016 

Published December 22nd, 2016

Why Him(?) is an ungainly, awkward, mess of a movie. The film stars James Franco as one of the most off-putting characters ever brought to the screen, a tech billionaire named Laird who has no concept of how normal people interact. This could be a funny idea, the super-rich can tend to lose connection to the concerns and proprieties of the common man, but, Franco's performance isn’t merely that of a charmingly out of touch kook, but rather a genuinely out of sorts sociopath played as a comic creation.

Bryan Cranston co-stars with Franco in Why Him(?) and is apparently trying to create a character just as annoying as his co-star. Cranston is Ned Fleming, the father of Stephanie (Zoey Deutsch) who has gone off to college in Silicon Valley and fallen madly in love with Laird. Stephanie has invited the whole family, including her mother, Barb (Megan Mullally), and brother Scottie (Griffin Gluck), to fly to California from their home in Michigan to spend the holidays with her and Laird who they will meet for the very first time.

Laird's shtick is that he says everything that comes into his head with no filter. He curses to a degree that would shame Melissa McCarthy and is so incredibly disconnected from everyday small talk that he has no problem discussing sex with his clearly offended future in-laws. Even as everyone around him is clearly offended and uncomfortable with Laird's behavior he is completely oblivious and somehow this is supposed to be funny. It's not, it's just hard to watch.

For his part, Cranston plays Ned as a joyless crank. He’s miserable from the moment he arrives in California from Michigan and remains miserable through the films forced and predictable finale. So, Ned is a miserable character with no sense of humor, no jokes to leaven his miserable premise and the most that Cranston can seem to do with the character is physical shtick that is more like watching someone amid a mental breakdown than someone attempting physical humor. Cranston gesticulates and tenses every muscle and spits every line of dialogue and never once does something funny.

The supporting players in Why Him(?) come away far better off than the leads. Megan Mullally, a veteran of TV sitcoms, seems to know just where to pick her spots for her few jokes, while poor Zoey Deutsch spends most of her time trying to dodge the two leads whose gesticulations as they strain for every joke had to be rather dangerous for any co-star who wandered too closely. Keegan Michael Key, playing Franco's oddball, German accented, assistant Gustav, at the very least could fight back. His running gag is randomly attacking Laird as a way of developing his self-defense, a joke that falls flat, especially once Cranston begins trying to explain it.

Why Him(?) is completely derailed by a pair of lead performances that could not possibly be less appealing. The fact that both Cranston and Franco are former Academy Award nominees only compounds the problem. We know these two actors are better than this awful material and watching them act down to this garbage idea is just depressing.

I blame Director John Hamburg for most of the problems with Why Him(?). Having allowed his actors to do a great deal of improvisation, at least I assume that was improv, otherwise there is an editor who needs to find a new profession, Hamburg created the sloppy, slapdash environment that lead to this mess. Even worse, Hamburg fills out the awfulness by relying on bathroom humor with toilets and urine playing significant roles in the film.

What is it with John Hamburg and bathrooms? Bathroom issues have figured prominently in his humor in most of his movies from the cat that could flush a toilet in Meet the Parents to Ben Stiller's irritable bowels in Along Comes Polly to the fart jokes of Hamburg's one good movie, I Love You Man, Hamburg seems either obsessed with bathrooms or he's merely childish and lazy. Toilets figure prominently throughout Why Him(?) which ends with a post-credits scene all about toilets with pictures of people using the toilet. Ewww. 

At the very least toilets are an apt metaphor for Why Him(?). This movie needs to be flushed.

Movie Review Assassin's Creed

Assassin's Creed (2016) 

Directed by Justin Kurzel 

Written by Michael Lesslie, Adam Cooper, Bill Collage

Starring Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Charlotte Rampling

Release Date December 21st, 2016 

Published December 20th, 2016

I cannot win with this review. I can, in my mind, already hear the voices of those who say that because I don’t like videogames I cannot appreciate a videogame movie. Then there are those who will recall the number of times I have decried the videogame movie subgenre and will also claim I went into “Assassin’s Creed” with bias. My only response to these spectral voices is believe whatever you want, Assassin’s Creed is simply not a very good movie, videogame adaptation or otherwise.

Michael Fassbender stars in “Assassin’s Creed” as Callum Lynch, the son of a murdered mother and a murderer father who grows up to be a killer himself. We meet the adult Callum on the day he is to be executed for what we can only assume was some sort of murder spree. The execution however, does not take and Callum wakes up in Spain where he’s been kidnapped by the Knights Templar who plan to hook Callum to a machine that can access the memories of his ancestors (just go with it).

Callum’s ancestors were members of an ancient order of Assassins known as the Creed. The Creed were created to battle the Knights Templar and specifically keep the Knights from getting their hands on The Apple, literally the apple taken from the tree knowledge in the Garden of Eden. For the reasons of the plot the Apple has the power to remove free will from the world and grant the Knights Templar the power to enslave humanity.

Through his time in the machine, called the Animus, Callum will learn the story of the Creed and will polish his assassin skills. Will he use those skills to continue his family legacy? Yeah, probably, the Knights Templar are obviously the bad guys here. Nevertheless, I will leave some mystery for you to discover if you choose to subject yourself to “Assassin’s Creed,” though I do not recommend that you do that.

“Assassin’s Creed” is a forgettable bad movie, not one that will leave much of any lasting impression. Michael Fassbender and co-stars Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons and Michael K. Williams are all professionals who give life to the material even if it proves unworthy of the effort. Fassbender is a physical specimen whose glower certainly can petrify an enemy but he’s at a loss to overcome the CGI splattered all around him in messy edits that render every frame of “Assassin’s Creed” a minor eyesore.

“Assassin’s Creed” comes from Director Justin Kurzel whose adaptation of “MacBeth,” yes that “Macbeth,” also starred Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard and was similarly an eyesore. At least his “MacBeth” has ambition, Kurzel’s “Assassin’s Creed,” on the other hand, feels like an attempt to appease a studio eager for a well-known product to churn into a formula franchise that creates new revenue streams and elevates stock prices.

Poor Michael Fassbender; he seems lost in a Hollywood that doesn’t understand his gifts. Despite that chin that could cut glass and eyes that could pierce steel, Fassbender isn’t a classic “movie star.” We, the popcorn chomping blockbuster masses, simply respect him as an actor too much to watch him act below his skill level. Sure, his version of the “X-Men” villain Magneto is well liked but we’d all hoped that was his “one for them” studio picture that would let him get back to being a real actor.

Instead he has stranded himself in “Assassin’s Creed” as another “one for them” movie and we are left to lament the kinds of performances he could be dedicating his time too. Quirky, wonderful indie flicks like “Frank” and “Fish Tank” gave us the Michael Fassbender we truly want while “X-Men” was supposed to be the insurance for the next “Frank” or “Fish Tank.” Now, with “Assassin’s Creed,” who knows where Fassbender may be headed, probably cruddier looking CGI claptrap. What a shame. 

Movie Review The Holiday

The Holiday (2006) 

Directed by Nancy Meyers 

Written by Nancy Meyers 

Starring Jack Black, Cameron Diaz, Jude Law, Kate Winslet

Release Date December 8th, 2006 

Published December 7th, 2006 

Director Nancy Meyers is the master of fluffy, Hollywood love stories. Her Something's Gotta Give and What Women Want are big star vehicles that indulge heavily in Hollywood glamor and fantasy romance. Her latest film, The Holiday, is her best effort yet at bringing romantic fantasy to the screen. Teaming Cameron Diaz and Jude Law, Meyers crafts a couple more photogenic than an entire J.C Penney catalog and a dream romance that audiences cannot help but eat up like movie popcorn.

Warm, buttery and oh so simple, The Holiday is the kind of light hearted and light headed fluff that is the perfect holiday escape.

In a small town just outside of London, Iris (Kate Winslet) is working through her company Christmas party when her boss makes a big announcement. The man that Iris has been seeing for nearly three years is getting engaged, but not to her. Devastated, Iris needs to get out of town before she does something awful.

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, Amanda (Diaz) is at the end of her relationship with Ethan (Ed Burns). In the most clichéd fashion, Ethan has been sleeping with his much younger secretary. After throwing him out, and leveling him with an impressive right cross, Amanda wants out of L.A for the holidays. Luck and chance leads Amanda to a website advertising home exchange. This is where Amanda meets Iris and the two offer each other the chance to escape their sad states by switching homes.

In London, Amanda moves into Iris's cozy rural cabin and finds herself visited in the middle of the night by Graham (Jude Law), Iris' brother. Slightly drunk, Graham charms his way right into Amanda's bed as she takes a chance on some guilt free vacation sex with a good looking guy she is unlikely to ever see again. Of course, we already know that nothing could be that simple and the two are soon romancing.

Back in L.A Iris makes a match of her own but not the one you might expect. Iris's new neighbor is Arthur (Eli Wallach) an old Hollywood screenwriter who Iris befriends when he gets lost trying to find his house. Iris helps him home and is invited for dinner and an education in film classics. Jack Black does eventually show up as Miles; a more age-appropriate love interest for Iris but it is Wallach's Arthur who steals the show.

The fun of The Holiday is watching great looking actors indulge lives of frivolous excess for our amusement. Escaping into their perfect pretty lives is a fun little distraction like a cookie or a chocolate bar. Too many film critics get uptight about movies like The Holiday, or really anything directed by Nancy Meyers. For my money, movies like The Holiday are just a treat. Beautiful to look at, easy to forget and fun to catch in late night reruns when nothing else is on.

Movies don't always have to reflect reality or present some grand metaphor. Sometimes movies just have to entertain and that is what The Holiday is all about. Pure entertainment.

Glamor is an oddity in this day and age. There is an overabundance of glamor off the screen. Flashbulbs pop at movie premieres, outside nightclubs and even grocery stores in Hollywood. On the other hand, glamor on the screen is not merely absent, it's often frowned upon, especially by 'serious artists'. That is why, for my money, a movie like The Holiday is such a welcome sight. The Holiday transports audiences back to a time when glamorous stars were allowed to be glamorous stars.

Is it frivolous? Absolutely. That's part of the fun. The Holiday is a candy coated, glamor production in which the people are all unbelievably good looking, locations are lifted from picture postcards, and situations are resolved in 90 minutes with laughing, dancing and hugs. Some people find their escapist fun in hobbits or the force, others in watching Jude Law romance Cameron Diaz. Why is one more worthy than the other?

There are many movies like The Holiday and I have been quite hard on many of them. What separates The Holiday is the combination of chemistry and familiarity that Nancy Meyers specializes in. Assembling an all star cast of Hollywood luminaries, Meyers indulges in romantic fantasies that, while they aren't original by any stretch, are more appealing and better looking than most similar fantasies.

Nancy Meyers skill is in, essentially, re-gifting romantic clichés. Meyers wraps a beautiful new bow on familiar romantic stories. The key is that she does it better than other directors and with better actors. This was a skill that was highly valued back in the movie factory days of the studio system and is now frowned upon in the post-auteur era.

There is nothing remotely important about The Holiday and that is part of its charm. This is pure glamorous escapism that basks in the glow of star power and fantasy romance. I don't want every movie to be as unimportant as The Holiday. However, from time to time the kind of movie that Nancy Meyers makes is a welcome respite from gritty action, bloody horror, and even from the importance of a great drama.