Movie Review Taking Woodstock

Taking Woodstock (2009) 

Directed by Ang Lee 

Written by James Schamus 

Starring Demetri Martin, Emile Hirsch, Eugene Levy, Imelda Staunton, Jonathan Groff

Release Date August 28th, 2009 

Published August 28th, 2009 

The cultural touchstone that is Woodstock has been examined and reexamined in many different forms. Books, TV shows, movies, documentaries, records, have been used to cover every possible angle of this iconic moment in recent American history. So, it is quite notable that director Ang Lee and his writing partner James Schamus have found something of a new angle for their take on Woodstock.

In Taking Woodstock the festival of peace, love and music provides the background for the self exploration of Elliott Teichberg, played by comedian Demetri Martin. Using the concert as the backdrop for a character based story isn't new but the character and the approach to him is something kind of revelatory.

In early August 1969 the organizers of Woodstock found themselves run out of Wallkill New York. Locals pulled the group's festival permit. Luckily for them a young man named Elliott Teichberg happened to have a festival permit and as chairman of the chamber of commerce in tiny Whitelake New York, he had the power to keep it.

A partnership was forged that would change history. Elliott was not meant to be in Whiteside. His parents Sonia (Imelda Staunton) and Jake (Henry Goodman) have run a failing resort in the area for years while Elliott has moved to New York City. When it looked like the place was finally going under, Elliott moved back home.

He became a part of the town and the youngest chamber of commerce chairman in history when he took the risk to bring Woodstock to Whiteside and with it a life changing experience that he could never have envisioned.

I am making Taking Woodstock out to be a little bigger than it is. It's big for Elliott but the story's scale is exceptionally small. Tiny, well observed moments of Elliott Teichberg finding out little things about himself, taking small but escalating risks and dragging his parents, especially his stingy, entrenched mother, along as well.

Some, maybe most, will find Taking Woodstock to be slow, even meandering. For me, the pace was slow but my interest never seemed to wane. Taking Woodstock is a gentle, immersive experience that floats along on a cloud of marijuana smoke and good vibes.

Comic Demetri Martin perfectly captures Elliott's lost soul innocence and longing. He has a wonderful playful spirit hidden behind a nebbish reserve. When he lets loose it's a gentle catharsis perfectly pitched to Ang Lee's waves lapping against the shore pacing.

Yes, Taking Woodstock is slow but it is intended to be slow. It's intended as a gentle study of a gentle man. In that it is highly successful and for me a warm wonderful moviegoing experience. I don't recommend this one to fans of Transformers 2, but for those who enjoy their movies with a little more leisure, Taking Woodstock is the movie for you.

Movie Review Lords of Dogtown

Lords of Dogtown (2005) 

Directed by Catherine Hardwicke

Written by Stacy Peralta 

Starring Emile Hirsch, Victor Rasuk, John Robinson, Heath Ledger, Michael Angarano 

Release Date June 3rd, 2005 

Published June 2nd, 2005 

If there is one character trait that defines the southern California surf kids turned skateboard legends profiled so memorably in the documentary Dogtown and Z Boys and now in the film Lords of Dogtown it is an uncompromising will to do whatever they want. However, compromise is exactly what Lords of Dogtown is. Compromised to achieve maximum mainstream appeal at the expense of the colorful characters that so obviously populate its cast.

Lords of Dogtown is the autobiographical account of the rise of skateboard culture in Southern California in the 1970s and the leaders of this new sport's aesthetic. Written by Z-Boy Stacey Perralta we know the story is authentic but it's also obviously compromised for mainstream appeal by director Catherine Hardwicke and a glut of suits from Columbia Pictures eager to tap the rebellious cool of skateboard culture for a quick buck.

John Robinson, so memorable in Gus Van Sant's indie flick Elephant, plays Peralta as a straight arrow kid whose only personality seems to come from his skateboarding. With his friends Jay Adams (Emile Hirsch; Secret Lives Of Altar Boys) and Tony Alva (Victor Rasuk; Raising Victor Vargas), Perralta grabbed his skateboard just to have a good time after school and ended up finding a calling that would last the rest of his life.

It is the life arcs of these three characters that are the thrust of the drama of Lords Of Dogtown, unfortunately scenes that might expand and deepen those arcs are left on the cutting room floor seemingly to give the film a more marketable run time of just under two hours and to make room for more skating scenes, also a nod to the marketing department.

It's a shame because anyone who saw the documentary Dogtown and Z Boys Directed by Mr. Perralta knows that these kids' lives were just as fascinating as their athleticism. In Lords Of Dogtown there are a number of nods in the direction of these characters and the moments that would change and define their lives but they too often get cut short.

I do not blame director Catherine Hardwicke entirely for the compromised nature of Lords of Dogtown. It seems all throughout the film that she is trying to dig deeper but is constantly being undermined by the studio and its final say in the film's cut.

Everything from the look of the film-- this gorgeous amber hue that captures the heat of the streets of Santa Monica-- to the casting of hot young indie talents like Hirsch and Rasuk to even the hiring of Ms. Hardwicke has the feel of indie barbarians crashing the gates of corporate Hollywood. Sadly you can't fight city hall and you damn sure can't fight the marketing department of a major corporate studio.

Jay Adams' story is the kind of tragedy that great drama is made of. While Stacey Perralta and Tony Alva traveled the world on their skateboards, Adams stayed behind in Dogtown, the nickname for the shoreside ghetto of Santa Monica California, and fell into all of the typical traps: gangs, drugs and violence. Watching the impetuous and impish Adams in the person of the terrific Emile Hirsch go from beach blonde skateboarder to bald headed tattooed gangster and eventually on to prison is a very dramatic arc that gets merely glossed over in the film so that we can get to see more skateboarding.

Perralta and Alva get equally glossed over treatments. The only impression the film leaves of Stacey Perralta is that of a straight arrow, almost nerdy child saint who is about as rebellious as a Hanson concert. As for Alva, his legendary ego is well played by Victor Rasuk but that seems to be his only character trait aside from his astonishing skills on a skateboard.

Skateboarders and fans of the sport will find a lot to love about Lords of Dogtown. The skateboarding is pretty spectacular and terrifically filmed. Though it's not nearly as breathtaking as it is in the documentary footage in Dogtown and Z Boys, it's still quite good and will appeal to fans of the sport.

The film also features a very entertaining performance by Heath Ledger as the skate shop owner and Z-Boys guru Skip Engblom. Ledger does not nearly get the screen time he needs to fully flesh out this character but fans of the actor may find this to be some of his best work.

Lords of Dogtown is a disappointment for fans of the documentary Dogtown and Z-Boys who realized while watching the doc what an extraordinary story could be told about these characters. It would have to have been a sprawling three hour multi-character piece in the Paul Thomas Anderson spirit to work, but it definitely could have worked. Instead, Lords Of Dogtown is yet another compromised product of the Hollywood corporate mindset. Well acted and professionally directed but nearly as shallow as the swimming pools where the Z-Boys polished their aesthetic.

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.