Movie Review: Frost/Nixon

FROST/NIXON





By coincidence, Ron Howard’s “Frost/Nixon,” which the director opened up cinematically from Peter Morgan’s stage play, was released at about the same time as “Doubt”, John Patrick Shanley's award winning stage play. This marks the year of the Broadway play turned into screen gold. In a way, though this film has more in common with "The Wrestler" than "Doubt". Besides the obvious battle faced between Randy Ram and his opponent at the end of his film, and the epic showdown between Frost and Nixon here, it is also about a man who was once at the height of fame and popularity, a respected man, who is now beaten down and forgotten. And whereas Mickey Rourke is the showcase of his film, this film literally belongs to Frank Langella as the rejected President Nixon.

A movie based on a 4-night interview segment is not what you might have expected: a talking-heads yak-a-thon between characters recognized by much of the world. Instead this film plays out as a documentary about the making of the incendiary interviews. Most of the drama is evoked by backstage preparations, the sorts of brainstorming sessions we all know that the candidates for President and Vice-President went through in the 2008 debates. This time, while Nixon is afforded heavy preparation from his chief adviser, Jack Brennan (played Kevin Bacon), Frost himself is virtually bullied by his own. The latter includes journalists James Reston (a very passionate Sam Rockwell) who is a bona-fide Nixon hater, Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt) who provides the humor, and John Birt (Matthew Macfadyen) Frost's manager. All of these men are joined with Rebecca Hall playing Frost's girlfriend, and there you have a solid as a rock cast with no missteps.

David Frost, a British talk-show host who somehow lands the interview of a lifetime, is played by actor Michael Sheen with the same broad smile that helped defined his charm as Tony Blair in Stephen Frears’s Oscar-winning movie “The Queen,” One would expect a playboy lightweight to be outclassed in the series of interviews with ex-Prexy Nixon, not someone who put up $200,000 of his own money to pay the man when the major networks turned down his pitch. Sheen plays Frost as he was, a fame monger. He had no real reason behind his plight to grab the interview, other than to get the highest number of viewers. And it is sometimes infuriating to see his lack of passion for the project, however as time goes by he does plan for the ultimate showdown; aka the Watergate segment. Sheen is beyond fantastic in every scene.

As Nixon, Frank Langella truly is a work of art. In a performance that is in no way a mimicry, Langella breathes new life into a character from the United States past, and somehow almost allows its audience to feel sympathy for the bastard. Sure, he has the voice down, and he looks a lot like Nixon especially at certain angles, but he nails the inner-man, which is always the aim. And as the film continues, and the interviews continue on, we see Nixon crumble again. In a far more dramatic way than Sarah Palin’s disastrous interviews with Katie Couric in which the former could not name a single magazine that she read, Nixon is K.O.’d by his own self-loathing, a hatred that has seen him refusing to burn tapes incriminating him in knowing about and trying in a criminal way to cover-up the Watergate Hotel break-in. Frank Langella's portrayl is a terrific piece of work.

The performances are spot on, and the docu-drama style hit the nail on the head. Overall there is nothing new with the plot of Frost/Nixon - watch the real interviews or read a history book if you want to know what happens, but its not about that. Its about what happened behind the scenes, and for me it is about the performances. And I think that the cast of Frost/Nixon are beyond mimics, and actually inherit their roles. Bravo!


**** out of *****

Movie Review: My Bloody Valentine 3D

My Bloody Valentine: 3D





To all horror lovers - I think the movie for you has arrived. My Bloody Valentine 3D is a gory, cliche, jumpy, sexy, raw, nasty, mess. I say all of this in the highest of praise of course. When you go into a movie, a remake of a 70's slasher flick, which includes the phrase 3D in the title, you should know what you're in for. Besides the 3D effects, this film could be sprung right out of the 70's drive-in films. The plot is light, the acting is passable at best, the story has tons of holes, and the audience has tons of fun.

It's tough to even review such a film. I'll give a shot at the plot: In a tiny miners town, 10 years ago there was a massacre down in the Hanniger mines. 10 years later the town is afraid that the killer is back - even though he was dead and burried after his last rampage. What follows is a who-dunnit with a cast of characters that include Tom Hanniger (Jensen Akles), the heir to mines, his old flame Sara who is now married to the cocky town sherrif Axel. (Yes, his name is Axel). Then there's the old cops who hunted down the killer 10 years ago. There's also a naked girl who spends her entire screen time with shoes being the only item of clothing she wears (oh yes you straighties there is tons of vagina here for you). And there is a character who is billed as: Frank the Trucker. I think you get my drift.

But if you think for one second I am hating on this film, you are wrong. It is exactly what a horror fan (aka me) wants. I don't want long drawn out scenes about what is going on and why .. I want blood, gore, and mystery. And this film delivered on those promises. I am surprised Nicholas didn't throw up (note: he almost did) because this movie was extremely heavy on the gross stuff (which I secretly love). And the 3D only made things much more exciting. Although this wasn't as good as the experience I had seeing Beowulf in 3D, the popping eyeballs and blood which shot towards my face (plus the better company) made this much more fun. The only thing that could have improved the 3D is if it had actually been on an Imax .. I recommend for you to see this movie in 3D at an Imax .. if your only choice is to see it in 2D, I may recommend skipping it.

As a cheesy, gore-filled, horror romp this movie is damn near as good as it gets. Its laugh out loud gross, had me on the edge of my seat, and didn't disappoint in many ways. However if I gave it a perfect review, I would be slapped. It isn't a great film if you look at it as a critic. Its poorly written, poorly acted, yadda yadda yadda. Sometimes people take things too seriously. For what this was .. it was good. Throw your thinking cap out of the window for an hour and a half and enjoy!

*** out of *****

Movie Review: Vicky Christina Barcelona

Vicky Christina Barcelona
Directed By: Woody Allen





I will admit upfront I am a Woody Allen fan, in a big way. Unlike many of his critics, I don't think Woody has had a lapse in good films. I will admit he has done some off-kilter work (Curse of the Jade Scorpion and Scoop come to mind), however I think overall his work may be the strongest from one single director. And the man puts out 1 movie a year, and has for over 30 years. This year he actually managed 2 movies (this and Cassandra's Dream .. which I still haven't seen). A lot of critics called "Match Point" Woody Allen's return to form. And if that was the case - then Vicky Christina Barcelona returns Woody to his comic roots that so many people admire him for. After all the tale of Vicky and Christina in Barcelona is a comedy, although by the time its over - you may not realize that.

This time around Woody tells us the story of 2 best friends, Vicky and Christina. They are those types of friends who have very little in common but still click - they balance each other out. Rebecca Hall stars as Vicky - she is steady, strong willed, level headed, and seems to have her life all planned out, this is afterall her last big vacation before she settles down and becomes married. Christina, played by Scarlet Johannson (Woody's latest muse), is Vicky's opposite. She is unbalanced, outspoken, overtly passionate, unlucky in love, and sadly untalented. The two have traveled to Barcelona to stay with family friends Judy and Mark Nash (Patricia Clarkson and Kevin Dunn). While enjoying the sites they both encounter mysterious (and sexy) painter Juan Antonio (played by Javier Bardem in a complete 180 from his last role in No Country for Old Men). Juan Antonio offers the 2 girl-pals a free trip to a resort island where he shall make love to them both. Of course Vicky is put off and Christina is foaming at the mouth. Thus begins the love triangle which ultimately haunts all the players in this film.

As time passes, we learn of Juan Antonio's ex-wife, the wild and dangerous Maria Elena, played to the hilt by Penelope Cruz. She comes in when the time is all wrong, and pretty much threatens to ruin the girl's vacation. What follows is something that even a torrid romance novel couldn't cover. Vicky falls for Juan Antonio, so does Christina. They both sleep with him. Christina moves in. Maria Elena moves in. They begin a 3-way love affair. Vicky second guesses her marriage, as does her house mother Judy who admits to have being miserable in married life for years. Marie Elena is insane - causes various problems. Who ends up with whom? Who is happy in the end? That's the joy of the film. It is a comedy, however these are not funny people, or happy people. Perhaps the films central-most characters (Vicky and Christina) are 2 people trapped in some of lifes most unhappy muddles. And the fact that Woody Allen can bring his wit and charm to even the most depressing of people, is to his credit.

And as usual he casts just the right people. Rebecca Hall is stunning at Vicky, and really has the chops for the many flip-flops that her character goes through. Scarlet Johansson is always either one of my favorite parts of a film (like her amazing performances in Lost in Translation, Ghost Town, and being the only bright spot in the horrible movie The Spirit), or one of my least favorites (she wasn't very good in Allen's Scoop, and although she was very good in the first half of Match Point, she lost it in the second half): here she is definitely on point. Her Christina is wonderful in that talentless yet passion filled way. Javier Bardem is hysterical and sexy - and thats what he needs to be. Patricia Clarkson is always good - and I only wish she had more screen time. And then there's Penelope Cruz who has received the most attention from the film, and rightfully so. Her Marie Elena is a firework display. She lights up the screen and, at times, sets it on fire. As the unpredictable, fiery, passionate, and destructive Marie Elena, Cruz has turned in the performance of her career to date.

Although Vicky Christina Barcelona wouldn't rank in my top 10 Woody Allen films of all time, doesn't mean it isnt almost a comedic masterpiece, because it basically is. In a year of a lot of very depressing and sad Oscar contenders it was a nice break to be handed Woody Allen's little comedy about pure unhappiness.

**** out of *****

Movie Review: Rachel Getting Married

RACHEL GETTING MARRIED





Want to spend an afternoon at a wedding? Want to watch a documentary? Want to attend an AA meeting? Want to meet quite the kooky family? Well you're in luck, Johnathann Demme's Rachel Getting Married lets you do all those things. This oscar touted film is quite a piece of work. Put simply - if you aren't interested in character studies, if you don't like theatre, or if you want fast moving plot: then Rachel Getting Married is not for you. Thankfully, I love all those things and found this film quite a treat. In a year where we have Doubt and Frost/Nixon (both adapted from Broadwy plays), it seems that Rachel Getting Married fits rght into that niche - I smell a version for the stage in the future.

The basic story of the film (and it is basic) is that Rachel is getting married. Her sister Kym is coming out of rehab especially for the event -- and things do not run so smoothly. There you have it. I don't want to go into specifics because I think part of the fun of the film is to see why these people have turned into what we see today. There are couple of twists to be had.

To talk about this film, one must highlight the performances. In the leading role of the troubled Kym is Anne Hathawy, who has finely transitioned from a princess with a diary to this venom spitting druggie. This is certainly a career changing performance for Anne, because I think it will solidify her in the ranks of a "true actress" (whatever that means). Kym is a tricky role. On the outset there is not much to like about Kym. She is an addict. She thinks the world revolves around her. She is too self-centered. She is rude, crude, and a bitch. However the remarkable part of Hathaway's performance is, over the two hours, she makes you KNOW why Kym is the way she is. And in the end - you do feel for the character - as if she was the blak sheep of your own family.

Rachel, the title role; that of the sister getting married, is played to perfection by RoseMarie DeWitt. One could even say this is the performance of the film (more on that in a minute). Rachel is about to be a psychiatrist (which is funny within itself considering the families constant struggle). She is for sure mommy's favorite and a strong contender for daddies little girl. However, we soon see that Rachel has always been pushed to the side by Kym's antics. She was never in the spotlight - because she was seemingly overlooked for being so perfect. And now that she is getting married, she tries her hardest through the 3 days we have with the family, to put the focus on her wedding .. her day. However Kym seems determined to squash that. DeWitt shows a cool confidence throughout. I have never seen her in a film before, and I certainly hope to see more of her soon.

We also have a various castof characters milling around. There's Paul, Kym and Rachels father (played with charm and heatbreak by Bill Irwin), there's his new wife Carol (Anna Devere Smith), there's Rachels fiance Sidney (the sweet as pie Tunde Adibimpe), his family and friends (which SADLY includes American Idol season 1 loser Tamyra Gray in a 30 second singing spot .. which took me completely out of the film .. because I hated her), theres the best man who is also an addict and forms a relationship with Kym .. and then there's Mom. Debra Winger plays Abby - Kym and Rachel's mother. Although her name is mentioned on the poster - she has the least ammount of screen time out of all of the others mentioned, however she makes the most impact. Winger is considered a respected actress in the industry, however he has taken many long breaks between films (so much so that there was a documentary made called: Searching for Debra Winger), but she is back in a big way. Winger's Abby is all at once sweetness and light, venom spouting, cruel, quiet and calculating, loving, hating, and violent. So in the end: a bit of Rachel, a bit of Kym. I will not go into detail of the scene, however there is a scene between Winger and Hathaway which had my heart beating out of its chest. It was a true acting showdown. Amazing stuff. Winger does an amazing job of taking about 3 scenes and stealing the film from the others. But with class.

The cast as an ensemble is great. You really feel that these people are related. And because of the documentary style film making, you honestly feel that you are at this wedding. Some scenes go on too long .. way too long. For example, at the rehearsal dinner you sit through speech after speech by guests from the family, the bride's best friend, the band, etc etc. The speeches go on forever, until the fantastic moment when Kym stands to give what may go down in history as the most awkward toast ever (this is Hathaway's most masterful moment as well). But I think you HAVE to sit through these speeches, because if you were at the wedding, you would have to sit though them there. It may not be entertaining, or even interesting, but I think it was essential to make the film work. You may also feel this way again during the reception party (which is quite wacky) that seems to go on and on and on without dialogue. But, again, its as if youre walking through the party itself. Overall I loved this style, even if it elongated the movie by about 30 minutes or more.

This is a film about family and about love, in the end. What I loved most is that Rachel is getting married to an African man - and there is no "race" issues involved.. no one mentions it. I liked that - and think it says a lot as far as how far we have grown as people. It would have been a bit stereotypical to have the one family member who is racist .. thankfully it didn't go down that road. And honestly, it didn't need too: Rachel, Kim, Abby, and Paul have enough troubles of their own.

I would recommend this film highly. I don't know if everyone would enjoy it as much as I did, but I truly think it is a unique indie film with fantastic acting that shouldn't be missed.

****1/2 out of ****

Movie Review: The Wrestler

THE WRESTLER






Director Daron Araonofsky has returned to the screen (after his latest the Fountain, and of course one of my favorite films of all time Requiem for a Dream) with the tale of Randy "The Ram" aka The Wrestler. In awards seasons, its a surefire bet that you will get a slew of fantastic films, with fantastic and memorable characters. However the Wrestler doesn't only give this -- in my humble opinion, it gives one of the most brutal, honest, and moving portrayals I have ever seen on the silver screen. Without Mickey Rourke this films wouldn't be .. he not only has made a comeback, he has turned in the best performance of his career, and a better performance than many actors could ever wish for.

To talk about The Wrestler, one should first talk about Mickey Rourke. If you delve into his biography you will see that Mickey himself was a boxer in his early 20's before his film career began. He was an amateur body builder, and stopped his budding career after suffering a concussion. He then turned to acting and early in his career worked with Stephen Speielberg, Francis Ford Coppolla, among other huge and respected film directors. Then his fame began in the early 80's with the film 9 1/2 weeks, co-starring Kim Basinger. He was a "sex symbol" for the masses. Then, as it seemed he was ripe to become a true A lister, Rourke got heavily wrapped in drugs and alcohol. He was locked up 3 times in the 80's for a variety of offenses, including violence and drugs. He has been in rehab a stunning 16 times, and finally became sober in 2003. He has been arrested for spousal abuse, two DUI's, and during his drug years he turned down numerous shots to revive his career (including lead roles in the Untouchables, The Silence of the Lambs, Rain Man, 48 Hours, and The Highlander). Director Alan Parker made this statement about Rourke, "working with Mickey is a nightmare. He is very dangerous on the set because you never know what he is going to do". And in 1991, as he continued to try rehab, he decided to leave acting and go back to boxing. He stated: "I have been self-destructing … (and) have had no respect for myself being an actor. I should stop." He actually did pretty well in the professional boxing arena, and won an astounding 14 matches to 1 loss. However he suffered many injuries: a broken nose (twice), three broken ribs, 6 broken toes, a split tongue, and a compressed cheek bone. Thus began the plastic surgery to correct these injuries, and it left Rourke looking like a different man. A broken down boxer - once sex symbol. Then Rourke, after sobriety in 2002 returned to the screen with the movie Spun, which was about the dangers of drugs, and was either loved or hated. Then he took an exciting action spin in Sin City, which was a welcome return -- and now here were are, with Rourke starring as the title role in the Wrestler.

The story of the film, in many ways mirrors the life of Rourke. Randy "The Ram" was a huge deal, 20 years ago, when he was the most famous wrestler in the circuit. A lot of time has passed and Randy now lives in a trailer (which sometimes he can't get into because he hasnt payed his rent), has a hearing aid from years of abuse to his head, and has no one. It seems his closest friends are the kids who live in the trailer park. He is stuck in the 80's, stuck behind his fame as Randy "The Ram". His walls are plastered with posters and photo's from matches, he still plays the origional Nintendo game that bares his likeness. The only thing that seems to keep him living is also the same thing that is cutting his life short: The Wrestling. On the weekends he still wrestles, however in a much smaller arena. It seems he has gone from an A list wrestler, to now a respected, but still D list wrestler. The movie is his attempt to find his life, and somewhat salvage what he has left.

The film does rely heavily on wrestling. I am not a wrestling fan, and I do not think you have to even like wrestling to like the film. (I believe Nicholas may disagree with me .. he didn't care for the movie very much) The Wrestling is mere backstory to whats going on underneath. Some wrestling scenes are similar to those you may have seen on the WWF (if you lived in the South or like such things). However some wrestling scenes, one in particular, was disgusting. I cringed and came near to just shutting my eyes completely at one scene which involved wrestling, barb wire, a staple gun, and tons of blood. But all of this gore isn't needless. It showing you something about Randy. This is a man who will conceal a razor in his costume so that he can take it out and cut his forehead so it looks as if he has been cut due to fighting. This is a man who will allow someone to use a staple gun all over his face and back. And for what? A little bit of money, and more importantly as Randy points out: The cheers from the audience. Its all he knows.

Within the film Randy tries to mend one relationship in his life and begin another. The first would be with his daughter, played masterfully by Evan Rachel Wood. Randy has been a horrible father who has deserted his daughter for most of her life. (Which is a stunning choice in the film not to paint Randy as a complete hero, but a realistic person) Randy returns to his daughter to smooth things over, and the two scenes the share with one another are among the movies best. The other relationship is a budding one between Randy and Pam, played by the unbelievable Marisa Tomei. Pam is a stripper at the local strip joint, where she is known as Cassady. She is in a weak spot in her life, being an aging stripper with a child and seemingly no way out of her situation. She and Randy connect beyond the levels of stripper and customer. The scenes between Rourke and Tomei (especially when they go thrift shopping, or when they sing along to 80's hair band music in a bar) are shining lights in the film.

However the film, as mentioned before, works only because of Rourke. The supporting players are wonderful, but it is Rourke that makes the film. He is in every frame of the film. We see him wrestle, try to love his daughter, try to get a girlfriend, work at a deli counter (in the movies funniest, and then most terrifying scenes), make a comeback, live in the past, suffer a heart attack, and perhaps even commit public suicide. I fear I have said to much, I will leave the rest up to you, the viewer. All I will say is give this movie a shot, if only for the performance of Rourke. He is the true comeback. This is his film. And he deserves it.


***** out of *****

Movie Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button




The new collaboration of genius director David Fincher (who directed the marvelous Fight Club, among many others), a short story by my favorite writer of all time F. Scott Fitzgerald, and some of my favorite actors Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, and Tilda Swinton, certainly had me very excited. Add onto my own curiosity of the film, it is receiving major awards buzz and is likely to be nominated (if not win) best picture of the year at this years Oscars, if you believe those who predict such things. I can say this - I have seen better films already this year (and I haven't seen all of the Oscar hopefuls yet) and I imagine I will see better ones in the weeks to come. That is not to say Benjamin Button was a bad movie, that's the furthest from being correct. However it is a curious movie which left me all at once wowed and disappointed.

The story, is certainly one which merits a 3 hour running time. It is the story of Benjamin Button, who was deserted at birth on the steps of an old folks home run by a kindly African American woman named Queenie. Whereas the boys parents were frightened and disgusted by the boy, Queenie takes him in as her own, expecting he doesn't have long to live. The newborn Benjamin resembles an 80 year old arthritic dying man. And we soon learn that he is living his life in reverse. The story is told through the diary of Benjamin himself, read by the daughter of his dying love Daisy. As you can tell this is intriguing stuff, told in a bit of a sappy manner. The film chronicles the reverse life of Benjamin and the many people who come in and out of his very strange story. The mainstay is Daisy, whom Benjamin meets early on, and becomes his one true love. She weaves in and out as well, as they both struggle to cope with the fact that as one is growing older, one keeps growing younger. Also in the film are other lively and interesting characters including a tugboat captain who considers himself quite the artist, an old man who has been struck by lightening one too many times, a spys wife who longs for love and secretly desires to swim the english channel, Benjamin's dying and regretful father, and african who spent part of his life locked up in a zoo cage with animals, an elderly woman who sings opera precisely at the same time every morning, a kind piano teacher, a clock maker, a daughter who has never known her father, a hurricane, and a hummingbird. As you can see, there is a lot going on.

Although the film actually didn't seem overlong to me, regardless of the almost 3 hour run time, Benjamin Button surely didn't need all these side stories. The one that sticks out the most is the rowdy tugboat captain who introduces Benjamin to the sea and the pleasures of a womanly kind. A young (old) Benjamin joins the crew and stays with them for the middle part of the film, which allows him to go to war and fight in the navy - none of this lends itself to the core of the film, which I believe is the love story between Benjamin and Daisy. In fact, the love story suffers from all the side stories, in my humble opinion. All stories have a begining, a middle, and an end: in Benjamin Button we get ONLY that. We see when Benjamin meets Daisy. They are children, obviously very different, but have an odd connection. We don't really know why Daisy befriends a 3 foot tall elderly looking man in a wheel chair, but she does. Then we see Benjamin pursue Daisy in New York, as she has grown older and become quite the dancer. Here Daisy is cold and even cruel to Benjamin, she is full of herself and barely lets him get a word in. Yet he still wants her, why we do not know for sure. Then we meet them again in the later stages of a relationship where it seems they truly fall in love (this is mostly in montage format so we just see them move in together, see them make love, see them interact .. we dont really know why). And then, worried about the prospect of the soon to be born child of their romantic trysts Benjamin leaves again, afraid of fatherhood as he knows he will resort back into a child. He leaves so easy - so fast, in the middle of the night with only a note on the vanity. Daisy doesn't chase after him, she merely watches him leave. You would think a love that breaks all barriers (which the film has set it up to be) would at least put up a fight as yet again one of them walks out. It is a muddy depiction at best. This is my biggest problem with the film, because being a film about love - it surely doesn't radiate much emotion.

However, outside of that storyline, there are some true gems in Benjamin Button. For example the relationship between Queenie (Taraj P. Hensen) and Benjamin (Brad Pitt) is quite touching. I don't know anyone that could sit in the theatre when Benjamin returns home to his mother from the long trip on the sea, and not smile from ear to ear. The first half of the film is leaps and bounds the best aspect of the film. As Benjamin grows up (grows younger) he meets his most interesting characters. The elderly people in the nursing home all bring something interesting to the table and to his life. And when he ventures out to sea and is stuck in a hotel, the movies most intriguing story takes place. (Note: I love Tilda Swinton, and my love for this section of the movie is only due in a very small part to her wonderful addition to the screen) Benjamin meets Elizabeth Abbott, a lonely wife who is married to a Russian spy. He meets her in the hotel lobby and they strike up quite the secret affair. It begins with late night escapes to the kitchen for tea, and then heightens as they enjoy caviar and vodka, and tell each other their wants and desires. Here Daisy is gone, the stories of the sea are put on pause, and we get a movie within a movie. I honestly believe the story of Benjamin and Elizabeth could have been a movie on its own, and a good one at that. However the story is allotted to about 20 minutes of screen time.

The acting all around is superb. The film couldn't breathe without the fantastic performance of Brad Pitt. Here he is truly at his best. The art of being subtle is one that many actors have troubles with, but Brad says so much throughout the film without uttering many words. And when an actor creates a living and breathing portrait from under old age makeup and CGI, it is truly a special performance. He is the life behind the film, and gives the best performance. Cate Blanchett is one of my favorite actresses and will never turn in a bad performance, however in this film she was rather irritating at times. Over an hour into the film, I couldn't stand Daisy. So much so that I leaned over to Nicholas and said: "I hate her". However she grew on me as the film went on. And as Daisy aged into the old woman on the bed that narrates most of the film, I came around and loved Cate again. The supporting players are all good with special exception to Taraj P Hensen and Tilda Swinton, who are extremely memorable and likeable. (This is honestly one of Tilda's most likeable performances ever).

Lastly, I couldn't help but compare this film to another best picture winner of the past. Forrest Gump. So much so that I believe the film could be renamed The Curious Case of Benjamin Gump. Lets look at the comparisons: Outcast lead, rebellious yet loveavle love interest, kind mother, shrimp boat vs. tug boat, the war, a child, etc etc. Although I think "Button" is the better film, it does fall into those very cliche corny pratfalls that made me dislike "Gump". At times it has the made for tv movie feel to it. The use of the hummingbird at 2 pivitol moments almost made me want to scream aloud (I won't ruin it for you), and Daisy on her deathbed I felt was a little overdramatic and uninteresting way to tell the story. For such an original piece of material I found this a stereotype of the "epic" film which Oscar loves. However there are those moments in Benjamin Button that are truly magic. The CGI work all around is magical, the acting phenomenal, and the scene where an old Daisy rocks infant Benjamin to sleep very well may be one of the most powerful images on screen this year or any other.

Although it was not a huge success for me, it truly had moments that warrant it the attention it is getting. But overall, as a film, I think it fell victim to the "Show instead of tell" method of filmmaking. I felt I saw too much, and didn't quite understand why the connections in the film were as strong as they seemed. It's certainly one for you to see for yourself, as Nicholas loved it. Maybe I'm out of the loop, but for now, I will call this an overrated almost masterpiece.

*** out of *****

Movie Review: The Tale of Desperaux

THE TALE OF DESPERAUX





This light-weight kiddy fare is based on a book I have never heard of, but according to my young cousins is very popular. Being the cool older cousin that I am, I took them to see a movie over the holidays and they insisted that it be this. I didn't know much about the film, and knew it wouldn't but up my alley, but they ruled the roost that day. So I sat there, waiting for it to be over before it even started, and then caught huge glimmers of hope when the cast list ran before the movie began. Just to show you what I mean, here is a partial list of stars: Matthew Broderick, Sigourney Weaver, Tracey Ullman, Frank Langella, William H. Macy, Emma Watson, Dustin Hoffman, Kevin Kline, Stanley Tucci, Christopher Llyod, and Dustin Hoffman. WOW! I love almost all of them, it can't be that bad I thought.

And I was right, this is actually a very charming and wonderful childrens movie. It has its problems, but overall I enjoyed it very much. It is the story of the tiny tiny underdeveloped mouse Desperaux, who is short in mouse terms yet has huge mouse ears. One of the films biggest flaws is that it doesnt even introduce us to the title character until about 30 minutes in, which I found odd. At first we follow Roscuro (a rat played effectively by Dustin Hoffman) who is unlike many rats in that he is sweet and loves the light. Basically the story is this, there a mythical city called Door which is the home to Soup Day (much like Christmas but instead of gift giving the towns chef cooks a new soup every year and it is tasted by the King and Queen and then enjoyed by the citizens). On this particular Soup Day Roscuro the rat falls into the Queens soup and she dies. Therefore the king bans soup, rain, sunlight, and fun. And most of all he bans rats, oh he also locks up his daughter the princess in her room. Meanwhile Desperaux is born and is unlike all mice. He is not afraid of anything, in fact he is quite bold. And as a story would have it, he is the key to freeing the princess and allowing the town to drink soup again and be merry. There is also an evil rat king (Frank Langella), a castle maid who longs to be a princess (the wonderful Tracey Ullman), and other random characters. As you can see a lot goes on -- maybe too much.

The biggest problem with this tiny movie is that its running time is almost 2 hours long - no kid can handle that much at once. However that aside, its quite fun! The animation isn't all computer graphics, which I enjoyed (dont you miss the old timey things like drawings they used to use when I was a kid). The voice talent is top knotch, and it is never boring. Although there's way to much going on for one movie, it is still a cute and clever story, and the narrator is Sigourney Weaver -- could you ask for much more. If you have kids, they will like it, and you won't hate your life for having to sit through it. (And its much better than the Spirit)

*** out of *****

Movie Review: The Spirit

THE SPIRIT
directed by: Frank Miller





The creator and director of Sin City (one of the best comic book adaptations of all time) is back again, this time with a lesser known graphic novel - The Spirit. It's Christmastime, time for big blockbuster films to be released and enjoyed. My family all had an interest in seeing the Spirit, because frankly from the trailer it looked gorgeous and like a ton of fun. I loved Sin City, the visual style, the story, the concept, the aura of film noir, and I guess my expectations for this venture may have been a bit too high. Simply put, the Spirit was a HUGE letdown.

How can I count the ways? Well to begin with, I almost fell asleep twice, not a good thing for an action film, especially one that relies on WOW imagery. If you have seen Sin City, or the trailer for the Spirit (which was great), then you know the imagery of which I speak. Its all done with green screen - but all looks wonderful. As if you are in a living and breathing comic book. However, if you saw the trailer, you saw everything exciting the Spirit had to offer. Instead of a visual feast, I felt like I was sitting at a visual dinner table and was feasting on the leftover scraps no one else wanted.

The story was not intriguing in any way. I had never heard of the Spirit before, and when the movie was over I knew even less. He was actually one of the most uninteresting characters in his own film. The Spirit is played by Gabriel Macht, a rather unknown actor who did little to make this character likeable or memorable. You know its going to be a bad film when you cannot like the title role. Picture Batman having no backstory, Superman no personality, you catch my drift. Also the Spirit had no real power other than he couldnt be destroyed, he can never die. And honestly how many times have we seen that. He had no alter ego (no Clark Kent or Peter Parker) other than when he was a child, which we saw in a 5 minute flashback which was supposed to explain it all. He had no real love interest (no Mary Jane or even Vicky Vale), rather a couple of women whom he sometimes seem connected with. Sadly none of these women were given anything to do either. The closest to a love he has was Loreli Rox (played by Jamie King) who seemed nothing other than a matronly nuisance. There was a bumbling female wannabe detective (one of the worst performances), an out of place french belly dancer (who was given about 4 minutes of screen time, and right as she was about to get interesting left the film never to return), a mysterious phantom lady who showed up randomly throughout the film to deliver odd off the cuff words of wisdom, and maybe worst of all Eva Mendez as Sand Sariff (who was either the love interest with a past ala catwoman, or another villian of the film). She did nothing but wear a skin tight catsuit in the water, sit on the copy machine and take copies of her ass, and utter meaningless dialogue.

THANK GOD for Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johannsson (as the Octopus and his girlfriend Silken Floss). Without these two, as the bumbling villians, the film would have been a total and complete waste. Jackson is often the best thing about a terrible film, and this is no exception. As the bad guy in the film, he is wonderful in his most over the top performance since Pulp Fiction. He is truly the breath of life this movie needed. And in every scene he is in, he is followed by his cohort Silken Floss (Johannsson) who is finally doing something right. When she is good shes great, but when shes bad she's awful that Scarlet. But here she gets a rare shot at being the comedianne, which fits her nicely. There is a scene where her and Jackson don natzi outfits and using a projection screen they plot out their plans to destroy the universe. They also have cloned hundreds of copies of a big fat blundering fool to use as their army (he is all at once funny and horribly annoying). Did I mention they melt a cute kitty too?

The Spirit tries to be a lot of things. It fails at all of them. Its often funny and sometimes steps out of the box and is really creative. I think Frank Miller was onto something, but in the end he really ended with a disappointing product. The film is not fun, its almost like the crumbs that fell off of the Sin City table. Not very fulfilling.

*1/2 out of *****

Movie Review: Doubt

DOUBT
directed by: John Patrick Shanley


I have been more excited about Doubt than most any movie being released this Oscar season for many reasons. First of all, being a theatre actor since age 6, I was highly familiar with the Pulitzer Prize winning play, and being a huge fan of Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, and Phillip Seymore Hoffman I figured I would be in for an acting masterclass. However there has been some (sorry) doubt surrounding the film version. In particular Meryl Streep (who by many is considered the finest actress of all time) recieved some mixed reviews saying she was a weak link and brought the film down, at the same time she has won a couple acting awards so far this season. And we all know that taking a theatre piece and moving it to the big screen can be very tricky (look at every Shakespeare remake except Titus and Brannaghs versions). So going into the film I had high expectations, but was wary to say the least.

Let me be the first to tell you - never fear - this movie is outstanding in EVERY possible way. Folks, they is not a flaw to be found here. The story revolves around the Saint Nicholas Catholic school. At the center of the plot is Father Flynn (Hoffman) who is interested in moving the school towards a more friendly/secular place of worship and learning. Standing in his way is one of the most monstrous characters in the history of literature, Sister Aloysious (Streep). She is the principle nun of the school and runs things with an iron fist. Controversy flames when innocent Sister James (Adams) brings suspicions to the mind of Aloysious that Father Flynn has given the sole african american student some holy wine in the privacy of his own quarters. Let the rumors start flying. In an age where the Catholic church has been tainted with numerous molestation and child abuse scandals, it is no wonder that Sister Aloysious becomes highly concerned and driven to find the truth behind the "friendly" father. What follows is an all out war between the Father and the Nun. Did he do it? Didn't he? And brilliantly the script allows you to answer that question for yourself ultimately.

Let's get to the reason for the film. The acting showcases. Let's start with Meryl who has been given somewhat a bad wrap (or brilliant wrap depending on what youre reading). The role is definately that of a monster, no matter what side of the fence you fall on reguarding the guilt of the father. She is Nurse Ratchid in a nuns habit. Shes Michael Meyers without the butchers knife. Truly the character is ruthless at finding out the truth, and when she has decided the guilt for herself she will stop at nothing. In Meryl's hands the role is handled masterfully. (Note: I have not seen the origionater of the role Cherry Jones portray the sister on Broadway, so I cannot compare. But I feel the comparison isn't a fair one to either actress) Meryl brings some humor to the humorless, perhaps her most fantastic trait as an actress. She can make even the darkest bitch somewhat likeable. However as the film continues the sister turns devilish, and you wonder who the true enemy is. But she has her moments of humility, if you know where to look. She cares for her fellow nuns, and her actions all grow from a 'love' for the children of the school. She wants to protect them. Protect them from pedophiles and from ball point pens.

Phillip Seymore Hoffman (one of the actors I respect most in the industry) is truly phenomenal here. As Father Flynn he plays his most likeable character ever. He is often known to play the sleazeball (check him out in Boogie Nights, or as the truly evil writer Truman Capote in his Oscar winning role), and here he is cast as a possible child abuser, an untrustworthy priest, and he comes off as the most likeable person in the film. Its truly shocking what he's done here. You want to believe him the entire time, even if you don't. There is always a certain ammount of anger piled behind the cool facade, and when he lets loose its truly a sight to behold. Not being a church-goer myself, but having listened to hundreds of sermons as a child, Phillip Seymore Hoffman's father Flynn is the type of pastor I would like to listen too. The scenes in the film where he delivers his three sermons are some of the best, especially the one which compares rumors to the feathers in a pillow.

Amy Adams is fast growing to be one of my favorite screen actresses, and in this film she reaches heights I didn't know she had in her. In a way it is sad that the other 3 actors in the film are recieving such high praise and that Adams is always forth mentioned, if at all (however as of late she is recieving nominations and even a win in some critical awards). I had read her role was underused and she wasn't given much to do. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Adams is unbelievable in this film. As sister James she is all bubbles and light, smiles and puppies. This is all the more effective as we get to see that facade break down in front of our eyes. Within the span of two hours we see sister James transform from the innocent soft spoken sweetheart, to the conspirator in the downfall of the father (she in fact is the reason behind the doubt), then into a sympathetic believing ear for the priest, back to doubtful, then to a slowly transforming replica of the mean-spirited principle, and on and on. The growth in the character could have been stereotypical or boring with any other actress, but Amy Adams refuses to let the role plateau. In many scenes she more than holds her own with the legendary Streep.

And finally we have Viola Davis. She may be known best for her work on Law and Order Criminal Intent, and her various lauded Broadway credits. However, not anymore. She has taken the awards scene by storm this year with her role as Mrs. Miller in Doubt. Before seeing the film I knew that Viola had only one scene, it was 10 minutes long, and many predicted her to win an Oscar. It made me harken back to the days when Judi Dench won the Oscar for best supporting actress for her 7 minute stint in "Shakespeare in Love". Dench is a great actress yes, but this was no Oscar worthy material. I was afraid of the same thing with Viola. Even as she walked onscreen I wondered if all the hype would be worth it, after I had seen Amy, Meryl, and Phillip act their asses off for over an hour. She completely squashed all those worries. I will say it now: Not only does Viola Davis deserve the Oscar for her role in this film, she completely stole the film for the brief time she appeared. Just as Amy Adams changed throughout as Sister James, my attitude towards Viola Davis (as the mother of the boy in question) changed various times. I didn't know whether to call her the worst mother ever, or give her a crown and septer as the world's best mother. And perhaps her biggest success in the film was she completely out-acted Meryl Streep (not that its a competition). In her scene, you only focus on what she is saying, what she is doing, and why she is doing it. I can't say enough how amazing she was.

Put simply, the movie is like sitting down to watch a series of "how its done" acting workshops. You are seeing the best actors acting off of each other in the best possible way. As an actor, its the most satisfying movie I have seen in years, not a weak link in sight. Also I believe that Doubt is the finest translation from stage to screen I have ever seen. As I sat in the dark movie theatre, I forgot where I was, and it honestly at times felt like I was watching a play. There is an aura and feeling of the theatre that I felt in this film, and that's its truest success. It was a faithful and successful translation of the highest grade. I would recommend you see this film, and I would recommend you see it now.

***** out of *****

Note: Now that I have praised the shit out of Doubt, I will tell you its one flaw. The last line. Whew. That was a bad way to end --- but didn't ruin the experience for me at all.

Movie Review: Milk

MILK
directed by: Gus Van Sant





It's officially Oscar season, as I am sure you know from reading my blog. So I was especially excited to get out this week and see MILK, which is sure to be a contender in a couple of races. I took Nicholas as one of his birthday presents to see the film on our day off. About a year ago I rented the documentary "The Life and Times of Harvey Milk" from the library - a brilliant Oscar award winning documentary about Milk. So I was familiar with the man and the story. Being homosexual myself I was also familiar with the movement and the villains (Anita Bryant among the worst). So I was not going into the film to learn the story of Harvey Milk per-say, I was going to be wowed by fantastic performances and moved by a touching film which would strike close to home. And honestly, I haven't been this moved at the movies in years.

Saying the acting was phenomenal is honestly the biggest understatement of the year. Sean Penn, who is always fantastic, trumps himself here. There isn't a shred of Sean Penn in Milk, he truly channels his subject. (Watch the documentary either before or after, and you will certainly be shocked not only at the visual reputation but the physical as well). This isn't a mimicry either, it is a living breathing reincarnation. Which is truly tough and very rare. For example Charlize Theron IS Alieen Wournos in Monster whereas Jamie Foxx WAS PORTRAYING Ray Charles in Ray .. there is a difference. And it is clear as day that Penn has inhabited the man at the center of the picture. Penn has never been more likeable, funny, sweet, or inviting as he is here. He honestly is Harvey Milk - the first openly gay man elected to major political office.

Sean Penn is supported by some fantastic actors in smaller yet important roles. Most exciting for me was Emile Hirsch. You may have seen this exciting young actor in last years "Into the Wild", well here he is completely transformed into Cleve Jones, a young hustler turned into campaign manager. Although he plays one of the more femme characters of the bunch, he is never being hammy or insulting in any way. His passion for the role is a true joy to watch. The critics and awards season have been very kind to Josh Brolin for his work in the film as well, and rightfully so. Brolin has had an amazing run over the past year and a half. Starring as the lead in the best picture of last year (No Country for Old Men), then inhabiting the dumbfounded President Bush in the great W, and now as Dan White in Milk. One of the only flaws of the movie I could find, is that I wanted more from Dan White's end of the story. (If you do not know, and this isnt really spoilers because its in all the history books) We don't get much of Brolin, but when we do he does a damn fine job showing the cracks in the flawed city supervisor which lead him to a devastating double murder. The most amazing thing Brolin does is makes Dan White seem human, and not like a monster. Although you don't understand why he did what he did, you do see that he cracked under his own pressure. James Franco is charming and beyond cute as Scott Smith, Harvey's long time love who leaves him in fear of the political backlashes which eventually ended Harvey's life. The chemistry between Penn and Franco is magical, to say the least. The rest of the cast including Diego Luna (as Milk's misses with a depression cycle from hell), Allison Pill (as lesbian campaign manager Anne Kronenberg), and Joseph Cross (as Dick Pabich) all complete a family of supporters.

The directing is tight and polished, the script is intruiging, and the operatic score highlights the extreme emotions of a group of people who believed that blending in was the worse thing you could possibly do. The message of the film is as powerful today as it was in the 70's when it happened. The movement of "come out of the closet", "claim what is rightfully yours", "equality", and of course gay rights is still ongoing today. The film also shows Milk's victory over an anti-gay proposition which would ban all homosexuals (and homosexual supporters) from their jobs, with a target aimed on teachers. He won. We won. But the film shows that you don't always come up successful. Afterall Harvey ran for office an astounding 5 times before being elected. Failure after failure he never stopped. California right now has failed the homosexual rights groups (and in my opinion humans all over the world) by passing proposition 8, which banned gay marriage. However, if the movie teaches you any lesson, its that no matter the failure the fight must continue. In the end we will win.

As the credits rolled on Milk, I suddenly become overcome with emotion. Its because of men like him, and his supporters, that I am free to be who I am wherever I please. And although we have a long way to go as a society, we cannot give up, and we cannot get down. As tears streamed down my face, I was happy to be sitting in the theatre with my boyfriend whom I love so much. I was happy that this film had been made. Please .. Please go see it. It is so very important.

***** out of *****

Movie Review: Twilight

Twilight

Back to back vampire films was the theme of the past 2 weeks movie date. Last week Nicholas and I viewed "Let the Right One In" (a fantastic original vampire love/friendship story from Norway) and this week we brought ourselves out for Twilight, the first film based on the highly successful Twilight book series by Stephanie Meyer. So before I begin my review of sorts I want to put a preface to this. So here it is:

* I have not read the book. In fact I tried too, and couldn't get into it. (I am however going to give it another try)
* Nicholas really enjoyed the movie. (He is also a fan of the books, and semi-infatuated with the male leads)

Okay now that those 2 facts are out of the way, my review:

Vampire films on the whole seem to take 2 steps forward and 4 steps back. For example: Where we had Bram Stokers Dracula (a very powerful and frightening take on the original vamp) we were then given John Carpenter's Vampires (a very bad attempt). Audiences were delighted to Shadow of the Vampire (a semi-comic and yet terrifying take on Nosferatu) then were given Bordello of Blood (a bad attempt at a comedic vampire style). Likewise I was given Let the Right One In, and then you have Twilight.

Now I will not compare Twilight to those films, because it's not quite that bad. Twilight tries to bring a new light to the old vampire traditions. Some of those ideas are refreshing and new (such as the glimmering diamond skin in the sun, the vampiric love of baseball in the rainstorm, etc) however some just don't work and some are not new at all. First on the things that just plain don't work. As an audience member who had not read the book, I simply wanted more from the characters of this world. From what I am told the books are very character heavy. The movie completely avoids letting its audience get to know its characters. The crew that hurts from this the most are the "bad vampires" .. I have no idea what to call them because their names were mentioned maybe 3 times in the whole film (FYI they were James, Victoria, and ... the black one?). We don't know why these guys are bad, we don't know why one decides to turn his back on his bad friends and help the goodies, we don't know much besides they kill a couple of people and interrupt a baseball game. Another thing that doesn't work is the shoddy special effects and makeup. The CGI work is sloppy, and not new or exciting in any way. The makeup looks pasty on screen, and often would end under someones chin, making the rest of their face red and "humanish". I often wondered a couple times during Twilight why more money wasn't spent on the movie version of one of the most successful books out there.

As far as the things that have been done before. The saga seems to be setting it up for a retread of the best vampire saga done (in my opinion), that would be Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Rewind 10 years ago when Buffy moved away from her father to a new town to live with her mother. She attended a high school knowing no one, and was living in a small community. She quickly attracted a "nerd heard" group of friends. She meets a dangerous but sexy guy named Angel whom she is intrigued by and slowly falls in love with - only to find out he is a vampire. .. See the connection? The main difference is that Buffy was a vampire slayer and Bella is not. Now, I could be wrong, but I feel that the story of the Twilight saga will break down into Bella having 2 lovers to choose from, one good guy who goes bad (Angel in Buffy) and perhaps one guy perceived bad to go good (Spike from Buffy). I could be wrong, but the first film seemed exactly like a Buffy episode, just without the humor and the good characterization.

Now that it seems I have taken a dump on Twilight, let me tell you what I like. First of all I liked watching my boyfriend get excited watching the characters that he has read all about. I liked some of the casting. Robert Pattison is a great Edward. He exudes charm and sexuality, almost like a James Dean for this generation. He truly was the highlight of the film (and not because of his looks). I loved the scene where the Cullen family play baseball - it was a chance for the MTV style editing that the film used to shine. The action scenes (although horrible too few) were exciting. And the final moments of the film do a good job of making me want to know whats going to happen. (That could be because I got intertwined in the subject, or because I feel these characters warrant a better sequel).

I am probably being a bit too hard on Twilight. It is HUGELY successful! It green lighted a sequel before it even opened based on pre-order tickets. Robert Pattison has turned into a Beatle-like sensation all on his own. The majority of audiences who read the book love the movie, and I imagine it will continue to be #1 for a couple of weeks. I knew it wouldn't be Oscar caliber of course, I just wanted a bit more. A good translation from book to movie makes sure to entertain both the readers and the non-readers (example: Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings). I think Twilight was made solely to pander to the whims of the readers of the book, and in that era - it is a success.

** out of *****

Note: The experience of seeing this movie besides my fantastic boyfriend was a four star experience because he got so excited and smiled the whole way through. And for this alone, I loved Twilight because it made him happy! And I will see the next one alongside him.