Member: bretflet
Member Info
Reviews
- Movie Title: Home
Home makes you feel like George W. Bush: a nervous and naive schoolboy in trouble. But Yann Arthus-Bertrand's Home gives you an exit strategy to your problems. Blatantly copying Planet Earth , Home tries to entertain and educate by spewing facts with beautiful aerial images of nature. Is this environmental propaganda? Yes, from the Leni Riefenstahl like opening in the clouds to the exaggerated statistics preached by Glenn Close as an invisible God voice, Homealways has an agenda. Nevertheless, the statistics are mostly true, motivations pure and the journey is fun.
Like Home's opening shot of earth spinning into sunlight from darkness, viewers will be enlightened. Initially, Home acts as a school video explaining complex ideas with simple definitions and pretty pictures. No, Home is not Planet Earth pretty, but the pictures are fascinating, and illustrate earth's fragile beauty. Hometeaches how life came to exist on earth and how it evolved; yet, there are some interesting facts I didn't know, like minerals and metals are really stardust which gives earth color. Then there's ideas mentioned I've never thought of: did you know all the water you use is the same water your caveman ancestors used? These little brain teasers make the slow opening entertaining, but it's the almost apocalyptic second half I remember vividly. The once mighty River Jordan is now a trickle, a billion people are starving worldwide, global warming is melting polar ice caps quicker than ever expected, our population has tripled since 1950 and so on. Home doesn't pull punches explaining how earth is dying or explaining how our economic systems are contributing to it. There are two chilling moments of revelation: our similarities to the Rapanui people of Easter Island, and the toxicity of methane. The Rapanui acted like a nation with Bush as emperor: exploiting resources so recklessly it lead to soil erosion, overfished seas, and overpopulation. Despite all their technical innovations and power, greed and apathy exterminated the Rapanui. Then there's methane below the slowly melting permafrost. Basically, if our pollution doesn't change, then methane-- 20 times worse than carbon dioxide-- will enter the atmosphere. And then? Well, no one knows. There's a certain point of 'you're screwed' measurement science stops at. Unfortunately, methane soars past that point. After the well-done gloom and doom, there's optimism: a bank dedicated to lending poor people money, windmills, solar power and the largest group of educated youths that's ever existed. (Don't you feel a warm inside, with all this change?) The manipulative melancholic music is overdone and hurts Home's credibility, yet environmental films have to shame viewers into realizing their apathy. If you don't like it, go watch mindless entertainment. However, the inflated statistics-- the stated seven billion people on earth versus the real 6.7 billion-- are damaging. Also, if you don't like the images on this page, then Home's beauty won't thrill you either. You'll just be sitting there bored and confused, like Bush in a classroom.3.5/5 stars: there's better earth films, but Home's beauty, simplicity and frankness make it worthwhile More pictures The Cinéma Français Today Film Festival discussion panel over Home For more information about CFTFF, check out the their blog! Or join our festival group.
- Movie Title: Capitalism: A Love Story
Does your butthole still hurt after the bailout? Mine does. And Michael Moore's certainly does. In his new documentary Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore analyzes the continual exploitation and robbery-- by way of bailout-- of Americans and literally asks, "What the fuck happened?" This is not a boring journalistic study of capitalism with all sorts of interviews with boring white businessmen. What follows is a study of the human costs to corporate greed and public apathy. From the opening montage of store robberies set to Iggy Pop's Louie, Louie to Moore putting crime tape across Wall Street, you'll be laughing with tears.
First, Moore shows how the US is following the same path of destruction as ancient Rome: exploited apathetic citizens retreat to mindless entertainment while aristocrats live in extravagance, and the environment deteriorates into a wasteland. From there, Moore gives the personal stories of capitalism victims. The Hackers of Illinoise were a happy family in a nice home. Then the husband had a work related accident, and was put on disability. Unable to pay their bills with rising interest and petty disability checks, the Hackers were kicked out with nowhere to go for doing nothing wrong except for having bad luck. The Hackers represent the neglect and shameful inhumanity of the capitalistic system. However, Moore does focus on "straight up capitalism" success stories. Peter, a real estate agent, works for Condo Vulchers, a company proud to rip off owners of foreclosed homes and buy them for a fraction of the price. Consequently, Peter's able to buy a new car almost every year even though "he's not a car guy." Though a hyperbolic example, Peter conveys the immorality of profitting off others' misfortune and being able to leaglly swindle desperate people.
But Moore has bigger surprises than typical greed. For example, Wal-Mart (and other companies) has a Dead Peasants Insurance business practice: private life insurance on employees that makes them worth more dead than alive. Married couple and Wal-Mart coworkers, Paul and Ledonna, experienced DPI first hand. After Ledonna died of asthma at 26 years old, and left Paul with over $100,000 in medical debt and a $6,000 funeral, Wal-Mart made five million dollars from their private life insurance policy, which benefitted from Ledonna being statistically unprobable to die at a young age. Now, all Paul can do is read the letters he wrote to his dead wife, curse Wal-Mart's name, try to support his family, and earn money obedientally to pay his bills. Another argument of Moore's is Wall St. derivatives: complicated betting that fools law enforcement and allows "corporations to get away with murder." Moore has to go through multiple explanations of derivatives just to get a vague idea of it. The most contemporary example would be bets placed predicting people will default on their morgages. If people do, money's made. If not, then investors can also hedge their bet by betting their original prediction will fail. It's quite a rackett-- legal too.
One of the most powerful moments involves Moore showing a leaked Citigroup private report, which can be read here. It explains how the US is a Plutonomy-- "the top 1% of households account... for more than the bottom 95% of households put together"-- and that businessmen are "riding the gravy train"(p.3) in America. This letter is as close as Moore could get to a banker mooning and flipping off the American people while calling them idiots. It really burns you watching it. Finally, Moore offers some hope for us known as "the rest" by rich businessmen. He shows factory workers given three days notice of their termination and being told Bank of America can't afford to give them the paychecks they legally deserve. Fortunately, the workers strike, refuse to leave the factory, and unite the country in a fight for equality. But the true climax is when Moore investigates the largest bank robbery in history-- the financial bailout of 2008. Although people exercised their power to demand the bailout not pass, and were initially successful, Moore argues that corporations like Goldman Sachs used democratic leaders, including Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, to "create a back door deal for $700,000,000... people be damned." Even senators admit the bailout was a "masterful intelligence operation," which is why made Capitalism. To show people injustices and inspire change through peoples' goodwill. Moore's admission that President Obama's bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs underlines his argument.
There are a million things I've left out, including a Jesus skit with him saying to a sick man "I cannot heal a preexisting condition," to a wonderful juxtaposition of fanciful capitalist beliefs of Ronald Reagan as a cowboy and saving the day with the reality of people in Detroit being locked out of their houses. Many people argue Moore's films are biased and should be avoided. They think his personality is enough to ignore urgent and dangerous truths revealed in his films. Is Moore biased? Obviously. He strongly disapproves of our nation's direction, and wants to show why. Regarding Moore's style, as Hunter S. Thompson would say: "There is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms." And even Moore admits he's tired of his attention grabbing antics, and wants people people to do something. Or you could just bend over for another bailout.4.5/5 stars: probably the most important film of the year.
Movie Page-- Trailer-- Pictures
Moore's list of facts
Moore fact check:Politifact & KCCI Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Baader Meinhof Complex
Nazis, nude beaches, assassinations, explosions and Janis Joplin: Welcome to The Baader-Meinhof Complex. BMC chronicles the rise, fall and rebirth of the Red Faction Army, who birthed modern terrorism. Essentially, the RAF consisted of rebellious 20 somethings frustrated by the lack of denazification in Germany. Based on Stefan Aust's book Baader-Meinhof: The Inside Story of the R.A.F., BMC attempts to fit almost all of the 480 pages into 150 minutes of politically drenched thriller. Although BMC bites off more than it can chew, the feast is splendid. Germany 1967: Communist groups are waning under the cruel hand of a Nazi-like German police state, the news is censored, Germany is sliding closer to involvement in Vietnam, and people are powerless as ever. But after liberal journalist Ulrike Meinhof (Martina Gedeck) witnesses a brutal massacre of protesting civilians by police, she starts searching for a way to truly change the world. Enter RAF founders Andreas Baader (Moritz Bleibtreu) and Gudrun Ensslin (Johanna Wokalek), who soon recruit Meinhof as 'Commando' and PR expert. Afterwards, the RAF proceeds to bomb, murder and kidnap for political power. For example, censored German newspapers equals bombing printing factories. U.S. involvement in Vietnam equals bombing troop bases. All in hopes of changing the corrupt political spectrum. BMC's logic: 'of course people die, but it's revolution and the dignity of life is a bourgeois concept.' BMC maintains a stable balance between providing some motivation for such violent acts and conveying the undue horror caused by the RAF to civilians. Whereas the main three characters push the story forward, police head Horst Herold (Bruno Ganz) interprets the RAF's motivations and societal effects. Consequently, he is the only one who knows how to destroy the group. Fortunately, Herold's character allows for a intellectual reflection over the RAF's crimes, yet never preaches or begs sentimentality. Furthermore, Herold's presence adds much needed suspense in a long winding film that could easily get bogged down in random violence. Amazingly, BMC's cycle of violence is never tired because director Uli Edel adds montages effectively summarizing many political and social events. In fact, Edel's documentary style of filming gives every violent scene a sense of lethal reality. The personalities are kept simple, which is good and bad. Although more character depth would've helped dramatically, the documentary feel would have been compromised. And given the RAF's motivations never elevate over elementary beliefs in self righteousness and violent redemption, it's doubtful the real members were much more complicated anyway. Additionally, there's significance in the characters losing their individual identities once in the group-- it's not a script flaw. Best of all, the four acting leads are powerful and convincing. Baader and Ensslin are effective as the Bonnie & Clyde duo symbolizing freedom, sex and change to young rebels, but the stand out role is Gedeck's Meinhof. Thanks to her great performance as a ordinary person becoming a terrorist, the audience has no problem following along and understanding the group's psychology. In second place, Ganz is brilliant as ever. (If you've never seen his work as Hitler in Downfall, then you are missing one of cinema's finest performances by the way.) His calm and analytical nature gives BMC much needed intellectual stimulation and meaning to the various violent images. As a result, the violence is never sanitized nor does the viewer become desensitized. The last killing is as brutal as the last. In addition to an abrupt ending, BMC does lose focus during the middle parts: Ganz is hunting the RAF, they're running, assassinations are happening, members are getting caught, personal relations are clashing, and world affairs are deteriorating. A little much all at the same time. Plus, there were multiple scenes where I didn't comprehend the full significance of who was being killed. Of course, I knew who the terrorist were and what was happening, just not the exact purpose. I also wanted to see more of the rational revolutionist who wanted change through peaceful means. Such people are very important in determining the validity of the RAF's claims that only violence will bring revolution. Moreover, the victims of the RAF's crimes are never explored. Without knowing the real devastation of the RAF's crimes, how can the viewer really judge them. Despite everything just mentioned, BMC is still one of the best movies of the year. And unlike the other big Nazi movie out now, this has nude beaches! Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: It Might Get Loud
"It keeps increasing and accelerating till the very end, like an orgasm," says Jimmy Page describing his Stairway to Heaven solo. Unfortunately, director Davis Guggenheim's new documentary It Might Get Loud is not orgasmic-- more like an enjoyable quickie with three guitar legends. Jimmy Paige (Led Zeppelin, The Yardbirds), The Edge (U2) and Jack White (The White Stripes, The Raconteurs) come together to discuss their styles and jam together. But the actual meeting is less than a quarter of the film; most of the time is dedicated to a personal exploration by each musician over his experiences. Essentially, Loudacts as an annotation on the group's jam, which is fascinating enough. Interestingly, Loud pays little attention to the actual chords of the music, and instead focuses on the state of mind of the artist and style. One scene has Page playing Whole Lotta Love sliced with old concert footage and Page’s narration explaining how his loud and rude guitar sound defined him. Another scene involves White describing his new guitar augmentation, which segues to The Edge elaborating how various effects adds to the music. In essence, the style of Loud reminds me the moral of an old story: a child prodigy is summoned to play for a famed pianist. The child plays every note of a Chopin song smoothly and accurately. Afterward, the great pianist pats the child on the shoulder and says, ‘You can play the notes. Someday, you may be able to play the music.’ Fortunately, Loud avoids mere recitation of notes, and explores the meaning of the music. For every great scene providing fascinating glimpses into each artist's music, there are two that repeat the same thing in a less effective way. When The Edge explains his troubles and triumph in writing the politically charged Sunday Bloody Sunday and ends with a clip of a live performance expressing all of the emotion hinted earlier, the point is beautifully made. But The Edge redundantly continues, 'Ireland was troubled; bombs; poverty etc.' Then there are the overly detailed backgrounds of each artist. These scenes are not horrible, just unnecessary. Conversely, there are some necessary scenes that are boring, like the recording sessions. While The Edge's recording session is fine, White's reveals nothing but a sub-par song and Page's consists of narration with pictures. Surprisingly, Loud is propelled forward as a character study. Of course each artist's entertainment value will depend on each viewer’s musical taste. Personally, I was most fascinated by White because he reveals his inspirations, his upbringing, his crusade against technical effects, and his existential exploration into the soul of music. The Edge is second with his personal reflections on how the violence and poverty in Ireland shaped him as an artist. The Edge also spends the most time talking about the effects in his music. Page resorts to recounting his early days as a commercial guitarist, who eventually became an influential artist. If Page would have focused more on why he became an artist rather than how, then he might be the most enjoyable. Nevertheless, all three guitarists have funny and interesting archive footage of themselves as young amateurs. Despite all the character development and history, there is very little reward in the final jam. There is no evidence anyone learned anything from the meeting, nor any constructive discussion about style. It would have been great to see White and The Edge debate technical effects in music; instead they kiss each other’s ass about their tunes. And no one's ever had an orgasm only kissing ass, have they? Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: World's Greatest Dad
If you take Gore Verbinski's 2005 neurotic comedy The Weather Man and then add suicide, auto-erotic asphyxiation, a naked Robin Williams, and death cults. You get director Bobcat Goldthwait's World's Greatest Dad: one of the best comedies of the year. Yes, it is dark, cruel and cynical, but it is also original, provocative and damn funny (a rarity in today's cinema). Williams gives a great understated performance as Lance, a tired and lonely high school poetry teacher. Lance's poetry class is filled with uninspired students glad to plagiarize Queen lyrics and pass them off as original poetry. But the poetry class has some hope for success, whereas Lance's literary ambitions are almost nonexistent. He's written five books, multiple articles, poetry, and has never had anything published-- much less appreciated. Nonetheless, Lance perseveres and follows his dreams of successful authorship and love. In fact, Lance is romantically involved with a teacher, Claire (Alexie Gilmore), at the school where he teaches. But even this simple relationship is complicated by a younger hotshot teacher at the same school, Mike (Henry Simmons), who easily gets published and seems to woo Claire without trying. Then there's Lance's son, Kyle (Daryl Sabara, also very good). Kyle is the ultimate epitome of violent masturbation and isolation. His daily life involves insulting everyone he contacts and masturbating in a variety of ways to anything resembling sex, including an elderly woman next door. Kyle constantly talks about sex and mocks everything mature in life as "gay". Whether Lance catches Kyle in the process of auto-erotic asphyxiation or insulting Claire, Lance remains a loving father. So loving in fact, when Lance discovers Kyle dead from suffocation during auto-erotic asphyxiation, Lance rearranges the scene to look like Kyle hung himself. For better or worse, Lance writes-- in Kyle's name of course-- a profound and beautiful suicide note detailing the misery of the human condition and how Lance was the greatest dad in the world. Eventually, a student finds the note online in the police report and spreads it through school creating a death adoring phenomenon. Suddenly, everyone loves Kyle and his sensitive perspective on the world. Suicidal teenagers realize they want to live and girls desire Kyle as a poetic idol. But before Lance can comprehend the situation, he becomes loved because of his relation to Kyle: Lance's poetry class fills up, Claire passionately adores him, hot-shot Mike is ignored, and Lance is considered a brave hero by everyone. Consequently, Lance decides to write a fake journal in Kyle's name to further the success. Initially, everything works beautifully. Lance gets on television, Claire couldn't love him more, and Lance finally gets publishing offers. But can Lance continue the empty charade of respect and death cults for personal gain? There has been discussion that Goldthwait cops out in the end; I disagree. While WGD does not end perfectly, I still laughed and felt the film earned its conclusion (though William's penis was not necessary viewing). If you haven't noticed yet, WGD functions on a different comedic level than other adult comedies, such as The Hangover. The laughs come from things you should cry at, but are too twisted mentally to do so. Yet, there are still plenty of sad moments. In a recent interview, Goldwaiths said, "If your not laughing and crying in life, then you're not really living." Thus, WGD has a comedic chaos that might confuse some viewers. Nevertheless, Goldthwait's story and direction are worthy of three stars, but the great acting-- especially by Williams and Sabara-- earns an extra star. By the way, Williams cried at the film's premiere at Sundance because he was so happy with the results. 4/5 stars: A fresh and well acted cynical comedy Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Inglourious Basterds
Some time ago I said I was worried about this film and its hidden references. I was an idiot. 5/5 stars. And I'm going to revisit QT's old films soon-- like Kill Bill, which I didn't especially love back then. Hopefully, this will be a start of a fortuitous journey.
- Movie Title: Taxidermia
When a film opens with guy shooting flames out of his penis, you know you're in for an adventure. Specifically, a postmodern and surreal adventure spanning three generations of obscene and sexually frustrated men. While Hungarian director Gyorgy Palfi's Taxidermia is being hailed as good political satire by most critics, I think it is a masterful examination of man's existential place in the universe. Of course, such wild and oblique filmmaking all depends on the viewer: some will merely see a succession of unfunny grotesque images, while others, like me, will find a complex and humorous meditation on life. The story begins with Vendel Morosgoványi (Csaba Czene), an orderly for the Hungarian army in WWII. Lonely and constantly berated by his lieutenant, Vendel's only pleasure in life comes from sexually fantasizing about his lieutenant's obese wife and two perky girls. In between Vendel's depraved longings and abuse are reflections on life by his lieutenant: "It is not the world that makes the cunt go round... it is the cunt that makes the world go round." Through a twisted series of events involving sperm flying to the stars and necrophiliac bestiality, Vendel impregnates his lieutenants wife. Their baby, Kálmán (Gergõ Trócsányi), grows up to be a professional speed eater in Communist Hungary. While competing in hopes of being recognized as worthy of Olympic stature, Kálmán falls in love with female speed eater, and hottest babe around, Gizella (Adél Stanczel). However, when Kálmán is second place, Gizella starts drifting towards the first place competitor. There is even a scene where Kálmán and his competitor argue over their love while puking out food into a big bowl after the contest. Eventually, Kálmán and Gizella do get married and have a child: Lajos (Mark Bischoff). Lajos is a skinny taxidermist living in modern times whose life consist of buying food for Kálmán-- now horrifically obese-- getting rejected at the grocery store everyday by a cute cashier, and trying to create meaning in life through taxidermy. I won't spoil anything, but Lajos does manage to find meaning some meaning in life. That's the literal story, so what is it really about? In short, I think Taxidermia illustrates humanity's journey from sex crazed primitives to overweight, jealous, depressed and greedy sex crazed primitives. Basically, Vendel represents man's primitive beginning on earth and proves mankind's lowest common denominator is sex. Attempts at philosophy are silly and useless: we enter alone, die alone. Kálmán represents humanity's greed and over-eating. Additionally, I think Kálmán's love story also illustrates that human behavior is too hideous and vile for true love to exist. Lajos, the least grotesque of all characters, is mankind's attempt to turn the inescapable pleasures of the flesh into art. The political aspects of the film, which most critics have mainly analyzed, are relatively minor for me. Politics is portrayed as an unseen force pushing people around in an already volatile situation: life. The Communists in the second section merely appear because they have something to gain from Kálmán. Afterwards, Kálmán is left bitterly reminiscing bygone days and fame. Taxidermia is a vile, hilarious masterpiece, and my favorite film of the year so far. You may vomit watching it, but it will be with a smile. Most films are lucky if you remember a couple of scenes-- you won't forget Taxidermia at all. I've spent hours wondering what every little detail meant, and still have many unanswered questions: Why segue into modern time through a bird's crap? Why randomly show unexplained beautiful images throughout the film? Ultimately, Taxidermia is what filmmaking is about: breaking the laws of reality to provoke thought, entertain and provide an unforgettable adventure. 5/5 stars: a magical, hilarious and grizzly postmodern masterpiece Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Headless Woman
A better title would be The Plot-less Movie, or The Humorless Satire. Argentinian director Lucrecia Martel's third film, THW follows Veronica (Maria Onetta) who enters an amnesiac and hypnotized state after accidentally running over a child while reaching for her cell phone in her car. Hitherto, Veronica drags through the entire movie in a (boring) daze, while her oblivious family continues their usual bourgeois chatter. See, the joke is no one can tell Veronica is any different-- you laughing yet? Add some sentimental crap about how Veronica can't feel for anyone below her own social class because she's rich, and you know what to expect. Basically, the movie is a state of mind: Martel tries to create an enchanting masterpiece of subtlety and wit to reflect Veronica's amnesia, but ends up with a pretentious POS that drags for seemingly hours. Nothing is enchanting about watching Veronica sit in a daze for 92 minutes. The yuppie banter is purposely boring and useless to illustrate the boring and useless lives of the bourgeoisie, which then makes the film boring and useless (if you think my usage of boring and useless is tiring yet, try THW's use of it). What I really hate about this film is that it could have been excellent-- if Martel wasn't such an insipid storyteller. Obviously, Martel is heavily influenced by the great director, and one of my personal favorites, Luis Buñuel, who was a master at satirizing bourgeoisie and creating an engaging story. However, Buñuel used surrealism to liven his films because he knew simply showing chatter bored audiences. Conversely, Martel seems to think following some rich chick around all day will create an "unlikely thriller" as the film's description states. Even when something happens, it's still dull! For example, when Veronica finally admits to a guy (he was so lifeless I don't remember anything about him) that she thinks she ran over a kid, the scene just ends. Then there is a boring driving scene where the guy tells her she's innocent. Then another boring talking scene. Then Veronica tells another guy what she just told the last guy. Then more boring talking. Then the second boring guy repeats what the first boring guy told her 15 minutes ago. Then Veronica tells another person what she just told to the last two guys, who then repeats the same thing to her. Additionally, there are side storylines, such as Veronica's affair with another woman's husband, that go nowhere because their subtlety is supposed be enough to engage the audience. Ultimately, the premise is intriguing while the execution is painful-- and by painful, I mean Eddie Murphy movie painful. I typically enjoy abstract, subtle, and challenging filmmaking like Ingmar Bergman's Persona or even Tian Zhuangzhuang's Horse Thief, but THW just sucks. In fact, Bergman's Persona-- the story of two troubled Swedish women in the same house slowly merging their personalities-- makes THW look like G.I. Joe. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: American Violet
Imagine it's just another day at work. You fake a smile, greet customers, and look at your watch. You're getting into your groove that gets you through the daily grind, then cops arrest you. You are shoved into a squad car without any explanation. You're in a tiny cell with three other people oblivious as you are about what's happening. You ponder every possibility. Finally, you conclude it must be some unpaid parking tickets. In court, you apologize to the judge for your tickets. Everyone in the court smirks; the judge solemnly declares you are charged with selling narcotics on school grounds. You plea your honest innocence, but you're just another criminal. Your world collapses: your children need you, your job has forgotten you, neighbors think you're a felon, and you are alone. Based on the factual story of Regina Kelly and her stand against an unjust Texas judicial system, American Violet follows Dee Roberts (Nicole Beharie) who is suddenly arrested while working at a local diner. Once in jail, Dee realizes she was falsely arrested because she was black-- like every other person arrested that day on related charges. However, the obvious injustice means nothing to most people because law enforcement officials deny it, the black community is afraid, and whites don't want trouble. In such a hostile climate, many of the falsely accused agree to sign plea bargains to get out of jail. After all, Dee is told that her situation is her word against aninformant who positively identified her, two cops who witnessed her selling drugs, and an audio tape to confirm everything. But the plea bargains offered ruin the signer's lives afterwards because they lose their government housing, their job doesn't want a felon, their community condemns their supposed crimes, and that person loses their personal dignity. Fortunately, Dee refuses and opts to fight the system to change things-- namely the racist and seemingly sadistic district attorney Calvin Beckett (Michael O'Keefe). Dee is aided by David Cohen (Tim Blake Nelson), a charitable ACLU attorney, and local narcotics officer Sam Conroy (Will Patton). While the premise is great and the acting is good, the story gets convoluted: story twists are predictable, many scenes are recycled from other movies about racist law enforcement and the district attorney Beckett is too dehumanized to be compelling. If Beckett were portrayed as more of a human, then his racist acts would fully sting. But as a conventional bad guy, one expects no different. Additionally, I was interested to see how such blatant racism in a small Texas town still exists. For example, the film Rosewood literally showed racist white men showing their children how to tie nooses and teaching them to look at a black person's grave as if it's an animals. Unfortunately, AV only explains the financial incentive for arresting blacks. Moreover, the approach to racism seems sanitized-- probably as to not offend anybody. Except films illustrating such horrific actions need to show the naked, ugly truth. Yet, the sanitized and flawed truth in AV is still gripping and important to see and learn from. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Tyson
Imagine a documentary over Jake Lamotta, the boxer of Raging Bull, and you have a decent idea of what Tyson is about. Both boxers grew up in poverty, became street thugs, are known for disastrous rages, rarely knocked down in fights, served time illegal sexual relations with women and matured later in life to transcend their violent past. But Mike Tyson is more fascinating than Lamotta because of more dimensions involving his image in the press, a father-son relationship with his trainer Cus D'Amato, and a lively boxing career setting numerous records once held by fighters such as Muhammed Ali. The storytelling is standard operating procedure: starting from his childhood and ending with Tyson as a father and burned out fighter. However, there are some unique touches, such as the use of multiple screens at the same time to convey Tyson's schizophrenic like mindset. Another example is the occasional use of Tyson's sometimes poetic reflection of his life. However, the true accomplishment of James Toback's direction is that he allows us to truly get into the mind of Tyson. One of the best scenes involves Tyson narrating what he thinks while he is walking towards the ring: "The closer I get to the ring the more confident I get. Once I m in the ring I m a god. No one could beat me." There are other little aspects of Tyson's narration that add to the experience like when Tyson details how the best fighter is the confident, relaxed boxer enjoying what he is doing, and not the raging bull furious at the world. Despite all the accomplishments of Tyson, the film seems lacking without others' perspectives. Although Tyson is brutally honest with his sins, I doubt he was completely honest in everything-- who could be? And I was left curious for more details about Tyson's growing up in a deadly urban environment, which permanently shaped his cynical and brutish personality. Nevertheless, Tyson remains a very elucidating, mature, and enjoyable chronicle of a flawed and fascinating fighter that can be appreciated by anyone. Brett Fletcher, Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: In the Loop
"'Climbing the mountain of conflict?' You sounded like a Nazi Julie Andrews!" In The Loop tries to answer the question, 'What if the creators of The Office tried to make a modern Dr. Strangelove?' Answer: hit and miss. However, I should note that I am not a fan of The Office or British humor, which might account for my not laughing at most of the jokes. But the humor is not clever as Dr. Strangelove or provocative as Team America: World Police anyway. Consequently, ITL is a witty film with flashes of brilliance, but suffocates itself in British quirkiness and innefective humor. The story has dual starting points: British Secretary of State Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) blurts out that war in the Middle East is "unforeseeable," much to the chagrin of his war hungry Prime Minister Malcom Tucker (Peter Capaldi) who demands Foster make the war somewhat "foreseeable." The second part begins with reporter Karen Clarke (Mimi Kennedy) catching a government official referring to "a committee," which Clarke thinks-- and is right-- is a secret war committee. The problems start immediately when neither story can propel itself forward enough to deserve attention. The first 30- 45 minutes I sat waiting for the foulmouthed Prime Minister Tucker to come back on screen and cuss humorously because the vocabulary of Capaldi's character is the only real brilliance early on. Rather than focus on the fascinating Tucker, ITL opts to follow Foster's assistant, Toby Wright (Chris Addison). Wright attempts to earn praise by getting Foster into a meeting of the war committee-- and supposed hilarity ensues. Addison plays Wright as a stupider and less sympathetic Woody Allen type character, with twice the quirkiness. I honestly did not care whether Wright would live or die at any given moment, and certainly did not enjoy his banter. Fortunately, Wright slips into the background occasionally, and other more interesting characters are introduced. The best of the secondary characters is James Gandolfini's Lt. Gen. George Miller, an armchair general who epitomizes the ignorance of the American military. For example, Miller describes the amount of troops needed for war in the Middle East" "Twelve thousand troops. But that's not enough. That's the amount that are going to die. And at the end of a war you need some soldiers left, really, or else it looks like you've lost." Another example of effective humor is when U.S. official Linton Barwick (David Rasche) edits a meeting's record to suit the government's wants. There are some other great moments as well involving Barwick, Miller and Tucker as well. Yet, the annoying characters, like Wright, keep intervening just as the movie garners real attention. There is extra side story-- but it is not worth mentioning. It seems the film makers thought of a few great ideas and added filler to make it 106 minute film, which felt like two hours towards the end. Even if I was a fan of British humor, the non-engaging story and the criminally annoying Wright character are enough detract from any film. --Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Hurt Locker
"War is a drug." Director Kathryn Bigelow has created a tense and fascinating character study that revels in the madness of war like no other film since Apocalypse Now. And I don't think I'm going to see a better film this summer. The Hurt Locker is not about war per se, but the human mind existing in a chaotic state of nature. Staff Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner, in a Oscar worthy performance) is a desensitized and psychotic bomb disposer. James has done over 800 bomb disposals and enjoys every new challenging bomb. In fact, James keeps pieces of particularly dangerous bombs so he can reflect on how close to death a little piece of plastic or metal put him. Despite James' love for danger and explosives, his newly assigned team-- who recently lost their team leader to a bomb-- is extremely cautious and resentful of reckless behavior. After all, while James is diffusing bombs, his team is in the open covering him. Moreover, James' team, Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), have little over a month left of active service before they can go home and be with their families. The personality clash between James and the team even deteriorates to the point of considering murderous mutiny. Whereas Sanborn values safety above all else, Eldridge is a delusional solider, slightly cowardly, who believes courage is merely invented once on the battlefield. Nevertheless, as Sanborn and Eldridge slowly delve into the madness and thrill of war, they begin to relate to James. Suddenly, putting one's self in danger is brave and exciting, and death is never considered. In fact, the soldiers' seem to rationalize their lifestyle by just not thinking of the consequences of death or danger-- only the high. All of the actors are excellent, and there are numerous cameos by stars like Guy Pearce, David Morse, and Ralph Fiennes. But Renner is the main attraction: he plays an over the top character with subtlety and understated madness. Director Bigelow also deserves credit for never exploiting the subject matter, and letting the characters drive the story. Obviously, Alfred Hitchcock is a major influence in Bigelow's suspenseful direction of the bomb scenes; however, I was in more suspense about what crazy and suicidal action James would consider next. Despite everything great about THL, there are some problems. At 130 minutes, the film drags a little. Additionally, the story takes some rather fantastic turns-- even when considering the ridiculous nature of James. Still, THL remains a must see and mesmerizing character study. --Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Killshot
Killshot has a rough history: It was finished in 2006 but had to be reshot because test screenings were atrocious, Mickey Rourke plays a half Ojibwa, half Canadian hitman, Tommy from 3rd Rock From the Sun is a psychopath, and director John Madden is only really remembered for Shakespeare in Love. Nevertheless, Killshot is an interesting character driven potboiler adapted from Elmore Leonard's highly loved novel of the same name. The story opens with the a typical flashback sequence meant to give the movie a layer of pathos. Yes, it's been done before-- as has most of the opening sequence involving hitman Armand 'The Blackbird' Degas (Rourke) executing his target. But Blackbird kills the woman with the target as well because he cannot take chances by having anyone alive knowing what he looks like. Unfortunately, the woman was a favorite plaything for Blackbird's boss in the Toronto Mafia, so Blackbird must hide a while around the neighborhood from his boss. While leaving a bar in the town, Blackbird runs into a thug attempting to hold him hostage: Richie Nix (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Nix is a wild and arrogant amateur criminal on his way to shakedown a real estate agency for $20,000. Blackbird is intrigued, and eventually becomes Nix's partner because of cliched reasons involving a dead brother. Despite the standard story execution of the story, the criminal duo are entertaining to watch and provide real tension. Furthermore, there is nice pacing (at first) between humor and instant brutality. From here, the film hits and misses. The shakedown fails because the expected man to be there is not present, but divorced couple Carmen (Diane Lane) and Wayne Colson (Thomas Jane) are. Predictably, Wayne fights back, and somehow kicks both the hitman and the lifelong criminal's ass. Unfortunately for the Colsons, they saw Blackbird's face and now are his targets-- and Nix's as well. The story is uneven: one minute it a cat and mouse thriller, then a character study of two criminals and a divorced couple, then eerie psychotic horror show, then revenge picture, with finally, a story of redemption. Yet, most of these episodes are executed well in of themselves. Of course, Rourke's is laughably terrible trying to be Ojibwa, but as a killer he excels. Nix is uneven: he overacts, but that's the point of his character who is trying to be a fearsome, stylish criminal. Jane and Lane are effective considering, but Jane's badass moments hinder the tension that relies on realistic suspense. I was in suspense some scenes and entertained mostly, but a predictable ending and a questionable story structure, Killshot is reduced to a fun rental on a bored day. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Goat
Few remember Buster Keaton; fewer remember his hilarious short The Goat. For those unfamiliar with Keaton, he was a silent film comedian and major rival of Chaplin. Whereas Chaplin focused on pathos and small gags, Keaton focused on mind blowing stunts and enjoyable human stories. Keaton's most acclaimed film, The General, was voted by the Silent Era website as the greatest silent film ever made. Roger Ebert even included The General in his top ten favorite movies of all time. Sadly, Keaton's fantastic early career deteriorated with sound films: he lost control of his films, each movie made was worse than the last, he became alcoholic, and disappeared from public view. Fortunately, in 1962, Keaton's films were rediscovered and he was thrust into the spotlight one last time before he died of lung cancer in 1966 at 70. The brilliant aspect of The Goat is that the structure has a perfect snowball effect: the stunts and humor get bigger and bigger towards the end. Many films attempt the snowball effect, yet only achieve intermittent enjoyment. Initially, Keaton's unnamed character is standing in line for free bread and is humorously cheated out of his share. Starved and bored, he prowls the town. When a man near Keaton picks up a horseshoe lying on the sidewalk, spits on it, and throws it back for luck, that man finds a wallet filled with money. The ever curious Keaton finds the horseshoe, and tries the same thing. But the horseshoe accidentally hits a cop in the face! And here the chase begins: through traffic, on trains, in and out of apartments and morgues. Add to the mix that Keaton is mistaken for the notorious criminal Dead Shot Dan-- thanks to a goof in pictures. In addition to the fabulous structure, there are many neat ideas utilized. For example, when Keaton temporarily escapes from the cops by train, the camera is fixed and the train, with Keaton sitting on the front, comes from a long distance up to point blank range. I have no idea how it was done, but it looks convincingly real. Also, there are some fun special effects with clay animation involving an elevator skyrocketing up through a roof. Yet, a key scene with Keaton at a dinner table with a cop and his family is probably most effective because it fully exploits the viewer's anticipation of upcoming action. Do yourself and a favor, and take a chance on a silent film. Most of all, witness the genius that is Buster Keaton. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Winter Light
"Yes, Ingmar, it's a masterpiece. But it's a dreary masterpiece." --Kabi Laretei, Ingmar Bergman's wife after viewing Winter Light Writer/director Writer Ingmar Bergman's Winter Light is probably his bleakest film-- and that's saying a lot. Bergman has always dealt with problems of faith, death, depression, love, bitterness, and redemption. Even Bergman's lighthearted efforts have a shadowing looming over them. For example, Bergman stated that his motivation for creating Smiles of a Summer Night came from a personal choice of either do a comedy, or commit suicide. As Pastor Tomas (Gunnar Björnstrand) monotonously performs mass, his followers stew in doubt. Karin (Gunnel Lindblom) and Jonas (Max von Sydow) Persson sit silently, but radiate waves of tension and fear for unknown reasons. Märta (Ingrid Thulin) coyly and lovingly stares at Tomas, though his eyes are devoid of any notice. Fredrik (Olof Thunberg) the bored organist yawns and checks his watch as he plays the hymn. Algot (Allan Edwall) seems the only one pleased at the service, and of God. After the ceremony, the Perssons visit Tomas for help about Jonas's confusion in life. Specifically, Jonas is seriously debating why he should bother with the pain of life when God is nowhere, and the threat of nuclear annihilation is everywhere. However, Tomas realizes he cannot help Jonas because all he has to give is his own confusion and pain resulting from his lack of faith. Tomas and Jonas agree to settle the dispute later. Meanwhile, Tomas reads a love letter from Märta, who desperately seeks romance with Tomas. Despite Tomas's need for affection and Märta's unconditional love, he refuses her claiming his dead wife was the only love he shall ever have. But Tomas's indifference and inability ultimately stem from his lack of faith: “God, why did you desert me?†God's silence haunts Tomas, and seems to slowly ruin his life. Tomas cannot answer Jonas because God has given no reason to live; he cannot accept Märta's love because it is void of any meaning without God. And everything deteriorates from there. While this is an extroardinary film, it is hard to watch: the camera is mostly static, there is no action, Tomas is consistently dreary, and Bergman's trademark screen beauty is absent along with God. Yet, if one can stomach it, Winter Light will make you a richer person. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Small Time Crooks
With Woody Allen's new film Whatever Works in too limited release to be possible for me to see, I thought it apropos to see a modern Allen film. Thus, I chose the witty and irreverent Small Time Crooks. Ironically, Whatever Works is being slammed by some critics because it seems uninspired; as if Allen just said, "OK, this works, so let's stretch it to two hours." Meanwhile, STC is entertaining because nothing works, and the characters float in a sea of chaos. Essentially, Allen's character Ray Winkler is the older version of the incompetent thief Virgil Starkwell from Take the Money and Run. However, Ray is married to sweet, tough Frenchy (Tracie Ullman), who is a lone voice of wisdom and love in his life. One day, Ray walks in to tell his wife his new 'flawless' plan for easy money: "What, you gonna rob a bank?" Frenchy sarcastically asks. Unfortunately, Frenchy guessed right. Ray's plan is to buy an abandoned pizza shop right next to a bank, and open a fake business to cover up an underground tunnel leading right under the bank for the perfect robbery. However, an old prison pal of Ray's, Benny (John Lovitz), buys the place first with the intention of burning for the insurance money: "I burn everything, how do you think I sent two kids through college?" Eventually, Benny joins the scheme with Ray and his simpleton friends Denny (Michael Rapaport) and Tommy (Tony Darrow). And Frenchy starts a temporary cookie business as a cover. In classic Allen fashion, everything goes wrong with the robbery attempts: water lines bust, maps read upside down, and discussions about how to wear a construction hat while looking cool. Despite Ray's failures, Frenchy's cookies become an instant success-- even bringing news reporters to investigate the trend. Consequently, Ray decides to dump the bank business, and franchise the cookie business, which makes the Winklers and company rich. Nonetheless, Ray and Frenchy will soon learn that their attainment of artificial riches only deteriorates their human joys and love. While STC provides numerous laughs with some memorable dialogue, the absence of Allen's trademark drama prevent it from being classic. For example, when Frenchy overhears her new rich friends criticizing her lifestyle in another room, the film elevates for a period into something special. But the opportunity is soon delegated to providing a couple extra jokes instead of a true human experience. Yet, Ullman fully realizes every dimension of her character. Frenchy is a complex and ironic mix of naivete, wisdom, fun, courage, ambition, and neuroticism. Ray, on the other hand, is the same Allen character he always is. What could have been great supporting roles to compliment Ray and Frenchy are unrealized, gimmicky characters, such as Lovitz's insurance money obsessed criminal. Ultimately, Small Time Crooks is worth seeing for Ullman, the wacky plot, and Allen's always witty dialogue. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Encounters at the End of the World
"You show me a place on my planet I did not know about, and I am richer. You are the most curious of men." --Roger Ebert,Thank you letter to Werner Herzog for dedication. Writer/director Werner Herzog describes Encounters at the End of the World thusly: "The National Science Foundation invited me even though I made it clear I would not be making another movie about penguins." Herzog never delves into conventional cinema, and Encounters is no exception. There is no main goal to discover, story, or characters; only the thoughtful and subtle exploration into human existence through the lens of the last frontier on earth. Encounters is at once a scientific study about earth's fascinating idiosyncrasies, yet also a spiritual reflection of mankind's place on it. Herzog himself narrates, and asks questions about nature: “Why couldn’t a monkey ride a goat into the sunset†like a human rides a horse? All the while, a picture of a monkey riding a goat is on screen, which illustrates the exotic and humorous personality of Encounters. Initially, Herzog is frustrated to land in Antarctica on an outpost with a 1000 people. According to Herzog, the outpost looks like “an ugly mining town†with “abominations such as an aerobics studio and yoga classes.†Fortunately, Herzog utilizes the residents and captures interviewers with scientists, linguists, welders volcanologists, horticulturalists, divers, meteorologists, and former philosopher turned truck driver. While the interviews do elucidate Antarctica, the real aim is to capture the forgotten human spirit and obsession that seeks a deserted ice-land filled with dangerous natural beauty. A prime example of the average person is a linguist who laughs at the irony that he came to a continent without any languages. But the linguist knows that the other people who abandon their own profession's conventions are "his people" in the cultural sense. Herzog also uses vintage footage of Ernest Shackleton of the catastrophic Endurance expedition of 1914, which involved explorers carrying the British flag across the continent to show superiority. Oddly, Herzog is fascinated with Shackleton's story, yet condemns his imperialist motivations. In addition to the character study of Antarctica and its residents, Herzog explores the fate of humans. There is a great scene in Antarctica's underground where residents leave mementos of theirs', such as a frozen fish and a poem, in a vague hope that when humans are extinct, alien archeologist's will uncover this underground and study the human race from these artifacts. Herzog keeps the apocalyptic discussion subtle, probably the dismay of many, but it is thought provoking. Ultimately, Encounters is a fascinating series of questions, and no answers. If you are expecting a Planet Earth style documentary, you will be dissapointed. Encounters is educational in the spiritual sense in that the viewer will witness unseen and beautiful crevices of the earth. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Places in the Heart
There are images in writer/director Robert Benton's Places in The Heart that are unflinchingly brutal, and others of affecting pathos. Yet, these powerful scenes have been overshadowed by less significant aspects of the film: the artistic ending and Sally Fields's Oscar acceptance speech [ you like me. Thank you."] Furthermore, Steven Spielberg's 1985 great film The Color Purple, which dealt with slavery, is remembered as the definitive 80s film about racism in the south. During a typical dinner at the Spalding house in 1935 Great Depression ridden Texas, Sheriff Royce Spalding (Ray Baker) is called upon to deal with a child shooting a gun recklessly. Royce's wife Edna (Fields) customarily stays behind and finishes dinner with her two children, Frank (Yankton Hatten) and Possum (Gennie James). After dinner's over, Edna is greeted by her husband's police partner-- who's carrying Royce's dead body. Consequently, Edna is left with a single mother with little funds, $3000 debt, children to feed, and no employment. Despite Edna's adversity, she perseveres her compassion and kindly agrees to house and feed black drifter Moze (Danny Glover). Eventually, Edna decides to risk everything to preserve her family and home, and start her own cotton business with the guidance of the experienced Moze. Along the way, the banker in charge of Edna's bank account, Albert Denby (Lane Smith), convinces Edna to board his blind relative Mr. Will (John Malkovich) with a financial mercy from the bank. From here, Enda must survive personal, social, racial, and natural disasters to save her family and friends-- and herself if she can. Interestingly, the truly moving scenes of the film are in the little moments and touches: the nervous son asking his lonely mother to dance, Edna and her children suffering in the field next to her black workers for money, Mr. Will risking his safety for Possum in dangerous weather, and Moze's personalized gifts for the children. While the main story is great, the side stories seem oddly inconsequential to the rest of the film. Essentially, the sub-plot involves a love triangle between Edna's sister Margaret Lomax (Lindsay Crouse), Margaret's husband Wayne (Ed Harris), and family friend Viola Kelsey (Amy Madigan). Although the the love triangle is not bad, it seems trivial compared to the deeply moving drama of Edna's struggle. In addition to the sub-plot, much criticism has been made of PitH's ending. Personally, I enjoyed it because no denouement was needed to make sense of the story-- it is up to the viewer to fill in the blanks. Surprisingly, the Klu Klux Klan are only mentioned once in the film. One would think that the KKK would be a clear and present danger at all times considering. Nonetheless, the KKK's appearance is logical to the story, and appropriately handled. . Along with A Color Purple, Places in the Heart remains a must see to realize the terrifying and cruel reality of racism in the deep south. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Touch of Evil
"A policeman's job is only easy in a police state" A Mexican Charlton Heston plays an honest cop trapped in a circle of corruption led by drunken and psychotic Orson Welles. Sounds fun. But the story is minor compared to Welles's superb direction. Basically, Touch of Evil is The Maltese Falcon meets Citizen Kane. First shot: a bomb clicks in a man's hand and is shoved into a car's trunk. A couple enters the car and begins driving. Still the same shot, the car continues to drive along, until the camera moves down toward Detective Vargas (Heston) and his wife Susie (Janet Leigh) walking the street. There is no music except for what's on the street, and no credits; it's like documentary footage almost. After a mesmerizing three minute and eight second opening shot, the car with the bomb explodes near Vargas. Hitherto, Vargas will hunt for the real killer, while Detective Quinlan (Orson Welles) will use his intuition to frame who he thinks is the killer. Yet, it is not the story that truly begins-- but the style and characters, which continuously compliment each other. The three minute shot, and all the other long shots as well, are not Welles merely showing off. The shots illustrate the interconnected nature of all the characters and their actions. Vargas believes in law and order through strict moral rules; conversely, Welles's detective Quinlan is the epitome of police corruption. Can Quinlan's touch of evil on Vargas destroy his beliefs, or will Vargas's sense of justice waste lives needlessly? Or is this whole film a satire? All the characters are caricatures: the All-American Heston as a incorruptible Mexican cop, and Welles as a cop so weighed down by corruption all he can do is eat doughnuts and frame innocents. Many plot elements are fantastical as well, such as Vargas carrying a blasting tape recorder in his hand while tailing the suspect talking. It is to Welles's credit that both interpretations work. Essentially, watching ToE is like viewing two films at once. Unfortunately, there are flaws. Some scenes are completely inconsequential, such as a rape scene that is never mentioned again. And, , Vargas's numerous errors in judgment involving his wife-- though dramatically captivating-- detract from the film's story. Nevertheless, evil's touch never felt so good as in this movie. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Wages of Fear
"You don't know what fear is. But you'll see. It's catching, it's catching like small pox! And once you get it, it's for life!" Voted the 148 greatest film of all time on IMDB (yeah, it's not an accurate poll, but interesting), The Wages of Fear almost perfected the suspense movie genre: multilayered characters capable of anything at anytime on a constantly dangerous situation. However, the film is slightly hampered by ineffective political and social commentaries. The opening scenes were originally edited out by censors in America (for being too long), and, strangely, by France for being too Anti-American. And with Criterion's DVD release, the full film is available. Essentially, the scenes illustrate the ennui and poverty of South America, which the main characters are trapped. Mario (Yves Montand) is just another bum without a job, but there is some hope. Mario is brave, he is romantically involved, though not permanently attached, to beauty Linda (Véra Clouzot), and he is friendly with the new rich inhabitant Mr. Jo (Charles Vanel). Initially, Mario and Jo travel around town pondering ways to escape poverty, and begin a new life. In Mario's quest for social advancement, he slowly begins dissolving his old friends: Linda, other bums, and his roommate Luigi (Folco Lulli). Despite the pain caused, Mario is apathetic because his abandonment is justified for possible improvement. Everything changes when an oil accident 300 miles away creates a financial opportunity of a lifetime. Attempting to assuage the situation, businessmen decide to hire some men to transport a large load of nitroglycerin from town to the oil field. However, the plan is a suicide mission for the drivers-- so the payoff is $2000. One oil executive describes the situation: "those bums don't have any union, nor any families. And if they blow up, nobody'll come around bothering me for any contribution." Eventually, Mario and Jo find themselves on the road driving the explosives, and with two other men (I won't say who) behind in another truck. Needless to say, things go horribly wrong, and unbelievably suspenseful scenes ensue. At any instant, Mario and Jo's truck can explode from vibration or a slight bump-- as well as the other truck. Additionally, Mario and Jo clash personally when it comes to assessing the value of money versus the sanctity of life. Ultimately, TWoF is a white-knuckle thrill ride. The less than perfect opening scenes with heavy handed politics, and a feminine character hardly realized are worth sitting through to get to the gold. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Lewis Black: Black on Broadway
"I'm always amazed when I hear people saying; "That George Bush, he's a great leader". And I wonder, where can one find a drug that would make one so delusional?" Lewis Black is one of the few remaining curmudgeons left. From the stupidity of Americans to corporate greed, and the weather, Black is back with a vengeance. The key to Black's brilliance is his pitch perfect delivery that harmoniously blends practical logic with humorous insanity. For example, Black on American exceptionalism: "The most important part of travel, is when you come home. Because, that's when you see your country with new eyes. I was amazed to realize that...we're the only country that that tells the rest of the world, on a nearly constant basis, that we're the greatest country on Earth. And that is a little fuckin' obnoxious! And they know it's obnoxious. Because, if you were in an office, and there was someone there, who came in every day and said; "I'm the greatest fucker here! And you snivelling shits would die without me! AHAHAHAHA!" I can guarantee that by the end of the week, you'd have killed him! And eaten him, just to try to possess his power!" And Black does not limit himself to pure angry rants. Black even involves the audience sometimes: Lewis Black: And for all we study about health, we know nothing! Is milk good or bad? [pause, the audience is silent] Lewis Black: I rest my case! Beware that Black is a thinking person's comedian, whose jokes will tickle your intellect. Black is not interested in making his viewers laugh out loud. But that's why Black's stand-up is such a unique and memorable experience. If you prefer comedians like George Carlin and Bill Hicks instead of Dane Cook, then you will love Black. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Short Cuts
Coming out of exile from the 80s, director Robert Altman returned with a slew of great films. Perhaps the best of the group is Short Cuts-- a three hour slice of life involving death, forgiveness, happiness, loneliness, sex, and perseverance. Random coincidences of life permeate Altman's vision, but they are so adroitly added that they give SC a sense of ironic authenticity instead of unbelievable story devices. SC begins and closes with city wide events that link all the stories together. Initially, helicopters are flying in the night spraying bug spray. Then Altman gives us quick glances into the lives of 22 different people. Fortunately, the casting is pitch perfect, and all the characters are instantly recognizable throughout the film. There is the philandering cop Gene Shepard (Tim Robbins), who has become disillusioned with his family life. Pathetically, Gene's wife, Sandy (Cassie Friel), enjoys hearing the absurd stories concocted by Gene when she finds numbers in his pants. And Gene seems to enjoy the thrill of cheating, and not the actual relations. Unbeknownst to Sandy, Gene is sleeping with Betty Weathers (Frances McDormand). Betty is struggling with her own tumultuous life with her child Chad (Jarrett Lennon) and crazy ex-husband Stormy (Peter Gallagher). When Stormy learns from Chad that Betty has a new man, he plots his revenge because he was hoping they could rebuild their relationship. After all, Stormy bought her a birthday cake, right? And from the same place Stormy bought his cake, Ann and Howard Finnigan are planning for their child's birthday-- until a horrible accident obliterates their safe lives. Then there are the drunks. Dorian and Earl Piggot (Lily Tomlin and Tom Waits) live in a cheap trailer, and a cheaper existence. Dorian is a waitress at restaurant, where she gets bigger tips for not wearing panties. Earl is a chauffeur with a drinking problem. Fortunately, the Piggots are happy when sober, but life's constant challenges prevent their quantum of solace from enduring. The Piggot's almost estranged daughter, Honey (Lili Taylor) is married to Bill Bush (Robert Downey Jr.), who is a make-up artists. Their relationship is satisfactory-- no kids, no big arguments, fun weekends, and no infidelity. However, Bill wants to cheat on his wife for fun. Yet, the Bushs' are happier than their friends Lois and Jerry Kaiser (Jennifer Jason Leigh and Chris Penn). Lois is a doting mother and wife, but she takes care of her family as a phone sex operator. There is a fantastic blend of humor and poignancy when Lois changes her baby's diaper and talks dirty into the phone. Meanwhile, Jerry goes along everyday listening to his wife love people over the phone, and then he gets to clean pools all day. Jerry soon builds up hidden rage from persevering too much, and never releasing it because it would be inappropriate. The Kaiser's are perhaps the most important characters in the film because they represent the struggle of all the characters: functioning on multiple levels of life everyday, paying the bills, and trying to find happiness at the end of the day. Amazingly, after over 500 words, I yet to touch on two other storylines. But you get the idea thus far. And if you don't-- then you're too dumb for this film. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: South Park: Raisins
I'm going to piss off a bunch of people and say that South Park's "Raisins" is the best written episode of any show, ever. There is a timeless main story, an excellent sub-plot, classic characters shine, minor characters make superb cameos, many new characters are introduced perfectly, the music is great, and the episode comes full circle at the end with a stellar finale. If you haven't seen this episode, run to southparkstudios.com and watch it under season seven immediately-- episode 714. During a humorous football game, Wendy's friend Bebe sardonically tells Stan, "Wendy breaks up." Stan is emotionally destroyed. Of course, Cartman shows his support by shouting, "Whatever Bebe, like Stan really cares, just get out of our football game you stupid skank!" Then the episode truly takes off: enter cheesy guitar riff and yell of Cinderella's melodramatic ballad, Don't Know What You Got (Till Its Gone). Stan assumes all the cliched motions of heartbreak by walking sadly in the rain, hallucinating Wendy by his reflection in the water, crying on the sidewalk, and adoring a picture of Wendy. It's hilarious satire, and good character interaction. The next great scene involves Stan cowardly telling Jimmy to tell Wendy that "she is a continuing inspiration to me." Of course, Jimmy can only utter, "Your a cont." A prime example of a proper cameo by a minor character. But the true genius lies in the introduction of new characters: the goth kids. The goths fit perfectly within the South Park universe and serve as a integral part of the story. Furthermore, the goths are not random creations like Towlie (though I do love him so); instead, they are relatable personalities with flaws just like all the other characters. Butters's sub-plot is perhaps even better. Attempting to assuage Stan's misery, the boys take him to Raisins-- Hooters for toddlers, and food for Cartman. Surprisingly, Butters falls in love with a waitress Mercedes, who only flirts with him for a bigger tip: "You guys, I think our Raisins girl likes me, she touched my back when she walked away-- did you see that?" But realize the juggling genius of the Raisins scene: Stan's story is being progressed, new characters and a company are being introduced deftly, Butters's plot is beginning, Cartman is supplying laughs with few words, and Hooters is being satirized subtly, but mercilessly. And like many great stories do, Raisins ends were it begins: on the football field. Stan's life lesson is not too preachy, but wise and endearing because he has suffered so. The characters, story, and the viewer have all come full circle after a fun and emotional journey. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: South Park: Season 08
"They took 'yer job!" If you're going to watch one season of South Park, this is the one. Several of the episodes are A list-- but none of them are bad. This season has everything: child violence and nudity; celebrities (Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson); evil squirrels; immigrants; giant sex orgy; Wal-Mart; Special Olympics; and much more. Furthermore, all the characters are given great screen-time: The smart Jewish kid Kyle; Kyle's arch enemy and resident fat kid Eric Cartman; Kyle's best friend Stan Marsh; the always dying Kenny McCormick; the gay teacher Mr. Garrison; the wise Chef (Issac Hayes); the nervous and gullible Butters Stotch; the physically and mentally handicap kid Timmy, who can only say his name; Timmy's handicapped friend and sometimes rival Jimmy; and Stan's dumb but lovable dad, Randy. Some highlights: The first episode is "Fun Times With Weapons": when the boys obtain martial arts weapons, they imagine themselves as anime heroes. However, the fun ends when one of them is injured. A- "Up The Down Steroid" is a classic. When the Special Olympics comes to South Park, Jimmy and Timmy decide to join. But Jimmy turns to steroids to boost his performance. Even worse, Cartman decides to join because he thinks he can win the grand prize money. A+ Timmy: Timmy, Timmy Jimmy: Don't lecture me on the complexities of sportsmanship! "You Got F'd in the A" is a satire on the You Got Served fad. When the boys get served (that is, danced in front of) by some inner city kids, Stan decides to serve them back with some country two-step. Unfortunately, Stan's challenge means it is "on!" Now Stan must assemble the best dance team South Park has ever seen. A "Goobacks" is one of the most offensive, funny and thought provoking episodes ever. South Park's workers are losing job thanks to a time portal that allows immigrants from the future, who are out of work, to seek employment in the present. When Stan loses his snow shoveling job to immigrants, he decides to join the fight against the immigrants. And, I promise you, you will never see the ending coming. A+ Redneck: They took 'yer job! Other great episodes are Something Wal-Mart This Way Comes (a bitter satire on Wal-Mart's expansion into small towns), Stupid Spoiled Whore (Paris Hilton visits South Park), Cartman's Incredible Gift (Cartman believes he can see the future, though he can't, but the cops are too stupid to know the difference), The Jefferson's (Michael Jackson bonds with the boys), Quest For Ratings (a ruthless satire on the news), and Douche And Turd (South Park on the Presidential election.) There are some that are not so great, but not bad. "The Passion of the Jew" has an entertaining premise involving Mel Gibson, yet the idea loses steam after awhile. "AWESOME-O" involves Cartman posing as a robot to snatch an embarrassing tape from Butters, and also loses energy. "Woodland Critter Christmas" is a close one, but not quite great: Stan is caught up in a Christmas fable with evil woodland creatures. "Pre-School" is interesting because it is a flashback, but the main storyline feels a bit uninspired to be great. Nevertheless, do yourself a favor and watch South Park. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Long Goodbye
Film noir rule #1: The detective main character is smart, cool, tough, and always lands the woman of the movie. The Long Goodbye: Philip Marlowe (Elliot Gould) lives and works alone in his apartment with his cats in California. Marlowe is out of touch with 70s world and still wears a 50s style tuxedo-- along with chain smoking, paranoia, and passiveness. When Marlowe's old friend Terry Lennox (Jim Bouton) shows up at his place asking for a ride down to Tijuana, Marlowe's world is obliterated. And no, there is no beautiful blonde Marlowe has a chance with either. In fact, after a major character death, Marlowe starts whining almost like a child to the police about irresponsibility. Film noir rule #2: The detective's innate coolness will cower his adversaries in conversation. TLG: When Marlowe is interrogated at a police station without charges, he proceeds to paint his face black with the black ink on his thumb from the earlier thumbprint. Marlowe then goes into name calling with a police detective. However, Marlowe's spunk disappears when he realizes his friend Terry allegedly murdered his wife. These are just a couple of examples of how director Robert Altman's TLG transcends the film noir genre satirically and artistically. As usual, the storyline is complex and filled with betrayal and morality; however, Altman does not care about the story. Instead, Altman's focus is really on the style: the camera is always moving in some way, a lot of dialogue is mixed up with other conversations, the color pallet varies depending on Marlowe's state of mind, and Marlowe always maintains his classic 50s look. In accordance with Marlowe's traditional style, he sets off to solve the mystery of his friend's whereabouts and actions. But Marlowe is always stopped by the changing world of the 70s consisting of free love and levity. Marlowe's neighbors are a group of nudist women who yoga on their porch, yet Marlowe only maintains a cordial relationship of grocery and animal care favor-- he is not interested in the free love world. Additionally, Marlowe makes no real human connection with anyone in the film. The closest he comes is to his snobbish cat. And how many rules does that idiosyncrasy break? Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Exterminating Angel
"The angel exterminates...snobs, let's say." -- Luis Buñuel The Exterminating Angel is one of those films that makes your jaw drop, brain spin, and conscious whirl. It is at once a bitter dark comedy, and also a sad study of human behavior. Director Luis Buñuel is infamous for creating offensive and cynical, but thought provoking cinema, such as a picture involving a Jesus figure freeing a slave dog-- only to have another slave dog slide by in the background. But TEA is much more vague than typical films about human behavior. Or at least that is what critics think. The whole film could be an anarchistic and nihilistic exercise in debauchery. The film opens with the preparation of a dinner party at the mansion of Leticia (Silvia Pinal) and Edmundo Nobile (Enrique Rambal). However, like mice in a sinking ship, the housekeeping and servants hurriedly abandon the mansion without much thought. The bourgeoisie at heart butler remains to serve his masters obediently. After snobbish conversations, some involving anti-semetic insults, the guest wind up strangely staying in the same room the entire time. Even worse, the guests decide to spend the night, illogically contriving excuses, and sleep on the floor in the same room. Astonished at such improper behavior Leticia hopes to serve breakfast and be done with the guests. When the butler enters with breakfast, he soon realizes he is cannot will himself to leave the room though there is nothing stopping him. Then, all the other guests realize they cannot leave either. Initially, everyone hopes people outside will rescue them; yet, the police and families cannot seem to will themselves to enter onto the property similar to the people in the house. And then the fun starts. A key element to understanding TEA is the idea of repetition. About twenty scenes are repeated-- some obvious, others subtle-- throughout the film. I don't know what such ideas mean, but I have theories-- but so do you. And that is what makes TEA a great film. Is the story about the monotony of bourgeoisie life? Or the greed? Vanity? Immorality? But it could also be existential: do the guests trapped represent the human condition of being trapped in a life and death cycle? Do the religious pictures have symbolic meaning, even though Buñuel insists they don't? I won't say more because if I did, then this film would not be your personal experience. And that is what it has to be. PS: To better enjoy TEA, it helps if you hate rich people. ;) Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Pickup on South Street
"Sometimes you look for oil, you hit a gusher." Samuel Fullers Cold War paranoia and film noir hybrid Pickup On South Street is warmly remembered-- maybe too warmly. Yes, it is a fun movie with good use of expressionist symbolism, but its time has passed honestly. The communist as a bogeyman is an ancient relic in film making, and humorously detracts from Pickup's story. Nevertheless, Pickup is an interesting and entertaining mass of paranoia, double crosses, and 50s music. In New York's dirty, dark underbelly, Candy (Jean Peters) waits on a subway to deliver a purse with a valuable object for her ex-boyfriend Joey (Richard Kiley). However, expert pickpocket Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) deftly steals the valuable object-- a piece of microfilm containing top-secret plans of the U.S. government. But McCoy's theft is spotted by two government agents tailing Candy because of her affiliations with Communists. Now for some more twists, Candy is unaware that Joey is a Communist, that her purse contained treasonous material, and love sparks fly between Candy and McCoy. If you've seen film noirs, then you know where this one is going. Yet, the Communist angle is what the film is remembered for. Communists are cowards, women beaters/killers, and are even morally shunned by criminals. Another aspect of Pickup's notoriety is its composition: close-ups are used every minute to add tension and reveal character, virtuous characters are placed on the screen higher than criminals, and guns are closer and bigger to the camera when violence enters the story. Visuals play a large role in Pickup's effectiveness; however, they never convey anything not already fully known. Moreover, there is very little use of lighting in Pickup, which would seem essential for such a visual movie. Nevertheless, Pickup On South Street is a wild ride worth a rental. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: All Quiet on the Western Front
"I am young, I am twenty years old; yet I know nothing of life but despair, death, fear, and the fatuous superficiality cast over an abyss of sorrow..." The classic novel All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque received royal treatment with the 1930 adaptation directed by Lewis Milestone and starring Lew Ayres. The adaptation remained a faithful rendition of Remarque's novel, and managed to create the ideal war film illustrating the before and after effects of war. However, the television remake of 1979 directed by Dilbert Mann and starring Richard Thomas, opts for a simpler, faster paced approach. The film opens with a pedestrian introduction consisting of the main character Paul Baumer (Thomas) narrating, and telling each soldier's name and school major. Fortunately, the tell and not show approach is avoided when the action begins-- about two minutes into the film. The futility of trench warfare is shown in its full glory, but isineffective because it is over too quickly and the real horrifying face of death is avoided. Whereas the original 1930 version began while the characters were in school, this version jumps straight into the action. Consequently, it is hard to care for characters in battle that you've known for a minute. Thefilm-making method of enjoy now and pay later always fails. Once the action is over, then the school scene is thrown in. Unfortunately, Paul is reduced to the cliche of the artist drawing during class instead of Ayres multifaceted performance. I'll be honest and admit I did not finish this film after the first twenty minutes. I just sat there and wondered why I am not justre-watching the infinitely superior original. Additionally, Thomas, while not a bad actor, pails in comparison to Ayres. Thomas is always obviously an actor playing a role. But Ayres's face brilliantly conveyed his character's confusion, pain, and bravery. In conclusion, see the original. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: After Hours
While filming The Last Temptation of Christ, director Martin Scorsese was continually reassured all his problems would be solved-- and then they would knife him in the back. This is the basic principle of After Hours; a project Scorsese began when The Last Temptation production dissolved. After Hours was a therapy session for Scorsese to vent his frustration, and the simmering intensity of the film is evident. Paul Hackett (Griffin Dunne) lives alone, has a boring job, and yearns for fun. This fun approaches him at a diner when Marcy Franklin (Rosanna Arquette) chats with him about a book he's reading. Paul gets Marcy's number, and, after a strange conversation, is told to come over. Desperate and horny, Hackett agrees. And then the film takes off like a bottle rocket. An insane cabbie hauls down the street and Hackett's money flies out of the window, Marcy is gone to the drug store, and Marcy's roommate Kiki (Linda Fiorentino) convinces Hackett to paper mache her screaming sculpture. I won't spoil anything else because the film's fun comes in the quirky surprises-- but rest assured you will never exactly where this film is going. Scorsese described After Hours as an "exercise completely in style." Well, that's not true because the viewer honestly cares about Hackett, his adventures, and all the strange misfits he meets. People who watch too many movies will realize that the film's style is satirical of Alfred Hitchcock movies: the dramatic close-ups of objects and music. Sure, the plot has gigantic holes (couldn't he walk home, call a coworker etc.), but that's not the point. Such criticisms are as valid as accusing Buster Keaton movies for being too ironic and unrealistic. Although After Hours is very unique and will displease some, it is a wild, enjoyable ride that will leave the viewer panting. Like Scorsese said before he made the film after all the back-stabs he received: "My idea then was to pull back, and not to become hysterical and try to kill people." Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Aguirre, the Wrath of God
"I am the wrath of god. The earth I pass will see me and tremble." Arrogance is the least of themes in Werner Herzog's haunting film Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes. It the 16th century, and a sadistic, insane Don Lope de Aguirre (Klaus Kinski) is out to discover El Dorado-- the mythocal city of gold-- with a Spanish expedition. The film opens with the crew traveling down treacherous terrain: slaves carry the two women of the trip, one Agirre's daughter, and the rest of the crew travels in outfits fit for social events-- not a lethal jungle. But the real achievement is the mood of the scene. Errie choir music gives a sense of dread, and Kinski's face spells impending violence and doom. As the expedition-- and the real life cast, who were in much danger during filming-- continues, they proceed to a river hopefully leading to El Dorado. However, the raging water separates part of the crew. Don Pedro de Ursua (Ruy Guerra), the leader of expedition, is well intentioned and considers helping the lost men. But such hope is squandered by Aguirre who insists that help would slow the journey down. Unsurprisingly, the lost crew are found dead-- probably by surrounding Indians. With the expedition deteriorating, Aguirre creates a mutiny to finish the search towards El Dorado. Before all is done, many will die for greed and supposed self-righteousness. While there are many unforgettable scenes, the final panoramic shot of the raft will be etched into the memories of all viewers. In addition, the tight close-ups of Kinski's face with unflinching blue eyes and unnatural lips send chills down the spine. And those are just images. There is a slightly humorous scene as well; which involves the leader of the expedition declaring that all land they pass through is officially his-- the self proclaimed emperor. Nevertheless, Herzog always pulls the film back into depravity and horror, such as the scene where Indians yell that meat is passing by on the river. Interestingly, the simmering violence and horror prevalent in the film is not just good film making, but reality. Herzog reportedly threatened to kill Kinski with a gun, and then commit suicide if Kinski ever left the production. Furthermore, the actors' reactions in many scenes are genuine because Herzog's script was almost non existent, and he chose to semi-improvise while they dangerously drift on the river. Fortunately, Herzog's ruthless quest for a great, transcendent film did not end like Aguirre's search for El Dorado. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Never Back Down
"...dude - and you can bang." The filmmakers responsible for Shuan of the Dead and Hot Fuzz could not have made a more satirical fight movie. Never Back Down's brilliance comes from its strict obedience to genre cliches. Jake Tyler (Sean Farris), who embodies Tom Cruise to the point of copyright infringement, is the new tough pretty white kid at his high school. Jake was so tough, he got thrown off his old high school's football team for beating another player who taunted him about his father's death while drunk driving. And it does not take Jake long before he starts fighting again-- yes, this is a lot like The O.C.. Jake attempts to rescue a kid being bullied, Max Cooperman (Evan Peters), but it happens to a mixed martial arts bout. Embarrassed by his naivete, Jake leaves. However, in perfect accordance with standard movie storytelling, Max attempts to recruit Jake into the world of mixed martial arts. Of course, he refuses; until, he meets token blonde Baja Miller (Amber Heard). Baja invites Jake to a party with MMA matches, and her boyfriend, Ryan McCarthy (Cam Gigandet) is the best and most sadistic fighter in town. Needless to say, Jake must find a way to solve all his problems of love, friendship and revenge through beating people to pulps. And accordance with Karate Kid, Jake goes under the tutorship of Jean Roqua (Djimon Hounsou), otherwise known as the Mr. Miyagi role. Stereotypical probelms arise, and it is clear the key to life rests in Jake pounding Ryan. But what elevates NBD to crap heaven is its hypocrisy in themes. While the anti-violence message is typical of these movies, the blood-lust is incredible: multiple slow motion close-ups of blood flying out guys' mouths, women parading around the fight's victor, and the slow motion crash of bodies hitting the floor. Truly one of the most mind numbing, yet enjoyable, experiences anyone could ask for. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Watchmen
"What, in life, does not deserve celebrating." ...Well, Watchmen for one. I've heard Watchmen described as a two and a half-hour think piece-- I disagree. Forgive me, but I am only going to talk about the film's problems here because I have heard too many positive reviews over it, and must vent. No film involving two badasses in a hallway, a room full of dangerous prisoners, and guitar music can be a think piece. Essentially, Zack Snyder's direction is like Sam Raimi emulating Ingmar Bergman with horrific results. There are other problems: too many characters not developed well enough, nihilistic violence, silly action sequences, distracting music, and other problems. The story of Rorshach (Jackie Earle Haley) investigating the murder of costume heroes is entertaining, but is held back by imperfections. For example, I could not appreciate the central theme of normal people as costume heroes when they do supernatural stunts. Furthermore, the stunts themselves were not expertly done I thought. I am not entertained by watching CGI characters flip around the screen. I paid to see reality improved by special effects, and not one gigantic effect. But the most unbelievable aspect of the film was President Nixon. Make-up has rarely been so cheesy and distracting. The most distracting part of the film, for me, was the soundtrack. Bob Dylan's The Times They are a Changin' is a cliche but forgivable. The Sound of Silence during The Comedian's (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) funeral-- not so much. I just sat there and thought about The Graduate movie. Worst of all, Leornard Cohen's Hallelujah played during a sex scene; Yes, the song has some relation to the plot, but it remains tacky nevertheless. As does the rest of the film.
- Movie Title: Somebody Up There Likes Me
[Note: Review for 1956 film] Somebody Up There Likes Me is not only a very good film, it is a piece of history: it is the film debut of Steve Mcqueen, Robert Loggia, Dean Jones, Frank Campenella, and Angela Cartwright. Additionally, it is second film of Paul Newman, whose first film, The Silver Chalice, was a disaster. Newman almost didn't get the role because James Dean was originally hired; unfortunately, Dean died September 30, 1955 during production. Another noticeable achievement is that director Robert Wise preceded Martin Scorsese in creating a gritty film chronicling the violent exploits of a criminal turned boxer. In fact, Newman almost looks identical to Robert De Niro in Raging Bull during the fight scenes. The film starts with little boy Rocky Barbella being taunted and abused by his father Nick (Harold J. Stone) and his friends. Fast-forward to Rocky's teens (Newman), he has become a violent street thug with no upward social mobility. After a robbery gone wrong, Rocky gets caught and sent to a juvenile detention center. Rocky proceeds punch and taunt every authority figure in his life, and soon is sent to Rikers Prison. With a visit from his loyal mother (Eileen Heckart), Rocky realizes his behavior is tormenting his mother. Consequently, Rocky tries to improve his behavior. However, when he is drafted into the army, he reverts back to his old violent personality and lands in prison again. Fortunately, the guards realize Rocky has boxing potential. Fighting under a pseudonym to avoid law enforcement-- Rocky Graziano-- Rocky begins his ascension in the boxing world. There is a touching scene where Rocky's security to the ring comes in and Rocky mistakes them for cops that want to arrest him. However, Rocky's transformation is soon threatened when someone tries to blackmail him before a championship bout. Will Rocky break the law to preserve his boxing, or will he do the right thing and jeopardize his pleasant new life? Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: JCVD
I used to watch Jean-Claude Van Damme movies and laugh. Lately, I haven't been able to finish one, JCVD included. Sure, dramatically JCVD is Damme's best film-- yet it is still a poor film. And when the laughable action appeal from Damme's other films is missing, all that is left is an empty shell of cinema trying to cash in on a gimmick. JCVD follows Damme as himself set in a faux reality where he is a luckless, broke action actor who lost custody of his children to his wife. After some artistic differences on his latest film, which is shown in a fairly entertaining single shot opening credits played to Curtis Mayfield's Hard Times. Consequently, Damme moves to Brussels, where he is a national icon. However, when Damme goes to the post office to receive a wire transfer, a robbery occurs and a hostage situation ensues. This plot development was particularlydisappointing because I was led to believe that JCVD was about Damme actually robbing the place. Instead, it is rehash of gimmicks that have been done before. But what really angers me about the story is that it blatantly copies my favorite film Dog Day Afternoon. JCVD is not Al Pacino and director Mabrouk El Mechri is not Sidney Lumet. I can't tell you too much more about the film because I turned it off. Even though I knew exactly how the film was going to end, I did make sure to look it up to be sure I wasn't unfairly criticizing the film. Well, it ends exactly like I though. Here's an example of the melodramatic BS that permeates the ending: "It's so stupid to kill people. They're so beautiful! So, today, I pray to God. I truly believe it's not a movie. It's real life. Real life. I've seen so many things. I was born in Belgium, but I'm a citizen of the world. I've travelled a lot. It's hard for me to judge people and it's hard for them... not to judge me. Easier to blame me. Yeah, something like that." By the way: I've heard rumors, and let me tell you. No, Damme cannot act. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: 88 Minutes
Film critic Michael Phillips labeled 88 Minutes the most inept film of 2008, which was only held together by "the care and feeding of Al Pacino's hair." Indeed, no matter if Pacino is dodging cars, bullets, or fighting a serial killer, his souffle hair remains unshaken and beautiful. Although 88 Minutes is easy to taunt and not a good film, I don't think it is horrific-- like Righteous Kill. At a university in Seattle, forensic psychiatrist and college professor Jack Gramm (Pacino), otherwise known as Iron Hair, who receives a call stating, "You have 88 minutes to live." And oh does the writing only skyrocket from there: Shelly Barnes: "Just don't ask me to marry you again." Dr. Jack Gramm: "Why not? We're perfect for each other." Shelly Barnes: "Yeah, yeah... except I'm gay and you're a commitment-phobe." Dr. Jack Gramm: "That's why we're perfect." ,and Sara Pollard: [speaking to Jack] "Psychiatrist by day, party animal by night." ,and then Lauren Douglas: "God, I wish Forster could see your face! You look so totally clueless!" After the phone call, Gramm and his hair decide to find the real killer. First, Gramm suspects his involvement in a trail involving putting killer Jon Forster (Neal McDonough) to death, which makes sense because it is the eve of Forster's execution. From here, Gramm investigates suspicious students, a campus security guard, and a woman he had a one night stand with. Honestly, I was in some remote suspense for twenty minutes. Then, one of the most overused serial killer cliches makes it completely obvious who the killer is. But the only thing more shifty than the plot is continuity goofs: dead bodies change with each new shot, characters' make up (especially eye liner) changes, and characters standing still are shown sitting in different places with each successive shot. Although Pacino's har is always perfect, the volume of it varies throughout the movie as well: one moment its two inches high, then it jumps to five, but still perfectly groomed. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Colors
Instead of paying to see the new stereotypical urban drama Life is Hot in Cracktown in theaters, try ordering a far more realistic and intelligent study of urban life through the eyes of cops and gang members. Of course, Colors is not a documentary, and there are some sensational moments to merely entertain. But the fact that two real life gang members hired as security and actors were shot during filming, adds the spark of real life to Colors's story. Colors is the story of rookie cop Danny McGavin (Sean Penn) learning the reality of street life and justice with his new partner, veteran officer Bob Hodges (Robert Duvall). Whereas Hodges is calm and negotiable with suspects to keep the peace, McGavin is anxious, brusque, and violent to eradicate crime altogether. An early scene involving the duo questioning a group of suspects, conveys the personality clash. Hodges merely warns a 14 gang member he is heading down towards a dead end life, and decides to let another suspect named High Top free even though McGavin found drugs on him. McGavin thinks the situation is outrageous and he has no back up to do his job, but Hodges reveals the reality: High Top owes Hodges a favor now, and the cops can hunt other criminals rather than spend the rest of their day doing paperwork over High Top's arrest. Despite the wise advice from Hodges, McGavin continues his stubborn mission of no mercy towards criminals. In one key scene, McGavin catches a kid spraying graffiti over other gang members' names (indicating those names are going to be killed); once again, Hodges gives him a stern warning, but McGavin decides to soak the kids face with his spray can. Occasionally, the film switches to scenes involving the community: a drug dealer using kids as drug mules, a hostile meeting between citizens and the police at a community center meant to solve problems, and a family mourning their daughter's accidental death resulting from a next door drive by. These scenes work well and add more depth to the main storyline; however, there is an afterthought of a love story between McGavin and Louisa Gomez (Maria Conchita Alonso) that slows the film's energy down. This plot pitfall is especially bad considering the slow moving plot of cops on the beat. Thanks to screenwriter Michael Schiffer's script, and two fine performances by Penn and Duvall, the characters never become stereotypes. Penn expertly illustrates the duality of his character: the semi-sadistic cop believing in extreme justice, and the caring young man trying to make a difference. But Duvall steals the movie from Penn with a nuanced performance that compliments every actor's character as well. Duvall's Hodges represents the both the wisdom and cynicism that comes with years of policing Los Angeles's ghettos. The good performances and writing are effectively directed by Dennis Hopper. Hopper's direction is not flashy, which suits the film perfectly. Not suiting the film perfectly are some hyperbolic chase scenes --but they are entertaining enough-- and a illogical ending that borders on melodrama. Nevertheless, Colors remains an incisive and compelling examination on law enforcement interacting with urban culture. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Small Change
No one could convey childhood and the rhythms of life like writer, director, and actor François Truffaut. Truffaut is remembered for his autobiographical masterpiece The 400 Blows (1959), and his noir tribute Shoot The Piano Player (1960). But SM represents a warmer revisit to Truffaut's childhood through the lens of nostalgia rather than anguish. Famed film critic Roger Ebert even labeled SM as the best film of 1976-- ahead of Taxi Driver, All The Presidents Men, Network and Rocky. There is no central storyline in SM; instead, viewers witness the events of an interacting community living together. For example, in an ordinary apartment complex, an ordinary family is preparing for a night out at a restaurant. However, the the little girl refuses to go if she cannot take her raggedy purse. The frustrated adults decide to teach the girl a lesson by leaving her home while they eat. Normal enough so far. But the little girl grabs a megaphone and exaggeratedly blasts through the window that she is hungry, alone, and trapped. The sympathetic, but gullible neighbors work together and reel in a basket filled with chicken and fruit by a rope. The little girl proceeds to happily munch on her meal. It is these humorous moments that illustrate the naivete of the children and adults that the film especially resonates with viewers. Another such moment is at a movie theater (one of Truffaut when two boys and two girls experiment kissing during a film. However, Truffaut also explores the darker side of youth. Specifically, one little boy, Julien, lives in dire poverty with abusive parents. Julien is frequently thrown out from his home, and forced to find food on his own. Additionally, Julien is taunted at school for being to poor, and having to wear the same sweater everyday. Nevertheless, Julien perseveres his unfortunate situation. In fact, one character remarks on the toughness of children: "Children exist in a state of grace...They pass untouched through dangers that would destroy an adult." Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Au Revoir Les Enfants
"More than 40 years have passed, but I'll remember... until the day I die." Not since Truffaut have such traumatic childhood memories been so heartrendingly and sincerely filmed. Critic Roger Ebert remembers seeing director Louis Malle immediately after the film was shown for the first time at the Telluride Film Festiva in 1987l: "I was almost the first person he saw after the screening. I remember him weeping as he clasped my hands and said, "This film is my story. Now it is told at last." Malle is personified in by a 12 year old boy named Julien Quentin (Gaspard Manesse), who is sent to a Catholic boarding school during WWII for safety by his mother Mme Quentin (Francine Racette). Julien soon assimilates into the school properly: he gets into trivial fights, trades Jam from home in the school's black-market, and is on friendly terms with most students. But his life is soon changed when a new student named Jean Bonnet (Raphael Fejtö) arrives. As is custom for young schoolchildren, everyone teases Jean for his last name, his intelligence, and because he is new. However, Julien slowly befriends Jean. They both love to read, are the smartest kids in class, are semi-outsiders, and they both have secrets: Julien wets his bed at night, and Julien's heritage is ambiguous. Malle takes advantage of the childlike naivete of Julien and uses it to explore prejudice and utter hatred for Jews that all of Julien's friends seem to have. Julien asks his older brother Francois (Stanislas Carré De Malberg), ""Why do we hate them?" To which Francois replies, "They're smarter than we are, and they killed Jesus." Of course, Julien is still puzzled by the illogical statement: "But it was the Romans who killed Jesus." Fortunately, all the dialogue and dramatic events in the film feel sincere and never approach exploitation. Without spoiling anything, a scene involving the two boys in the woods with found treasure summarizes all the main themes of the film: two boys wandering lost with a secret only each other knows, and surrounding by impending danger that can irrevocably traumatize their lives. The aspect that makes Au Revoir les Enfants truly haunting is the ending scene, which was directly lifted from Malle's own experience at boarding school. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Who's That Knocking at My Door?
[Note: This review is for Martin Scorsese's 1967 film] Who's That Knocking At My Door is a true cinema gem. It is the debut of both director Martin Scorsese and actor Harvey Keitel. But more importantly, it is a good film in its own right. The opening is classic Scorsese: two gangs rumble in the streets to Doo Wop sixties music. But that's just the catch to hook the viewer. What follows is a slow moving, but elaborately filmed character study in true to life New York streets. J.R. (Keitel) is an unemployed, lackadaisical youth who spends his life partying with friends. The film focuses on many --maybe too many-- little moments with J.R. and friends, such as at a party with a couple of women. However, when J.R. meets an unnamed college girl (Zina Bethune), his content life is forced to reevaluate its morals and expectations. In what could have been a stagnate conversation over trivial subjects, Scorsese creates a multi-layered study of two anxious youths reaching for connection. Furthermore, Scorsese fans will see parallels between J.R.'s opinion in films mentioned in the conversation, and Scorsese's; specifically, John Wayne in The Searchers which was the root story inspiration for Taxi Driver. As their relationship continues, the J.R.'s chauvinism and immaturity begin to unravel. For example, J.R. is adamant about marrying a good 'girl,' and merely sleeping with 'broads.' And when J.R. finds out the girl was raped, he struggles whether to abandon this now 'broad' in his eyes, or accept her difficult past. Complicating the story, J.R. believes the girl is lying to him for sympathy for her not being a virgin. From here, J.R. struggles with his severe mortal choice, while dealing with his deep-rooted sense of Catholic sin and guilt for whatever decision he makes. While the film contains many interesting scenes and will be fascinating for Scorsese fans, it also flawed. The recurrence of J.R. socializing with his friends and discussing partying is draining after awhile. The religious aspects, especially a scene where J.R. cuts his lip, are overly dramatic as well. And the fact that many scenes were shot by Scorsese for film school, and not entertainment purposes, will probably bore many people as well. Interestingly, the film contains a very graphic, and overly artsy, sex scene because the distributors wanted to sell it as a sexploitation film. To say the least, the scene is out of place in a serious character study. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Commando
"You're a funny man...I like you. That's why I'm going to kill you last." Arnold Schwarzenegger plays John Matrix-- voted #18 in top 20 Stupidest Character Names in Movies by Empire Magazine (right between Juan Sánchez Villalobos RamÃrez and Chev Chelios)-- a retired special agent whose daughter is kidnapped by an exiled dictator. Matrix is ordered to assassinate a President of a Latin American country to free his daughter. Of course, Matrix fights back! But Matrix's old partner Bennet (Vernon Wells), who is just under the badass level of Matrix, is guarding his daughter. Most important, this film transcends other Schwarzenegger films because it is so humorously violent and cheesy. Not even Red Heat's beginning naked Russian fight matches this film. In fact, the cliche meeting between the good guy and the terrorists is flipped on its head: Diaz: "Mellow out man. We can't talk business with you waving guns in people's faces. Your daughter is safe, Colonel. Now whether she stays that way is up to you. My people, they got some business with you. And if you want your kid back, then you gotta co-operate, right?" Matrix: "Wrong!" [shoots Diaz between the eyes] Yes, it's that kind of movie. To fully illuminate Commando, here is a list of some fun facts, courtesy of the IMDB, and dialogue. 1. John Matrix (Arnold Schwarzenegger) kills 81 people. 2. Matrix goes into battle with an Valmet M78 light machine gun, an Uzi sub-machine gun, a Remington Model 870 combat shotgun and a Desert Eagle automatic pistol. Additionally, Matrix commandeers an M60E3 belt-fed machine gun and an M16A1 assault rifle. 3. When Matrix cuts a soldier's arm off, he was originally supposed to hit the victim with it and say "Need a hand?" But the scene was cut because it was too macabre. 4.Matrix: Remember, Sully, when I promised to kill you last? Sully: That's right, Matrix. You did. Matrix: I lied. 5. Matrix paddles his way to an island wearing speedos. 6. "John, I'm not going to shoot you between the eyes. I'm going to shoot you between the balls." Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Searchers
I'm going to commit film sacrilege and admit that The Searchers is not a great movie because it is hampered by a silly and distracting subplot. Nevertheless, the main story is a complex and thrilling western that is great. John Wayne and director John Ford made fourteen movies altogether (many classics), and TS is generally considered the greatest of them all. In fact, New York magazine labeled TS as the most influential American film ever made. Wayne is arguably at his best ever as Ethan Edwards, a racist Civil War veteran driven by obsessive madness, revenge, racism, sexism, and isolation. Edwards had planned to live his life peacefully after the war with his family and the woman he secretly loves Martha (Dorothy Jordan), but his dreams are shattered when Comanches kidnap his beloved Debbie (Natalie Wood) and proceed to murder her family. Edwards proceeds on a five year quest desperately searching the Old West for Comanches that kidnapped his niece. Accompanying Edwards his 1/8 Indian nephew Martin Pawley (Jeffrey Hunter). There is an fascinating dynamic in Edwards and Pawley's relationship because Edwards is so fervently racist, and inherently distrusts Pawley. The duo's tension is almost palpable when they encounter the Comanche assimilated Debbie, who forces Edwards to test his values of family, love, hate, and revenge. And of course, there is a cheesy shoot out involving Comanches irrationally charging headlong into white mens' gunfire-- as all westerns are guilty of. Despite the stellar main storyline, a slow moving comic relief subplot slows down the film's energy. The plot involves a woman being courted by two separate men. It is highly forgettable and silly. With TS lasting two hours and thirty-five minutes, the subplot is especially unforgivable. I would prefer a shorter, edited version without it. [Spoilers] Ultimately, the ending scene is what TS is remembered for. Edwards has redeemed himself and returned his niece Debbie to relatives, and Pawley comes home to his beloved. The camera focuses on the doorway as everyone enters into a safe, happy home-- except Edwards, poignantly isolated in the doorway. Edwards then turns and walks out into the Wild West; a lone soldier with no battle to fight, and no one to love. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Beautiful Mind
A Beautiful Mind is a beautifully Hollywood movie. However, the real life story is much uglier, and teaches a lot about how far screenwriters will stretch the truth for profit. The film chronicles John Nash's (Russel Crowe) three decade struggle with Schizophrenia and his innate brilliance that won him a Nobel Prize for a theory he created when he was 21. Of course, there is a tender love story involving Alicia Nash (Jennifer Connelly) that proves that love does truly conquer all. How much of it is BS? Almost all of it. Whereas the film shows Nash with Schizophrenia as soon as he arrives at Princeton, he really didn't get it till he was thirty and accomplished many things already. By the way, the whole subplot of the imaginary roommate Charles (Paul Bettany) was completely made up by the filmmakers. Furthermore, there was no struggle between Nash's genius and Schizophrenia because the mental disorder makes the victim immediately unproductive. Nash could not think properly, emotionally respond, or sensually interpret his surroundings. Nevertheless, in Nash's youth there were personality symptoms that suggested he would get Schizophrenia in the future. Most notably, was Nash's narcissistic personality that separated him from, and in his view above, others. And here's some more fun information about Nash that the film conveniently forgot. According to the biography of the same name by Sylvia Nasar, after an appointment at MIT, Nash courted Boston nurse Eleanor Stier, whom he proceeded to ridicule daily for her stupidity. Eventually, Nash began flying into rages for Stier's every move. The worst part? Nash refused to support the child he gave her, and denied marriage. But I should mention Nash did come and play with the child sometimes. That's it though. In the fabulous book Based On A True Story: Fact and Fantasy in 100 Favorite Movies, authors Jonathan Vankin and John Whalen list other fun facts not included in the film: he was bisexual (actually was arrested in a mens' room for masturbating in front of an undercover officer), Nash and his wife divorced in real life, he delivered no Nobel Prize speech but did comment how he was happy to get the money, and he turned down a job at the University of Chicago because he had to become "the emperor of Antarctica." Yet, with all these ridiculous real life incidents the film opts for a spy thriller like hallucination instead, which was made up by the filmmakers as well. And the heroic ending were Nash starves his visions by not acknowledging them? Total BS. Nash's Schizophrenia just went away one day, just like the truth in this movie. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Taxi Driver
[Warning: spoilers ahead] What I find most interesting about Taxi Driver is the combination of director Martin Scorsese's abstract concepts of sin, guilt, redemption, the Maddona-whore complex and screenwriter Paul Schrader's literal, almost autobiographic story. Schrader wrote the script after having a nervous breakdown in Los Angeles. Additionally, Schrader got divorced and rejected by another girlfriend, whose apartment he snuck into and lived while she was away for a couple months. During this time, Schrader was in exile from humanity by not communicating with anyone for weeks, going to porno theaters, and becoming obsessed with firearms. Supposedly, during the five days it took Schrader to write the script, he kept a loaded gun on his desk for motivation. After multiple casting changes, including director Brian De Palma and almost Dustin Hoffman as Travis Bickle, Scorsese and Robert De Niro signed on because they both loved the script. However, Scorsese shot the picture through the lens of Catholic values. For example, after the final shootout, the camera is place overhead, and looking down on De Niro and the bodies. This is symbolic of a priest looking down at his tools on the altar during Mass. Another example is when Bickle buys guns from the dealer. Notice the guns are laid out just like a priest would lay out his tools on his alter. With these religious nods, further ponder Bickle's struggle between sin, guilt, and redemption. Adding to the frustration of Bickle is his inability to combine his sexual life with his personal life-- the Madonna-whore complex. Pay attention to how, in the final shootout scene, the room that Iris (Jodie Foster) is in is filled with candles, and lighted for an angel. Finally, ruminate over the sceneinvolving the passenger (Martin Scorsese) who wants to kill his wife for infidelity. The passenger is livid that his Madonna is acting like a whore, and he is apathetic to the sinful nature of his actions. Ultimately, TD is a story of redemption for even the most lost of souls. Is Bickle redeemed at the end? Yes, but whether the final scene is real, or just his final dying thoughts are unknown. Personally, given the dark nature of the rest of the film, and the almost dreamlike flow of the final scene, I would say it's a dream. Nevertheless, it does not matter because Bickle is still at peace dead or alive. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Double Indemnity
[Note: review for 1944 film and not for crappy 1973 remake] After making three standard films, director Billy Wilder decided to gamble his career on a controversial novel by James M. Cain about a woman killing her husband for money with the help of an insurance salesman. Many studios considered the story unfilmable because of the restrictions imposed by the Production Codes. Adding to the impossibility, Wilder decided to cast a comedic actor, Fred MacMurray, as the salesman, have the wife, played by Barabar Stanwyck, were a tawdry blonde wig the entire film, and cast legendary actor Edward G. Robinson in a supporting role. And how does Wilder begin this unfilmable tale? "Yes, I killed him. I killed him for money - and a woman - and I didn't get the money and I didn't get the woman. Pretty, isn't it?" Honest insurance salesman Walter Neff visits Mr. Dietrichson's (Tom Powers) house to renew his auto insurance plan. However, Dietrichson's wife, Phyllis, is home instead. Neff enters the living room fabulously shadowed by window bars to give prison imagery, and finds Phyllis to be a bored, beautiful housewife with ulterior motives involving accident insurance. Neff sees through Phyliss's rhetorical facade and reprimands her: "Who'd you think I was anyway? The guy that walks into a good looking dame's front parlour and says, "Good afternoon, I sell accident insurance on husbands... you got one that's been around too long? One you'd like to turn into a little hard cash?" Eventually, Phyllis persuades him by sleeping with him. But that is not explicitly mentioned because of the restrictions by Production Codes. All Wilder shows is Neff smoking a cigarette and Phyllis buttoning her blouse, which, in 1944, was a hint towards sex many prudes did not catch. With Neff's long time experience with such cases, the couple creates a seemingly perfect plan for murdering the husband and collecting double indemnity-- double payment for very unusual accidents. But there is one serious risk: Neff's extraordinarily talented coworker Barton Keyes (Robinson). Keyes can spot insurance fraud almost omnipotently, but Neff is willing to risk his plan because Keyes might not be able to suspect his fellow coworker and friend. I won't spoil the murder, but I will say the viewer should pay close attention to how the Production Code restrictions were used by Wilder to make the film even better. Essentially, Wilder deftly left certain scenes to the imagination. While all the performances are brilliant, the star is really Wilder's direction and writing. Interestingly, noir writer Raymond Chandler co-wrote the script to make Cain's novel more suitable for the screen. However, the duo were a match made in hell: Billy was an exuberant guy who flaunted his skill with women, while Chandler was a sexually repressed and shy person that looked like an accountant. But the strife never shows in the fun, engaging script, which author Cain admitted he would have copied had he thought of such ideas about the story's ending. DI is widely regarded as the greatest film noir ever made; well, there is competition from Wilder's film Sunset Boulevard too. Surprisingly, DI did not win any Oscars. In fact, when Wilder lost for best director, he, being as fun and emotional as his movies are, decided to trip the winner, Leo McCarey for Going My Way, as he walked down the aisle. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Righteous Kill
I love Al Pacino. I love Robert De Niro. I hate Righteous Kill. Note to director Joh Avnet: Stop trying to ruin Pacino's career. Between RK and 88 Minutes with Pacino's indestructible souffle like hair, I don't know if he can ever make another good movie. Pacino and De Niro play Rooster and Turk-- that should be enough description for you to judge this movie. They are best friends and long-time detective partners hunting down a serial killer with the same MO as a killer they locked up years ago. So is this a new copy cat killer, or is did they put the wrong man in prison? Is there any reason to care? No. For a pathetic subplot, Carla Gugino plays Karen Corelli. There are a couple of lines involving her into the main story, but mostly she is just a babe in a picture filled with old men. Also, there are multiple scenes of Gugino and De Niro having rough sex because, apparently, that's they way their characters like it. Now for the fun part: to horribly criticize screenwriter Russel Gewirtz writing ability. I should give Gewirtz some credit though. After all, RK manages to be freshly awful in a tired genre filled with horrid films. His method: steal lines from other movies. For example, De Niro is asked if he likes carrying a gun, and responds: "There's nothing wrong with a little shooting, as long as the right people get shot." Why, if that isn't the exact phrase Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry. Another example is Pacino's almost exact recitation of his lines from Donnie Brasco about, "maybe I'll buy a boat." Now for the actors. Pacino does a fair job with his crappy script, except he never yells in the picture. A Pacino without yelling is like Arnold Schwarzenegger without violence. De Niro, on the hand, brings out all the flaws in his acting repertoire. Whether in rough sex with Gugino or talking to a witness, De Niro seems to always wear the same angry face. It's like De Niro is like a comedian imitating and exaggerating the real De Niro. Gugino's cleavage does her character justice, and the few lines she has are uttered fine. Brian Dennehy plays the stereotypical police chief exactly like one would expect. Film critic Michael Phillips named 88 Minutes the most inept movie of 2008, but I think RK deserves that dishonor. It took me twenty minutes to know who the killer was in 88 Minutes, I knew who it was the first scene in RK. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompso
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." The portrait of a writer as a rockstar. A writer who's drug usage rivals Keith Richards. But also a writer with same number of books in the Modern Library of the World's Greatest Books as Leo Tolstoy. Hunter S. Thompson remains an unmatched literary phenomenon who mocked journalism, yet cared enough to save it. Alex Gibney's directs the first real documentary over Thompson's life and work: Gonzo, which gets its name from Thompson's new journalistic genre characterized by a subjective first person account that made the reader 'feel' the truth-- though the facts may not be accurate. The opening scene consisting of a reenactment of Thompson on September 11, 2001 is brilliant. Here's a brief sample of what Thompson published September 12: "The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now — with somebody — and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives." Mixed with Johnny Depp's narration and Bob Dylan and The Band playing All Along The Watchtower, the full scene is emotionally moving and intellectually provocative. From here, the film starts from Thompson's rebellious childhood, and how he was in jail the night of his high school graduation. But the 'real' story begins when Thompson goes undercover in the Hell's Angels for a new book, Hell's Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga. Even if you've read the book, Gonzo gives new footage, pictures, interviews, and background information never presented before. While Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas receives adequate treatment with clips from the movie, Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72 receives the best treatment with lots of time dedicated to it and numerous interviews of Thompson and his colleagues like fellow journalist Tim Crouse and Rolling Stone Magazine editor Jane Wenner. Adding the film's effectiveness is the expert use of period clips with Richard Nixon and Thompson's personal life is also conveyed skillfully. Thompson's first wife, Sondi Wright, is introduced early on, and we hear continual testimony from her regarding many neat facts, such as when Thompson returned from the Chicago riots crying that such horrible things could happen in America. Wright also discloses Thompson's decline into excess involving drugs, booze, and women as well. In fact, Gonzo gives a fair picture of a flawed man, except it doesn't answer some big questions. For example, why did Thompson, who was loved by so many people, seem to hate himself? Presumably, Gibney did not know, and I am glad he didn't give a BS answer for it either. Ultimately, if you're a Thompson fan, then see this immediately. If not, you should see it anyway, and become a Thompson fan. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Norte
With illegal immigration being a hot issue, many films have been trying to cash in on the drama. Harrison Ford's latest picture Crossing Over was the last to blunder over it. Another one was Fast Food Nation, which was surprising since the book spent very little time on actual the immigration topic and more how they were treated in the workplace. However, in 1983 director Gregory Nava's Oscar nominated foreign film El Norte nearly perfected the genre. After Guatemalan government troops kill their father for trying to start a workers' union and kidnap their mother, brother and sister Enrique (David Villalpando)and Rosa (Zaide Silvia Gutiérrez ) Xuncax decide to head north. Motivating Rosa and Enrique is their godmother Josefita (Stella Quan), who also gives them her savings to start a new life with in America: where even the poor people have refrigerators and flushing toilets. Eventually, the duo ends up in Mexico, among thousands of people trapped in poverty and trying to cross over into the U.S. for a decent life. Fortunately, Enrique manages to find a friend of a friend who will help them cross without expense. Their path is through out of use sewer pipes. While crawling the many miles of pipe with only a flashlight for dark, Enrique and Rosa run into a swarm of rats. The scene is especially horrifying because they are real rats in a real tunnel, and not some special effect. Finally, they arrive in America. Without spoiling anything, Enrique and Rosa do find jobs to earn money. The workplace scenes are some the best in the movie because it shows the culture clash between whites and Hispanics, and also reveals how employers need illegal workers to maintain the economy. The film follows Enrique as he stands in line with several other, more experienced workers waiting for any opportunity. When Enrique lands a temporary job at a restaurant, he is only regarded as a cheap pair of arms for a days service. Another more humane example is Rosa's gig as a maid. Rosa tries to learn a complicated washing machine, and even nods her head to her employer explaining it even though she doesn't understand. After a humorous experience with the machine, Rosa gives up and washes the clothes by hand like she used to in Guatemala. When the employer catches her, she forbids her to do it again. And not because she's disgusted (maybe a little), but that it is too much work for such a young lady that the older white woman cannot fathom it. To screenwriter Anna Thomas's credit, she never compromises the film to feel preachy or melodramatic; instead, El Norte can almost be viewed as a documentary with some fantastical elements spicing up the story. El Norte remains just a timely, maybe even more so, as it did in 1983 because it is about the human experience of illegal immigrants, and not a opportunity to make money off a current event like contemporary films about immigration. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: No Country for Old Men
For all the critical acclaim and thousands of reviews and articles written over No Country For Old Men, I have yet to read one accurately explaining the ending. Having read many of Cormac McCarthy novels, including No Country, I am going to review the ending appropriately. The ending scene consists of Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) recounting two dreams he had to his wife. The first one is brushed off quickly, and is about Bell meeting his father. Bell receives some money but loses it. Presumably, this dream is an allegory for Jones being unable to find the drug money Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) stole. The second dream: "he [Bell's father] rode past I seen he was carryin' fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it... And in the dream I knew that he was goin' on ahead and he was fixin' to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold, and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there." Essentially, through all the dark and cold of the world, there is still some light from the good of some people. Bell's father represented it in the past, and Bell represents it presently, and who knows about the future. The inner flame of goodness is prevalent in McCarthy's work. Most notably in The Road-- the story of father and son surviving, both physically and morally, in a post apocalyptic future. Another point of contension is a theory that Bell's dreams are a rumination over his cowardice of letting Anton Chigurh escape. This theory bases its validity from Chigurh's line after he kills the man in the office, and turns to other guy asking if Chigurh is going to kill him, which Chigurh replies:"That depends. Do you see me?" From this line, some have concluded that Chigurh decides not to kill anyone who chooses to ignore him, which has led to speculation that the scene where Bell enters the motel room where Moss was killed, and the doorknob is punched out, is really about Bell turning his back while an off-screen Chigurh slips out of the room. After all, the camera does show Chigurh on the other side of the door before Bell enters. However, such a theory directly contradicts not only the novel's course of events, which is much more explanatory, but the actual meaning. The novel's story has it that Chigurh just escaped from the motel room when Bell arrives, and actually watches him enter. Interestingly, the dialogue in office scene about "Do you see me?" is not in the book, but I seriously doubt four words, which also just be used to show the coldness of Chigurh, would be used to completely revamp a story that is unusually faithful to the source material otherwise. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Dark Knight
The Dark Knight stands as the greatest comic book movie ever made, and the official declaration that such movies can be just as good as any 'real' film. Christian Bale admirably returns as the caped crusader to face The Joker (Heath Ledger). WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD: Everyone has seen this movie, so a standard review is not necessary. But I think a review over the film's complex ending is in order to realize the its greatness, is called for. The Joker's downfall comes from a mistaken belief that people will destroy themselves even when everything is not lost. That part is evident. But what's not clear is that director Christopher Nolan seems to agree with The Joker's modified theory on human behavior: once the false moral code people live by is completely broken, people become selfish animals. The Joker explains his initial theory: "You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other." The Joker later revises "first sign of trouble" to "until their spirit breaks completely. Until they get a good look at the real Harvey Dent and all the heroic things he's done." In other words, once people lose everything in life, including their heroic symbols, madness devours them. Batman realizes this, and is forced to lie about the supposed symbol of goodness, Dent, to maintain the facade of morality. If the people were not lied to, people could easily succumb to sinister, selfish urges like The Joker prophesized. And so, Gotham City continues with a false moral system holding civility intact--until the next villain to see through the facade. Interestingly, commentator Glenn Beck believes that it is impossible to watch TDK, and not see Batman as George Bush and The Joker as a terrorist. If Beck was actually smart enough to understand the ending, I wonder what he would say then. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Melinda and Melinda
Is Melinda and Melinda a return to form for the lately troubled Woody Allen, or is it a pathetic rehash of better films? It's neither--but that's good news. Woody Allen himself is absent in this picture, and the plot device is unique, which allows M&M to stand on its own merits. Initially, four people are chatting over a dinner table whether life is comic or tragic. And one guest decides to tell a story he knows, and let the others decide if it's comic or tragic. From there, the film illustrates the same story as two times: one as a tragedy with Melinda (Radha Mitchell) as self-destructive and depressed, and as a comedy with Melinda (Mitchell, again) as quirky and lovable. First is the tragedy, starring Chloë Sevigny and Jason Lee Miller as married couple Laurel and Lee. During a dinner party dedicated to landing Lee an acting job with a director, Laurel's old friend, distraught Melinda knocks at the door. It is revealed she was scheduled to come months ago and stay, but they never heard back from her. With Melinda alone and depressed, Laurel and Lee agree to have her stay, and try to find her a suitable boyfriend. Then comes the comedy interpretation, which stars Amanda Peet and Will Farrel as the married couple Susan and Hobie. This time, the dinner party is meant to raise money for Susan's next picture as a director that Hobie wants to star in. And when Melinda enters, she is strangely fascinating and enjoyable company to the party. Hereafter, both Melinda's try to straighten out their lives with the sometimes destructive help of friends. To go further would spoil the story for you, but rest assured it is an Allen certified tale involving love, infidelity, suicide, misery, and laughs. Fortunately, the performances live up to the story. Mitchell does an excellent job of playing the two Melinda's so well and different, that it obvious which story is being told at each time. Sevigny gives an expert performance as well as a lonely wife trapped in a almost perfect life. Another standout is Farrrel, whom I usually hate because his performances are usually exaggerated and silly. But Farrel as what would have been Allen's character if he were younger, is charming. Although Farrel always keeps it his character, Allen's words are obvious: Susan: I wish we could afford a place in the Hamptons. Everybody who's anybody has one. Hobie: Yeah, but if you're somebody who's nobody, it's no fun to be around anybody who's everybody. The other performances are fine and effective, but not standout. Well, except Josh Brolin as the perfect boyfriend for his brief interlude. Ultimately, if you like Allen, and maybe if you don't, and are interested in such a story, then M&M will not disappoint. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Team America: World Police
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." -- Oscar Wilde No other film captures the patriotic extremism, irrational fears, self proclaimed righteousness , and immaturity of America like Team America: World Police. On the surface, TA is the equivalent of just another episode of South Park by creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. But when deconstructed: it is the Dr. Strangelove of our generation. And it is on this level, that Team America is a great movie. The opening scene of a cheap puppet bouncing around with a silly French accent and a shot zooming out towards a much more realistic, though still silly, puppet city symbolizes the film's technique: hide behind dimwitted humor to create a very real and humorous criticism of America. Many viewers could not see past the facade-- they are a truly miserable bunch. But once you analyze TA on a higher level, it is an unforgettable and continuously hilarious journey. TA proceeds to analyze America's treatment of terrorist and to the rest of the world through the lens of a cheesy 80s action picture, or a Michael Bay movie (take your pick), which emphasizes arrogance, violence, misogyny, and one liners. Additionally, the initial idea to work with puppets came from the 1965 marionette showThunderbirds, which involves a high tech emergency response team. The story involves acclaimed actor Gary Johnston (Trey Parker) being recruited to Team America by their leader Spottswoode (Daran Norris) to stop terrorists. Along the way Johnston falls in love with Lisa (Kristen Miller), a member of Team America, who also fulfills the mandatory beautifulblonde role for the 80s story structure. Other essentials accounted for are the nice country boy Joe; Chris, the foulmouthed badass who smokes; Sarah, the brunette/ psychic; and Kim Jong ll, the bad guy with no conscious. While these characters are funny and do effectively mock our ridiculous times, it is the celebrity puppets that achieve greatness. Granted, some of the voices are just silly jokes, like Matt Damon, who in real life laughed at the skit. On the other hand, some of the digs are strike right at the heart of pompous celebrities and caused backlash. Most notably, Sean Penn, who is mocked for his adamant criticisms of the U.S. invasion: "Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles." Penn was so offended, he wrote Parker and Stone a letter stating that the movie attempts to "encourage irresponsibility." Another blow to self righteous celebrities is the portrayal of Janeane Garofolo: "As actors, it is our responsibility to read the newspapers, and then say what we read on television like it's our own opinion." Ultimately, the only analogy I can think of to suite Team America is Oscar Wilde's novel The Picture of Dorian Gray. In it, Dorian Gray is a beautiful young man who manages, through a magic spell, to put all the physical consequences of his evil deeds onto a portrait of himself. Of course, the portrait soon becomes hideous and vulgar, and Gray, who seems untouched, is repulsed whenever he sees it. Team America: World Police is America's Portrait of Dorian Gray: it illustrates our wickedness, arrogance, love for violence, ignorance, and apathy that repulses those people in denial. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Last Dragon
[Note this review is for the 1985 The Last Dragon, and not the just announced remake with Samuel L. Jackson] It is a dark, smokey theater filled with teenagers enjoying a Bruce Lee movie. Suddenly, the door is kicked open and six leather clad warriors with bandannas strut in, and form two separate three person lines on the edges of the aisle. The warriors ritually clap, place their hands on their waist and look towards the open door in unison. A dark figure, with wiry hair and cape emerges to an audience shaking in fear. It is Sho'nuff (Julius Carrey), the baddest martial arts expert in Harlem, who introduces himself thusly: "Am I the meanest?" "Sho'nuff!," reply the warriors. "Am I the prettiest?" "Sho'nuff!" "Am I the baddest mofo low down around this town?" "Sho'nuff!" "Well who am I?" "Sho'nuff!" " Who am I?" "Sho'nuff!" "I can't hear you..." "[louder] Sho'nuff!" "[orgasmically] Shogun of Harlem!" However, Sho'nuff is not the only badass around. Enter: Bruce Leroy (Taimak). The other kung-fu expert of Harlem. And the story follows, as one of Sho'nuff's goons so eloquently states it, as: "That's they only guy[Bruce Leroy] standing between Sho, and total supremacy." Of course, there are obligatory 80s side stories, like the beautiful singer Leroy falls in love with is held captive by an insane music promoter, and Leroy learns a secret martial arts power: The Glow. The martial arts scenes are appropriately hilarious and unforgettable. The music is atrociously nostalgic. The acting is pitch perfect for the film's tone. Although the movie is generically made, the characters of Sho'nuff and Bruce Leroy elevate it to a four star rating instantly. I can guarantee you, you will remember The Last Dragon for years to come. By the way: "When I say, "'Who's da mastah?'-- you say, 'Sho'nuff!'" Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Quarantine
Dear GotchaMovies readers, I'm going to give you an exclusive behind the scenes story on Quarantine. After Cloverfield's box office success, producers decided how they could get even more money from viewers. Well, why not fully exploit the idea of shooting a film as if it was recorded on a camcorder by a character in the movie, but with zombies? Yeah, the idiots will go to see that. Then Diary of the Dead came out and suckered money from people. Then the producers said, 'well, I'm sure we can still get money from this already tired idea.' And so we get Quarantine. I'll be nice and say Quarantine is a victim of its environment: it was shaped by greedy forces dismissive of original ideas and in favor of pandering to ever reliable cliches in zombie films. Dead bodies drop suddenly for cheap scares, zombies scream shrilly exactly like in Dawn of the Dead and 28 Weeks Later, and characters are too stupid to realize a zombie with blood all over the mouth might be dangerous. But worse than the standard cliches is Quarantines blatant, no shame near exact copying of other zombie films. Diary of the Dead probably suffers worst, but the night vision scene at the end of 28 Weeks Later is a close second. When Quarantine isn't busy with substandard ideas, it decides to ruin new ones. What could have been an unbearably tense sequence involving the camera's light occasionally going on and off is negated by the predictability of what will follow. Also, you can almost hear director John Erick Dowdle say, 'OK, cut the light off now, they'll totally never guess there is a zombie right behind the character if the light goes out.' Of course, when something must be read or some gore needs a close up, the light works perfectly (isn't that funny?). I should note that although I could see most of what was coming next, I falsely thought the movie was going to end several times: "Yes, the movie's over! Wait...goddammit! They're still alive." Despite the Mt. Everest worth of negatives, there are some positives: the beginning introduction of the characters is effective, the story is not completely spelled out for the viewer (though what is told is pretty stupid), I actually did know who was dying at what time, and, apparently, the film is pretty short. See, I didn't notice because the ending seemed to drag on and on with the light going out and zombies popping up randomly. In sum, I felt quarantined watching this movie. PS: If you're wondering why I didn't mention any of the actors, it's because I didn't notice them past the crappy cliches. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Lakeview Terrace
What could have been a disturbing character study drenched in the horrors of racism and misogyny quickly deteriorates into an absurd, predictable tale of revenge. Chris and Lisa Mattson (Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington) have just moved into a nice, safe neighborhood perfect for starting a family. So safe, that there is a cop next door. Except the cop is racist, sexist, sadistic, and just plain rude. That cop is Abel Turner (Samuel L. Jackson), who is livid because Chris is white and Lisa is black, and living right next door to his sheltered, supposedly 'pure' children. Turner proceeds to antagonize his new neighbors to get them to move out; however, it is not long before the minor disturbances turn violent. What raises Lakeview Terrace above many crap thrillers with similar plots is that Turner's occupation as a cop adds a new dimension--albeit a predictable one. Nevertheless, Turner is fleshed out interestingly. In once scene showing Officer Turner handle a hostage situation, in which a black man holds his wife and kid hostage, it is evident that Turner will go out of his way and unreasonably forgive violence to keep black couples together. After watching an hour of Turner's nihilistic torment of an interracial couple, such a scene adds welcome freshness. Unfortunately, the moral ambiguity is soon forgotten, and the cheesy thriller formula takes over. Additionally, other loose ends in the story are left hanging, like Lisa's father and Turner's children. As for the performances, Wilson and Washington are convincing in their terror, and do have chemistry together. Jackson gives a good restrained performance initially, but fails to achieve a thrilling rage he is so good at near the end. Neil Labute's direction is fine, but the scriptwriters-- David Loughery and Howard Korder-- deserve severe criticism for a stupid, predictable, and unfitting ending that should even ruin the film for the viewers that liked it hitherto. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Scarface
"Make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him..." -- Ronald Reagan "You know what capitalism is? Gettin' fucked." --Tony Montana Rather than view Scarface as a campy crime flick with 'big balls' quotations and lots of violence, try analyzing it through the lens of a satire on the American Dream. Remember, the always political Oliver Stone wrote the screenplay after all. Tony Montana (Al Pacino) has come to America to escape a dictated life under Fidel Castro in Cuba, and live free and 'fly as high as his strength and ability will take him' as is his human right-- "Just like the President Jimmy Carter says." Essentially, Montana is exploiting a business opportunity in a lucrative land. And following the legal path to success, Montana ends up a poor, disillusioned dishwasher: "I didn't come to the United States to break my fucking back." Through the help of his friend and partner Manny (Steven Bauer), Montana abandons his destitute honest living for well-paid life of crime that skyrockets him up the social ladder. Montana literally plans to fly as high as his skill will let him in America, which leads to immoral and destructive excess. Montana is concerned with all the mandatory material possessions of money, power, women (as sex objects, not partners), fancy cars, gigantic mansions, and even his own tiger to represent his machismo. Almost sounds like an Enron CEO. Accordingly, Pacino's performance becomes evermore full of excess as the movie progresses. However, if you watch closely, you can see the cinematography slowly tightening around Montana as his world crumbles from the once expansive luxury. Another clue about the film's message comes from the background pictures. Specifically, the scene between Montana and his boss Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia) where they argue over a drug deal made without Lopez's permission. Lopez has a picture of liberal politicians Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson on his office wall. Combine the pictures with the serene beach tone of the room, and one can tell from visual cues that Lopez does not believe in the limitless success of the American Dream, and yearns to "fly straight... Low-key, quiet." Montana refuses to listen and, like America, continues to live in excess without any care to the consequences of his profits. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus
First, if you're reading this because you honestly care whether this is a good movie or not, I would like to say I am sorry for you and all the events that have shaped who you are. Second, if you are interested in seeing this craptastic movie, go to YouTube and watch the highlights instead. The story starts with some idiot chick running into a ice block, which releases both the Mega Shark and the Giant Octopus, who were in mid battle when they were frozen thousands of years ago. Why didn't the two creatures finish each other off then? Well, now you're just being too smart for this film. One released, the creatures begin terrorizing the world and killing people because they are mean and angry and so gonna kick your ass if they catch you because you're...like human...and they're...like evil. Anyway, the octopus takes out an oil tanker for no apparent reason, but it's kinda cool. And there is a neat scene with the shark and plane that will forever live in my memory. However, the scene is all too brief and doesn't gloat the ridiculousness properly. Now Shark Attack 3: Megladon knew how to strut its pitiful, but lovable special effects. Soon the brilliant scientist Emma MacNeil (Deborah Gibson) teams up with an old scientist friend Lamar Sanders (Sean Lawlor) to study the possibility that there is a shark terrorizing the seas. Then another brilliant scientist, Dr. Seiji Shimada (Vic Chao) comes with news of the Giant Octopus. The scientists begin studying how to deal with the simultaneous threat of these sea creatures. Along the way Dr. Shimada bangs MacNeil because the time seemed right for a sex scene in the film. Freshly laid, MacNeil realizes they can get the creatures to meet each other using their scent and sexual craving. Their reasoning: "These guys have been frozen for thousands of years, wouldn't you be a horny too?" (I'm paraphrasing here) Nevertheless, problems arise. Mainly, a hideous, disgusting monster dwarfing both the shark and the octopus threaten the scientists: an old, decrepit Lorenzo Lamas. Lamas (probably paid with a six pack of beer considering his career) is the stereotypical mean military guy that just wants to kill everything. Things go wrong again; the shark kills lots of people in America, and the octopus kicks ass in Asia. Of course, the viewer only gets snippets of actual action--mostly it's people gasping in horror. The ending is pitiful and predictable as expected. Really, the last action scene is just a bunch of swimming and hugging...it's not cool. The snippets in the trailer are pretty much the snippets in the movie, so just watch the trailer again. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Dog Day Afternoon
"I'm a fuck-up and I'm an outcast. If you get near me you're gonna get it- you're gonna get fucked over and fucked out." If I was forced to pick a favorite movie, this would probably be it. Sidney Lumet is my favorite director, and he is at top form here seamlessly combining humor, tragedy, suspense, and drama cohesively. And Al Pacino, my favorite actor, as Sonny Wortzik is one of the greatest screen performances ever--voted #4 of all time by Premiere magazine. Pacino deftly plays a man on the edge of control who tries to help everybody in his life, but ends up failing everyone in a bizarre bank robbery turned media circus. The film begins with a montage of everyday life in a hot New York afternoon, set to Elton John's "Amoreena". But there is more at work here than simple aesthetics or style. Lumet is illustrating the world these characters live in. When the camera finally rests on Sonny, Sal (John Cazale), and Stevie (Gary Springer) sitting in a car, they are no different from anybody else on the street. Think about how many films accomplish that. Soon the bank robbery starts, and almost as soon goes wrong. Murphy's law--anything that can go wrong, will-- is on full effect for the robbers. Stevie freaks out and leaves, the amount of money is wrong, bank tellers seem to have more courage than the robbers, and their is a cop across the street watching their every move. Eventually, the bank is surrounded with Sonny and Sal becoming the center of a media blitz. It is soon found out that Sonny has two wives: one the mother of his children, Angela (Susan Peretz), and the other, his gay lover, Leon (Chris Sarandon), who Sonny robbed the bank for to get him a sex change. Astonishingly, the film does not exploit any of the characters or events. Everyone is a multidimensional human character with emotions and perspectives. One of the many great aspects of Dog Day Afternoon is the various levels the movie works on: heist thriller, serious drama, cynical analysis on the media, character study, social commentary on gay rights among other things and/or timeless tale of people stranded from society. Interestingly, Lumet was convinced he should direct the picture when he viewed it as a timeless tale of a man that tries to be a wizard and fix everyone's life, but fails completely. Perhaps Pacino approached the project as a social commentary because it was highly controversial to play a homosexual in films, and the famous "Attica! Attica!" lines were supposedly improvised by Pacino. Another improvisation that reveals a possible approach to the film is Cazale's famous Wyoming dialogue, which reveals a more character study perspective: Sonny: So what country do you want to go to? Sal: Wyoming. Sonny: Sal, Wyoming's not a country. While Sal is not as complex as Sonny's seemingly split personality of love and rage, he is the source of apprehension in the film. It doesn't take long for the viewer to realize Sonny is too nice to kill anyone, but Sal is questionable. Ultimately, Dog Day Afternoon is one of the great film experiences in my life. Ironically, I didn't especially like it my first viewing, but since then it has improved with each subsequent viewing. My theory on why is because Dog Day is not a film to mindlessly watch for mere entertainment; instead, it is an opportunity to reevaluate your own perceptions and ideas based on what you think of the characters and story presented. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Crimes and Misdemeanors
"God is a luxury I can't afford" I hated Woody Allen for years. I found him unbearably annoying and snobby. But that all changed when I saw Crimes and Misdemeanors. If Bergman decided to do a noir film in color, this would be it. On the surface it is a simple tale of murder, but beneath lies moral ambiguity and chilling life practicality. There are two roughly similar stories that share a common thread, but differ in magnitude and tone-- hence the title. Optometrist Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau in probably is best performance) has the seemingly perfect life: a lovely wife, good children, a great job, numerous friends, and a moral code of decency. However, when Rosenthal finds a letter from his mistress Dolores Paley (Anjelica Huston) on his living room table admitting everything, life begins crumbling. Paley demands Rosenthal abandon his family and runaway with her, or she will tell the wife about their affair, and the authorities about some questionable money dealings with his company. The mystery is not in what event will happen, but how Rosenthals's moral structure will turn out. Is Rosenthal's moral code worth all of his material possessions and possibly his family? Or can one live without a moral code? Yet again, can one effectively rationalize their moral code after sinning? This only scratches the surface of the film's philosophical debate. I haven't even mentioned how God fits into the equation. On the other, more lighthearted, side, is Allen as Cliff Stern, who is married to Wendy Stern (Joanna Gleason), but infatuated with Halley Reed (Mia Farrow). Stern hopes to woo Reed with a side project of his about a philosopher at the local university. While Reed and Stern are in possible courtship, Alan Alda's Lester complicates the situation by going after Reed as well. In addition to Stern and Lester's desire for Reed, Stern is mercifully hired by Lester, as a favor to Stern's wife, to do a documentary over how great Lester is. In this mess of desires, Reed must choose between the artistic Stern, or the successful, but hollow, Lester for affection. Noticing similarities between the two stories? While the story is excellent, the casting is what makes Crimes and Misdemeanors great. Landau's face expresses the inner moral conflict of his character better than any dialogue could. Credit Allen with good use of tight camera shots of Landau, and nice effects with lighting during his moments of doubt. Though she has very little screen time, Huston is a forceful character that conveys the all the necessary anguish and anger her character requires. However, the film's home run comes at the very end of the film in a conversation between Allen and Landau that is so simply shot, yet illustrates so many complexities of life. Literally, one of the greatest scenes I have ever watched in a film. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Seventh Seal
Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal (1957) remains a triumph of existential exploration and edifying narrative. There is a sense of accomplishment watching The Seventh Seal because you ask the questions presented in the film yourself. It's no wonder Woody Allen includes The Seventh Seal in his top favorite films, and visits its themes often in his own movies. But my favorite thing about this film: Bergman's courage (or balls for you younger readers). Most films questioning spirituality are usually sanitized, and have a mandatory happy ending. Not Bergman's. The story starts with a knight, Antonius Block (Max Von Sydow), returning from the Crusades with his squire Jöns (Gunnar Bjönstrand). It is the 14th century, which means the Black Plague, Penitents flogging themselves and others, people robbing the dead, and little girls accused of being witches being burned at the stake. Oh, and then there's Death, played in an effective low-key performance by Benkt Ekerot. Block is resting on the beach when Death confronts him. In an attempt to postpone his fate, Block challenges death to a game of chess (getting the symbolism here?). Fortunately, Block is granted a reprieve while the game continues for days, and is allowed to find some meaning in life. While Block will see some of the most horrific events possible, he will also be able to find some joy that is hiding in life behind all the misery. Part of the film's power comes from it's exquisite cinematography by Gunnar Fischer. Almost every second of film could be a painting (albeit a depressing one) hung in a museum. While the images are more than unforgettable, it is the dialogue that grabs the viewer. For instance: Antonius Block: I want knowledge! Not faith, not assumptions, but knowledge. I want God to stretch out His hand, uncover His face and speak to me. Death: But He remains silent. Antonius Block: I call out to Him in the darkness. But it's as if no one was there. Death: Perhaps there isn't anyone. Antonius Block: Then life is a preposterous horror. No man can live faced with Death, knowing everything's nothingness. Death: Most people think neither of death nor nothingness. Antonius Block: But one day you stand at the edge of life and face darkness. Death: That day. Antonius Block: I understand what you mean. The Seventh Seal launched both Bergman's and Sydow's career into success, and should be remembered as a brave exploration into the absence of God, and man's role in such a universe. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Hoop Dreams
"People always say to me, 'when you get to the NBA, don't forget about me.' Well, I should've said back, 'if I don't make it to the NBA, don't you forget about me.' So speaks William Gates finally realizing the harsh reality of bureaucratic big league basketball, and the isolation of normal American life. Gates and Arthur Agee are the subjects for this 1994 documentary by writer/director Steve James and writer Frederick Marx, which chronicles the five year journey of the two boys from their freshman year in high school to their first year in college in hopes of basketball stardom. We first meet Agee through a scout, Earl Smith, looking for talented young kids in lower class neighborhoods that upper class high schools would like to recruit for basketball. From the start, it is evident that basketball is a business for these schools, and these young kids are merely financial opportunities to be exploited. Eventually, both Agee and Gates are recruited to St. Thomas private high school to play basketball (where Isiah Thomas played), despite their 5th grade reading level resulting from their public education. While Gates improves his grades admirably through hard work, Agee stagnates. This pattern continues with Gates becoming the head basketball player, and the coach's favorite; meanwhile, Agee is kicked out of St. Thomas for poor grades and failing to pay tuition. Interestingly, once Agee is back in public school, he is realizes that he was kicked out because he was not as good as the coach wanted him to be. Even the public high school coach, Luther Bedford, admits that an arrangement would have been worked out with the money if Agee was as good as they wanted him to be. This is only the start of Hoop Dreams's journey, and I won't spoil it for you. But be assured that Hoop Dreams's story is filled with twists, heartbreaks, accomplishments, and life lessons that other films never get close to achieving. Nevertheless, the main story, while great, is secondary to the emotional little moments of the families' personal lives. You see dinner being served on the table, bills not being able to be paid, family breakdowns, and people working hard just to survive. For instance, Gate's older brother Curtis was in William's same position for success when he was younger, but he threw it all away with his reckless behavior. Curtis, a once admired player but barely able to hold a minimum wage job now, aspires for William to complete his failed dream. Another example is Agee's mother, Sheila, who suffers job layoffs, family tragedies due to drugs, a violent husband, and never enough money to raise her children. Through all this, Sheila supports Arthur and his dream, while protecting him from the harsh reality of inner city life. Although Hoop Dreams has a 170 minute running time, its excellent storytelling and Oscar nominated editing make the story flow flawlessly. The basketball scenes are quick and exciting-- especially when you watch and ponder what will happen to the boys and their families when the game is over. It should be noted that Hoop Dreams's failure to win any Oscars resulted in Entertainment Weekly publishing an article revealing the flawed judging for documentaries. Consequently, the Academy has redesigned its rules to prevent such a collasal snub (Yes, Hoop Dreams is that good). Film critic Roger Ebert had it right when he voted Hoop Dreams the best film of the 90s, and said: "You owe it to yourself to see this movie." Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Terminator Salvation
Question: How bad does a summer blockbuster, with a franchise fan base already, have to be to lose to Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian at the box office? Answer: cheesy CGI naked Arnold Schwarzenegger battling Christian Bale bad. Salvation's major flaw is that everything is a special effect. Imagine the cheesy scene in T3 with the tow truck flipping over lasting two hours and you get the idea. Furthermore, Bale's John Connor is an afterthought in the story, and the new character, Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), is the action movie standard bad ass learning to be compassionate. There are two loosely related stories in TS: John Conner (Bale) is continuing the fight against the machines, and finds a possible weapon that will eliminate all of the mechanized enemies. Meanwhile, Wright, who years ago was executed in prison, wakes up when a machine lab is destroyed. As he wanders the desert oblivious to the ongoing battle with machines, he encounters a machine shooting at him. Of course, he is saved by young Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), who tells him: "Come with me if you want to live." [Gee, never heard that one.] Unfortunately, any suspense or thrill from the evil machines is negated by director McG's blatant copying of the visual and audio style of Steven Spielberg's 2005 War of the Worlds. But WoW had meaningful dialogue developed characters to make the action scenes exciting, TS has Bale's worst deep voice yet and a slew of cliches like the bad guy explaining the evil plan right before the final battle. Nevertheless, I should mentioned I was completely surprised by one scene near the end--but the film ruined it the next scene...dammit. Despite the many flaws, the film remains entertaining. And that is probably thanks to previous Terminator movies' emotional attachment, rather than any success of McG. Worst part: Action scenes fail to be fun homages to previous Terminator installments, and become the exact scenes you have seen before. Best: I wasn't bored, per se. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
- Movie Title: Star Trek
This story begins, like these stories often do, with a gigantic action sequence involving numerous explosions, and many, many people dying before any story is established. Yay! Although J.J. Abrams's Star Trek surpasses the summer blockbuster quota of special effects, fight scenes, cheesy dialogue, and beautiful people in dangerous situations, there is still a yearning for something deeper. The opening scene entails an evil Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana) and his partner Ayel (Clifton Collins Jr.) ambushing a federation star ship in search of Spock. With Spock not on board, Nero decides to obliterate the ship. However, the new acting captain, George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth), sacrifices his life so 800 crew members, including his wife and his little boy James Tiberious Kirk, can escape. After the flashy and violent opening, the story starts. But don't worry, not even five minutes passes till the next action sequences. We meet James Kirk again as a little boy stealing his step-father's car, and proceeding, in the cheesiest way possible, to wreck it in a high speed police chase involving the Grand Canyon and a flying cop. Then comes Spock's introduction--even more violent. Spock is introduced as an exceptionally intelligent Vulcan, except he is teased by his classmates because he is half Vulcan, and half human. After a 'your momma' insult by one of his peers, Spock's confrontation with his peers turns physical; as these confrontations often do when one's mother mentioned. After these two action scenes the movie introduces older incarnation of Kirk (Chris Pine) with a bar-fight. Eventually, the action slows down, and the real story develops, and becomes character driven thanks to a chance meeting between Kirk and Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood), who persuades Kirk to join the federation. Soon, Kirk is smuggled aboard the USS Enterprise by his friend, and major character, Dr. Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban). On board are all the familiar characters: Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Sulu (John Cho), and the particularly endearing Chekov (Anton Yelchin). Once aboard, Kirk realizes the ship is heading towards a Romulan trap similar to the opening sequence of the movie that killed his father. And with Spock aboard, the main conflict begins: the crew of USS Enterprise must stop Nero in his destructive path to kill Spock, and possibly the entire Vulcan race. Interspersed are sword fights, hand-to-hand combat, dramatic free falls, destroyed planets, monster chases, and, perhaps scariest of all, an ancient Leonard Nimoy doing a cameo as an old Spock with plenty of close-ups. What elevates Star Trek above the typical action picture are the characters. Pine's Kirk successfully captures the necessary bravado of the character, yet keeps his character sympathetic--no doubt his numerous beatings throughout the film aid his empathy. Quinto's Spock eerily resembles Nimoy's, but his main achievement is the convincing portrayal of a part human Vulcan torn apart between his repressed emotions, and the expected objective Vulcan outlook on the world he must constantly pander to. Urban's McCoy serves less as a compelling character, than as comic relief pandering to old Star Trek fans by his reciting familiar classic corny lines: "Damn it Jim! I'm a doctor, not a physicist!" Others are effective in their brief role, yet forgettable: Saldana's predictable Uhura and Greendwood's one-note Pike. While Bana and Collins Jr.'s villains are satisfactory enough when on screen, their little screen time is disappointing considering their extraordinary ability to create unforgettable characters. On the other hand, minor characters like Yelchin's eternally optimistic Chekov and Cho's sword wielding Sulu are surprisingly charming. When I first saw Cho as Sulu, all I could see was Harold (from the Harold & Kumar movies) in a space outfit. But after Cho's sword-fight, he won me over. In a nearly invisible role, Winona Ryder plays Spock's mother, Amanda Grayson, who adds the extra dimension of human emotion to Spock's personality. Despite the movie acting as a prequel, it seems irrelevant to the Star Trek mythos with the time travel twist. Sure, the twist was necessary for the movie story to happen. But one cannot watch the old show and know the characters' background because they are part of an alternate reality. If the screen writers--Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman-- are going to ignore the original Star Trek series's reflections on God, technology, and other philosophical questions, they should at least add more to the Star Trek story than a 'what if' scenario. Nevertheless, if you want fun--you got it. Brett Fletcher Film Critic & Contributing Writer
