Reviews: The Wrestler & The Reader

Pinned Down

Ever since this film managed to win the coveted Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, there has been a lot of talk surrounding it. In fact, by this point, even to those who haven't yet seen the film know about the considerable amount of Oscar buzz for the film, particularly its star Mickey Rourke. It's a very good effort and will certainly do its greatest job to pull you in emotionally. Some are calling it the year's absolute best. I don't know if I completely agree with that statement, but I would certainly say that this film is one of the year's great accomplishments.

The story sets up a very familiar premise. Randy "The Ram" (Rourke) was a star professional wrestler in his youth, but fast forward to today, and he is a washed-up hasbeen trying desperately to make ends meet. He participates in second class venues here and there as he uses his once glorious name to attract whatever money he can grab, which also fuels his steroid use. Randy also finds a connection with a stripper (Marisa Tomei) that he attempts to seek a relationship with and is also trying to reconnect with his estranged daughter (Evan Rachel Wood). All of this leading up to what could be his final battle in the ring.

It is certainly true that Rourke is the one performer that this film is built around, and he does a fantastic job. The reason why this role resonates so much is because the character is very much like himself and his own career. He provides a great emotional ride for us, and his character always feels real. Rourke knows when it's right to be sentimental, when to be dramatic, and when to be just be himself at all the right times. I would personally say that Sean Penn still has my vote for Best Actor this year, but Rourke comes at a very close second for me.

The rest of the cast is fine, but because Rourke knocks his role out of the park, the others just run around in the infield. Tomei gives a very intriguing performance here, and while sometimes it seems piled on, one can definitely see moments when she really gives a great personality to her character, and soon every little emotion can be felt. Even though Wood's part is acted very well, her character unfortunately feels belittled by her role as only necessary to Randy's amending process in his life.

Darren Aronofsky does seem like a strange person to direct this movie, as he has generally tackled on more fantastic themes with movies like Requiem for a Dream and The Fountain. However, Aronofsky has always been attracted to human character studies, and that is exactly what he mines here. It's a tricky task to make this film emotional enough to draw in those who don't prefer the wrestling scenes, but also make sure the promises of the title fulfill the basic testosterone needs of others. Sometimes it feels that like some of the wrestling scenes over indulge on that instinct, seeming unnecessarily violent. Still, Aronofsky can make up for it with other scenes, some which are less sappy than others but work even better.

The one thing that is keeping this movie from becoming great to me would have to be the story. Robert Sigel's script plays by the numbers, and one can see every turn the movie is about to make. Yes, I understand the movie is trying to be more than just an over the hill athlete's story seeking to reclaim fame. I believe that the deeper meanings to the film are still elements that have been told before. His sense of age, his frustration with his own love life, his strained relationship with his daughter are not really connected to the athletic theme, but they all convey the same reveals that have been seen before. The story offers nothing new. However, I would say the very last scene of the film is shot and written perfectly, and immediately followed by Bruce Springsteen's hauntingly beautiful song, almost all else is forgiven.

This is a very good movie, but I don't want to oversell it into something that's great. Because you know where this story is going at all times, there's little room for complete shock and amazement. Though Aronofsky and his company try their best to make up for that, especially with the commanding performance from Mickey Rourke. I don't know if the movie is going to take a real body slam to the Oscars, but Rourke certainly deserves all the recognition he gets. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+




Lost in Translation

Throughout this film, one cannot help but ask this question: can one good performance make up for an entire movie that you didn't like very much? The answer to this question ultimately depends on how the rest of the movie fared. Basically, that means was there anything else besides this one good performance in the movie that you can take solace in? I found myself asking this question for nearly every scene of this movie, which boasts one fine performance, and several others that are good, but ultimately doesn't fulfill the need for a recommendation.

The film's plot, which is based off of the best-seller by Bernhard Schlink, is really three different stories all laid out into one narrative. The first takes place in 1958, where fifteen year old Michael Berg (David Kross) begins a lusty affair with a thirtysomething ticket taker, Hanna (Kate Winslet). The film's title refers to Hanna's insistence that Michael read to her from an assortment of books, which soon becomes their foreplay before their really hot sex scenes. Hanna leaves when she receives a promotion and their summer affair ends.

The second story fast forwards eight years later when Michael is a law student and is sitting in at a prolific case where Nazi war criminals are being tried and one of them just happens to be Hanna. This is where the film offers up a court room drama that dissects moralities before the third story emerges that sees the struggling lives between Hanna in jail and an older Micheal (Ralph Fiennes) on the outside.

Each of these stories have enough to fill their own plots for feature films, but as laid out, it makes the movie feel bloated and, even at just over two hours, long. David Hare's script only seems to address the surface level of every conversation, and the deeper meanings of what these characters are trying to say is never felt. Some of that also seems to come from the fact that the book was written in German that was translated to English, and there are many times where the dialogue feels like English is not written so complexly here, as not to either confuse the German actors or that something isn't retained from the original language.

Hare also collaborates again with Stephen Daldry, six years after their critical success The Hours. Daldry is a great name in the world of theatre, and he probably has great credentials there. Often times, the movie feels like a stage play, and I actually think that would have been better. On screen, Daldry's direction comes across as bloated and sluggish, and every scene has to retain a theatrical sense. The Reader could have become a great play, but its steps don't really work as a film. While Daldry can offer a surprise here and there with something that is incredibly film like, he then can use Nico Muhly's score which comes from the Philip Glass book of overbearingness.

Having said all that, it is Winslet who is the redeeming factor in the film. It seems like it takes a little while for her to become comfortable with the character, but she soon slips into in neatly and she is marvelous. Winslet knows how a simple look can convey so much, and she accomplishes it greatly here. In actuality, this performance is more so leading, but it can be argued supporting, as what often happens when an actor is looking to get nominated for two acting Oscars in one year. Kross is okay, but I don't think English is the right language for him, and while Fiennes is good in anything he does, he comes in too late and feels unnecessary a bit for the story.

I wish that Kate Winslet was able to make up for the rest of the movie because her performance is really great. She's always been a fantastic actress, and she shows it once again here. However, the other faults of the movie are too large to ignore. If one day you're channel searching and you come across this film, you'll certainly see Winslet at the top of her game. Once she's gone, however, you won't need to keep your eye on that screen any longer. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Reviews: Benjamin Button & Valkyrie

Lasting Impressions

It's finally here. As the last days of the year start to come to a close, a heavily buzzed film hits cinemas just in time for the holidays. Its main attractions: two huge movie stars opposite each other, a huge, epic scale, big production values, a notable, Oscar-less director and a story that attempts to transcend time and all boundaries. It's a little strange that all of that also describes the feelings associated with Australia, which was released near Thanksgiving. However, one will be very pleased that this film is everything that Baz Lurhman's film tried so desperately to be and failed. It is not only a grand epic with a marvelous technical spectacle, but also has an endearing story that is able to completely immerse one in all its glory.

Using the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald as a jumping off point, the strange story focuses on its title character (Brad Pitt), who had the unusual circumstance of being born as an eighty year old infant who ages backwards as the rest of the world grows old. Left on the doorstep of a retirement home, he's taken in by one of the workers there, Queenie (Taraji P. Henson), who becomes his adopted mother. Benjamin then strikes a friendship with one of the resident's granddaughter, Daisy (played as an adult by Cate Blanchett). When Benjamin grows up, he goes off to war and then returns to his Louisiana home. It's here where the film switches gears and becomes a sweeping romance between Benjamin and Daisy.

Even though the film's posters give top billing to Pitt and Blanchett, the real star of this film is actually director David Fincher. I've always admired his magnificent craft as a filmmaker, particularly how he is able to transport us into any setting by always using the available technology. His high-def cameras were used with subtlety in Zodiac (one of my personal favorites from last year) to create the feeling of 1970s San Francisco. Here, the effort is a little louder, but the effect is still the same. Fincher is a true master of film, and if the Best Director lineup at the Oscars turns out to be what I think it will be, then he would certainly have my vote.

Fincher's touch is present in every frame of the technical scale, such as the marvelous art direction, the dim but beautiful cinematography from Claudio Miranda, and Alexandre Desplat's uplifting score is a treasure for the ears. It's the film's makeup and visual effects, however, the deserve the most attention. Not only do they present a realistic illusion, but they are also able to astonish the mind and give plenty of food for thought later on how such accomplishments were achieved. There is a wonderful job to be seen there.

Pitt has worked with Fincher before with Se7en and Fight Club, and Fincher knows how to get a good performance out of him. Here, Pitt is never mind blowingly stunning, but often times Benjamin doesn't need that. Just a glance into Pitt's eyes will make you realize that you're falling into the plight of this character, and he should have some recognition for that. Blanchett isn't bad here, but she has seen better days and often times it feels the chemistry between her and Brad is minimal, which is odd since this is the second time they've played a couple. Still, the rest of the ensemble makes up for it, including a warm performance from Henson, and an intriguing one from Tilda Swinton as the wife of a British spy that Benjamin has an affair with during his time in Russia.

The one place where the film starts to find a great fault is in the script. Eric Roth's most notable work is his Oscar-winning script to Forrest Gump, and he and Robert Zemekis both set out to make a film that was intended to gut you emotionally. For better or worse, it worked. Here, it seems as if the intentions of Roth and Fincher are at different ends, with the script wanting to pour on the sap and the direction wanting the visuals to let the audience come to their own emotional conclusion. That internal struggle in the film is what makes it become an almost three hour movie. That is far too long, and leads to some faults on both sides: Roth's framing device of a bedridden Daisy having her daughter read Benjamin's diary in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina is a bit of a bore, and Fincher is sometimes left to sluggishly pull along during some slow patches that visually can't make up for the scipting. Most of the time, though, Roth knows the right notes to play.

Benjamin Button has accomplished what so many films before it have failed: it's a Best Picture frontrunner that has actually survived its overhyping. It's not a perfect film, but the winning performances, stunning visuals, and the masterful work by Fincher provide a great time at the show. If the fortunes do come true, and this film actually wins Best Picture, I won't have many complaints. So long as Fincher is smiling in the room with his own little golden guy, I'll be smiling as well. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-



Mission Impossible

Admittedly, there is a tremendous amount of potential for this movie to fail. First, there was the halt in production because of an on set accident involving a truckload of extras, then those extras sued Tom Cruise and his company United Artists for damages, then the movie's release date yo-yo-ed between late summer to early fall to Presidents' Day '09 to Christmas '08, then shooting halted again because some necessary German locations were off limits, then you have the role of a German officer being played by Cruise sans accent, the rest of the cast is nearly all British, it's a World War II drama that is released on a joyous holiday, and at the end of the day it's a suspenseful thriller in which the ending is already known. It's a very difficult thing to sell, and some parts of it are not so easy to buy. On the whole, however, is a well made story that does just enough to pull you in.

Based off of one of the many attempted assassinations on Hitler, this one focuses on Col. Von Stauffesberg (Cruise), an irate soldier in Hitler's army who has seen enough bloodshed committed by him and agrees to conspire with a league of other generals, sergeants and majors to plant a bomb near the Fuhrer. The film's title refers to an intricate back up plan that Hitler created to ensure stability in Germany in case he was killed. The conspirators have reorganized the plan in a way that targets the SS from overtaking the government, thus making Hitler's army a coup that will end his grip on the country.

Director Bryan Singer is really a great director. He has a nice talent of channeling his own personal feelings and past obstacles into riveting character studies surrounded by an intriguing plot. His efforts are not wasted here, and his craft feels like a person who is genuinely trying to create an atmosphere of suspense. Sometimes it works, and other times the fact that the ending is already known takes some of that away. Still, Singer, I believe, is one of the great storytellers of today, always providing the same brilliance whether its about intercutting gangsters or superhuman mutants.

Here, Singer also reunites with Christopher McQuarrie, the man who provided the Oscar-winning script to the Singer directed The Usual Suspects. This time, the payoff isn't really that great, and often times the script doesn't feel quite as tight as Singer's direction. The dialogue isn't much here, but the script just wants to present a certain mood, and it accomplishes that most of the time.

The elephant in the room is certainly Tom Cruise in this role. Was he the weakest link? His performance isn't really anything mind blowing, and throughout the entire film he is rather bland. However, I always felt he was so restrained that he never presented an opportunity to be good or bad. He just showed up and let the barrage of British actors upstage him. Maybe that's not so terrible, as when a scene is cluttered with Tom Wilkinson, Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy and Terrence Stamp, the focus is always less on Cruise. There are a few actual Germans peppered in the cast (Thomas Kretschmann is very good as the leader of the Reserved Army), and those few do their best to make it well.

Many have noticed the lack of German accents, or language, in the film. What some don't realize is that the movie already address this issue right from the beginning. The movie opens with Stauffenberg writing in his journal while stationed in North Africa right before an aerial attack leaves him without a hand and an eye. If you listen closely, that's actually Tom Cruise speaking in German before his voice transitions to English. Singer already knows that criticism will come from this casting, so he puts it out there in the beginning to show that while this story takes place in Germany, you'll be hearing it like it's a movie made in English. I think that's alright, and it's a move that shows Singer's good direction. The movie is far from perfect, but there are enough touches to keep you within the moments of the film, and with that, the movie barley wins its uphill battle. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Review: The Spirit

Spirited Away

Once again, we are witnesses of the Hollywood machine at work. When a good idea is sprouted forth and is well accepted, the machine goes into overdrive and starts to mass produce many films that fit a similar mold of what was previously so successful. In this case, it is a continuing effort that has been going on for a long time: comic book movies. This year alone has seen the adaptations of Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and, of course, The Dark Knight. What made these films successful were that they had actual filmmakers behind them who knew what you needed to do in order to make a movie. The Spirit is a perfect example of what is generally the difficult task in creating a film based on a comic book: the two mediums are very different and do not mix together very well.

Looking very faithful to the Will Eisner graphic novel, the Spirit (Gabriel Macht) is the indestructible protector of Central City, a dark place that looks like infinite back alleys joined together. His major quest is to go after the notorious villain the Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson) who not only wants to take over the world by drinking the blood of Hercules (don't even make me explain that) but also holds the secret to Spirit's immortality. On his quest, Spirit is also on a battle with the police commissioner (Dan Lauria), indulging in a hot-n'-cold romance with the commissioner's doctor daughter (Sarah Paulson) and looking for his long lost teenage sweetheart (Eva Mendes) who has an obsession with all things shinny.

Frank Miller is one of the many geniuses of the comic book world. His great influence on the Batman comics in the 1980s bled profusely over into Tim Burton's vision, 300 proved to be an adrenaline fueled romp that stimulated the mind, and Sin City at one point was dubbed the "Citizen Kane" of the comic book movies. However, many of the film versions of Miller's works have succeeded because he didn't do them. Burton, Zack Snyder and Robert Rodriguez are filmmakers and did their best to make their films just that. Miller is not a filmmaker, and this movie gets stuck in the comic book world that he loves but is terrible on screen. His efforts feel static, wasteful, and a watered down version of what was so gloriously presented in Sin City in order to achieve a PG-13 rating.

Macht certainly looks the part for this film, but a lot of the time his efforts stretch only as far as the movie goes. It's not completely his fault because his character is utterly boring anyway. I could blame Eva Mendes, who is only present to be eye candy and only becomes important in one scene or two. But I have to place blame on two: Jackson, and his character's femme fatal Scarlett Johansson. They're performances are not only bad, but they're over the top even for a comic book movie. You know you've got a stinker when Jackson's acting is even more ridiculous than him prancing around in a Nazi uniform. Johansson is just reading lines off of a blackboard and his an absolute bore. The only actors who try to bring up this sinking ship are Lauria and Paulson, playing just at the right side of not being too serious to seem out of place nor too over the top to become laughably ridiculous.

The obvious connection the film wants to make is that it's like Sin City. It's nothing like that film, which faulted on its direct script but made up for it in stunning visuals. Comic book dialogue is terrible, but Miller thinks it works in the film. Nothing could be further from the truth. In honesty, nobody cares what people say in comic books; the dialogue is always bad. People just want to look at all the nice drawings. That's what the movie is: a bunch of pretty drawings that are unfortunately attached to a shoddy plot that screeches across like nails on a chalkboard. Hopefully this will be a wake up call for that machine to screen some films more carefully before they're let out into the world. 1/2* / ****; GRADE: D-

Reviews: Doubt & Gran Torino

Heaven Help Us
.
It’s never easy trying to turn a play into a film. It’s a very hard task, trying to preserve the intimate nature that brings out shining performances from the stage while also trying to broaden the scope of the piece so the use of the film medium is fully enhanced. When in doubt, the rule is to mostly swing toward the latter half. Other times, the balance has difficulty succeeding and a stasis in that transition is felt. That’s one of the reasons why I didn’t fall in love with a previous play adaptation this year, Frost/Nixon, for being one of those examples in limbo. This film is another example of very fine acting, but is hindered by its difficult transition.

Based off the highly revered, Tony sweeping, and Pulitzer-Prize winning play, the setting is the Bronx circa 1964 in a Catholic school and parish. The principal is Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep) and she’s as cold as a Chicago night in December. She oversees the school with a stern fist and is usually at constant battles with the homely, nicer history teacher, Sister James (Amy Adams). Then, one day, the priest belonging to the parish, Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) calls a black boy into the rectory. It’s never said, but Sister Aloysius’s investigation speaks very loudly about what has unfortunately become a staple of controversy within the Catholic Church.

The name of the game here is subtlety. This story works better when its messages are laden with code and the nuances are heavy in the air. That’s why the script by John Patrick Shanley, who also wrote the play, is so great. Nothing is ever really said with any clarification and that keeps the film’s message more than just simply the corruption of Catholicism. It’s about the deep seeded secrets that we keep, both from the world and ourselves, and how we come to terms with that. Obviously, the script is not the major fault. If anything, it is a savior for this film. All of this is true until the very last line, which rids itself of all mysterious credibility, but fortunately has the rest of the dialogue to make up for it.

The film’s major fault is its direction. Shanley also chose to direct this film, and he becomes another in a long line of great writers who don’t have the right sense to direct. The direction is far too over the top, and eventually makes the film feel more like a stage play that is desperately trying to be taken seriously as a film. Unfortunately, I think this material was always destined to feel like a stage production, so Shanley’s attempts are not only wasted, but bothersome. It’s a shame that the intentions of Shanley the director are completely opposite of Shanley the writer, as the frankness of the direction and nuances of the screenplay crash terribly into each other.

Fortunately, he also relies on Roger Deakins’s cinematography, which has always been known to use natural lighting more beautifully than anyone else. The other drawback of the technical aspects would sadly have to be Howard Shore’s score, which feels just as over bearing and painfully aware of itself as the film’s direction.

With that, the film then has to bet all of its chips on the acting. It’s a move that has its big payoffs, even if the other elements are left to fall by the wayside. Streep is an actress that, I still believe, can do anything, but I couldn't help but feel as if her performance was sort of “auto pilot.” She’s very good here, but that extra effort to make the character something special is never really felt. To be fair, it’s still a worthy performance in her career, but one can’t help but wonder if she could do better. Hoffman once again shows his great range as an actor, and his subtle abilities here can truly impress. His scenes against Streep are some of the film’s most riveting moments.

Adams is a gifted performer, as anyone who has seen Junebug and Enchanted can attest, but I always felt her character existed only as a foil to Streep. It’s a well acted part, but the character feels unnecessary. By far, the best one is breakthrough star Viola Davis, who does more with her ten minutes of screen time than anyone else. She the only one who really understands the power of the script’s subtle messages, and her performance is never anything over the top and is grounded in such a realistic way.

Had Shanley actually trusted another filmmaker with his material, the film would have been an excellent showcase of talent across the board. Instead, its one, but very important, element undermines the rest of the film’s greatness. Still, that doesn’t mean much is to be discovered here, and the performances and script do well to bring the film up. This is most definitely a film that should be seen, and be seen more than once to discover the things that might have been missed the first time, and if you can believe it, that is actually a compliment. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+



Running on Empty

Clint Eastwood is a man that deserves all the respect he has earned. Even at 78, the man has still got all the stamina to turn out two movies, act in one, pick up a few awards on the way, write music, and work with marvelously talented people. Eastwood showed us a very good movie that was filled with excellent characters in Changeling. Call it over-hyping, call it a bloated plot, or call it a showcase of "misery porn", the movie was shunned by most critics. When that happened, Mr. Eastwood figured he do what was done two years ago when one Oscar buzzer flopped (Flags of Our Fathers). He came out with another one that was far superior and got its Best Picture place (Letters from Iwo Jima). Unfortunately, this film doesn't repeat that same success from two years ago, and becomes a significant disappointment from a filmmaker who has seen much better days.

In his first onscreen acting role since Million Dollar Baby (which Clint confirmed was supposed to be his last), Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a disgruntled, racist Korean War vet who clings to his traditional 1950s values and his prized car: a vintage 1972 Gran Torino. Next door, an Asia family moves in, and it's pretty obvious that Walt is in total agony over this. After the family's youngest son Thao (Bee Vang) attempts to steal the Gran Torino as a forced initiation, the family sends him to work for Walt to pay off his shame. Walt learns to like the guy, slowly but surely, and then tries to solve this deadly situation of the gang that threatens the family and his own integrity.

If this plot sounds familiar, then you're absolutely right. Nick Schenk's script is terribly clichéd and full of mediocre to primer school level dialogue. Much of the conversations only dig at the surface level, and it's a false move considering the movie should have been going deeper into these characters. Eastwood has worked with stories that seemed to not venture beyond their genre categories (Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby, Letters from Iwo Jima), but within them are slight detours that turn the stories on their heads and make them into something more. That is not present here, and the story remains flat. It appears Eastwood should tear Paul Haggis away from the James Bond series and start writing stuff for him, and judging by the shoddy plot to Quantum of Solace, that sounds like a win-win.

For some reason, Eastwood has always gotten high praises for his acting, and many believe his only two Oscar nominations for that category is unfair. I'd actually say that's two nods too many. As a director, Eastwood is able to completely disappear into whatever mood the film takes, and his style is that of a true master and given a great contribution to film. As an actor, he has always been one note, playing the same variation of the snarling, tough guy with the scratchy voice and thorny personality. It's more of the same here, and it still doesn't impress. Though I would have to hand it to him for being able to play the first likable bigot since Carol O'Conner.

The rest of the supporting cast hardly matches up to Eastwood. Vang and Ahney Her, who plays Thao's sister, have a very shallow acting well, and the chemistry they have with each other and Eastwood is never felt to be very realistic. Vang especially, in his first theatrical role, deserves a few more acting lessons to build up his believable credit. Other actors just become groups of movie stereotypes: the ungrateful grandchildren, the distant sons trying to make amends, and the street wise city gangsters. The only ones who really help the film's dying ensemble would be Christopher Carley as a tenacious priest who attends to Walt's guilt, and John Carroll Lynch who trades some very funny banter with Eastwood as his barber.

I think the real reason for Clint's return to acting is that he wants an Oscar. Not just any, because he already has four, two for directing. No, he wants an Oscar for acting, and he wants it for his own film. Had he taken Tommy Lee Jones's role in In the Valley of Elah, he might have had it. Instead, he chose this project, with sub par acting and a flaky script, which also features an ending that is both implausible and predictable at the same time. The only real great thing about the film is the original song "Gran Torino", which Eastwood helped write with his more musically talented son Kyle, that plays over the end credits. It's somber melody and flighty vocals try to lift high above the rest of the movie. Too bad you have to sit through the rest of the movie before you begin to leave. ** / ****; GRADE: C

Commentary: Chicago Film Critics Nominations

.
Usually, I save my commentary for the actual Oscars, with mentions pre- and post-nominations and pre- and post-ceremony. Now, with the news of the Chicago Film Critics announcing their nominees, I felt as if I should take special note to say something about this group's choices, and try to predict their winners which will be announced Thursday. I live in Chicago and am an avid fan of their critics, particularly the Tribune's Michael Phillips and, to a lesser extent, the Times's Roger Ebert. I've noticed some of their trends, so their nods don't surprise me, which is a good thing considering what they've picked.

Best Picture
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Milk
WALL*E
Slumdog Millionaire

With the exception of Benjamin, which must have had a very advanced screening, all of these films have shown in Chicago, and the critics loved them all. Slumdog is the current critical frontrunner, and it would make sense for them to select this film. However, I'm going to make a bold prediction and say The Dark Knight will be the big winner here. Chicagoans love their city as Gotham, and its one of the appeals the critics attached to. The safe choice is Danny Boyle, but I really think Batman will find its one critic group here.

Predicted Winner: The Dark Knight
Possible Upset: Slumdog Millionaire

Best Director
Danny Boyle - Slumdog Millionaire
David Fincher - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Christopher Nolan - The Dark Knight
Andrew Stanton - WALL*E
Gus Van Sant - Milk

A perfect match up with Best Picture, it's also possible that Nolan will win with the movie. However, I think Chicago critics have really grown to like Fincher's style, since they nominated him last year with Zodiac. I think his inventive direction is going to take it here, with Boyle actually being the surprise upset.

Predicted Winner: David Fincher - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Possible Upset: Danny Boyle - Slumdog Millionaire

Best Actor
Clint Eastwood - Gran Torino
Richard Jenkins - The Visitor
Frank Langella - Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn - Milk
Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler

Clint is always loved here, and the rest of the nominees are pretty clear. The Visitor was always a film that got a lot of press with Chicago critics, and they've tried to keep this film afloat. To keep that momentum, I think Jenkins is going to win here. If they choose to play it safe, then I'd go with Sean Penn, but ever since Crash, this group hasn't made too many safe choices (disregarding last year with the No Country for Old Men sweep).

Predicted Winner: Richard Jenkins - The Visitor
Possible Upset: Sean Penn - Milk

Best Actress
Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married
Sally Hawkins - Happy-Go-Lucky
Angelina Jolie - Changeling
Melissa Leo - Frozen River
Meryl Streep - Doubt

Much like The Visitor, Frozen River was one of those films Chicago critics latched onto and talked about over and over to try to keep the word going. Leo is a really viable contender here, but I think Hathaway in the other Chicago critical hit is going to be the victor here. If Leo was called, that wouldn't surprise me, but I think the universal love from RGM will mean a win for her.

Predicted Winner: Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married
Possible Upset: Melissa Leo - Frozen River

Best Supporting Actor
Robert Downey Jr. - Tropic Thunder
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Doubt
Bill Irwin - Rachel Getting Married
Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
Michael Shannon - Revolutionary Road

The one thing that pops into my mind is Phillips being on "At the Movies" and talking about Ledger in TDK before any competition for this category came out and he stated, "He's going to win, and he should." That's the general consensus with this group, and I think Ledger's campaign can claim another victory here. The tender performance from Irwin could upset, but I think Ledger's the safest thing with these awards.

Predicted Winner: Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
Possible Upset: Bill Irwin - Rachel Getting Married

Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams - Doubt
Penélope Cruz - Vicky Christina Barcelona
Viola Davis - Doubt
Rosemarie Dewitt - Rachel Getting Married
Kate Winslet - The Reader

Typical list, not only for Chicago, but for any critic group out there. Not really any surprises at all. Here, I think this is a two person race between Dewitt and Cruz. In the end, I think Cruz will take it, but a very possible upset from Dewitt is not out of the question.

Predicted Winner: Penélope Cruz - Vicky Christina Barcelona
Possible Upset: Rosemarie Dewitt - Rachel Getting Married

Best Original Screenplay
In Bruges
Milk
Rachel Getting Married
Synecdoche, New York
WALL*E

In Bruges and Synecdoche, NY got a lot of love from Chicago, so their nominations don't surprise me at all. What may surprise some is that WALL*E will probably win here, with RGM a runner-up choice. The little robot was very muched liked in this city, and this will probably be the one award outside animated feature Chicago will give it.

Predicted Winner: WALL*E
Possible Upset: Rachel Getting Married

Best Adapted Screenplay
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Doubt
Frost/Nixon
Slumdog Millionaire

Lots of good choices here, but since Slumdog might miss out on Best Picture and Director, this will probably be the category for it to come away a winner. TDK could very well take this award as well.

Predicted Winner: Slumdog Millionaire
Possible Upset: The Dark Knight

Best Foreign Film
The Band's Visit
Che
A Christmas Tale
I've Loved You So Long
Let the Right One In

Predicted Winner: I've Loved You So Long
Possible Upset: A Christmas Tale

Best Documentary
American Teen
Dear Zachary
IOUSA
Man on Wire
Standard Operating Procedure

Predicted Winner: Man on Wire
Possible Upset: IOUSA

Best Animated Feature
Bolt
Kung Fu Panda
The Tale of Desperaux
WALL*E
Waltz with Bashir

Predicted Winner: WALL*E
Possible Upset: Kung Fu Panda (if Hell freezes over)

Best Cinematography
Australia
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
The Fall
Slumdog Millionaire

Predicted Winner: The Dark Knight
Possible Upset: Slumdog Millionaire

Best Original Score
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Milk
Slumdog Millionaire
WALL*E

Predicted Winner: Slumdog Millionaire
Possible Upset: WALL*E

Most Promising Performer
Russell Brand - Forgetting Sarah Marshall
David Kross - The Reader
Linda Leandersson - Let the Right One IN
Dev Patel - Slumdog Millionaire
Brandon Walters - Australia

Predicted Winner: Dev Patel - Slumdog Millionaire
Possible Upset: David Kross - The Reader

Most Promising Filmmaker
Tomas Alfredson - Let the Right One In
Lance Hammer - Ballast
Courtney Hunt - Frozen River
Martin McDonagh - In Bruges
Steve McQueen - Hunger

Predicted Winner: Martin McDonagh - In Bruges
Possible Upset: Courtney Hunt - Frozen River

I can't wait to see if I really know my Chicago critics on Thursday.

Reviews: Frost/Nixon & Day the Earth Stood Still

Talking Points

It seems that this year, a very popular thing to do in a politically motivated time is to make politically motivated movies. Last year, it was about commenting on more recent times and how we should deal with the situation effectively for the future. If anyone can remember In the Valley of Elah, Rendition or Lions for Lambs, then you'll understand how enormously futile that effort was. Now, it seems as if we have to take a step backward to look at the past which helps to understand our future. Oliver Stone provided one very good example with W., and now Ron Howard throws in his hat with this film, which features a well acted cast that does its part to gloss over many faults.

Based on popular Tony winning play, which is also taken from real life events, the story finds British talk show host David Frost (Michael Sheen) showcasing his high life as an entertainment sensation in Australia. It's the mid-seventies, and US President Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) has just resigned. Frost feels the best show he can make is a series of interviews with the disgraced former president. Nixon is looking for a chance to redeem himself. Frost once to bring justice for the American people. Their interviews over several days try to find a winner.

Both Sheen and Langella had these same roles on the stage, and while neither of them really look like their historical counterparts, they've each had enough practice to get them the best they can be. Sheen, most notable from The Queen, has a lot of charm and sophistication and every scene of his feels authentic. Langella has a fine line to walk, as falling into an SNL style impersonation is easy with Nixon. However, he doesn't put so much into Nixon's jowles, and instead does his best to disappear within the character. Langella has always been a great actor, and its nice to see him excel in such a role and get as much recognition.

There's a lot of depth that can be discovered in the characters of Frost and Nixon, but that complexity really isn't shown in the rest of the cast. Not that other characters such as Sam Rockwell, Matthew Macfadyen, and Oliver Platt as the other members of Frost's research team, or Kevin Bacon as Nixon's right hand man, aren't acted to perfection. It is only that their character's personalities don't go beyond the cookie-cutter stereotypes, and at the end of the day they don't really achieve much.

Howard has a difficult task trying to balance the intimate nature in a stage setting and the broadening scope of a film. Most of the time, he strikes that balance. Other times it showcases the difficult transition, such as when Nixon is giving a monologue over the phone to Frost. It's easy to imagine that scene being very impactful on stage, but on film it feels bloated and tiresome. Howard does well, but his efforts aren't really anything to take particular notice of.

Peter Morgan, who adapted his own play, managed to blur the lines between fact and fiction very well with his Oscar nominated screenplay to The Queen. Here, it feels Morgan doesn't quite know what to do with his own material in that transition, and much of the over the top qualities needed for the stage come off as too strong on film. The boxing analogy is one used very often for this premise, as each man has their own "corner guys" they go to in order to get ready for the next round. After a while, however, it gets a little tiresome and the metaphor wears off. Morgan is a good writer, but his material had more deep quality with his previous film effort it seemed.

After viewing the film, one really gets the sense that you'd like to go back and watch the original interviews conducted by the real men. In some way, that might be a bad thing because the film can feel empty at times that leaves you wanting more. Still, the leads are very good and the direction knows its place, even if the script doesn't go quite as far. I hope Langella gets a nomination, if only because he should have had one a long time ago. *** / ****; GRADE: B


An Inconvenient Invasion

It's a difficult thing trying to review a movie like this. For one thing, it is nearly impossible for me to view it objectively. I've seen the original 1951 sci-fi classic from Robert Wise, and it was a great film. Not only was it great, but it had a great message that used the science fiction element more so as a backdrop. It was not your run of the mill alien movie. It was so much more. This tedious remake is nothing more than the formulaic alien film, which diminishes the memory of a classic and provide a migraine inducing ride.

After a ball of green light lands in Manhattan, a group of scientists that include Jennifer Connelly gather around at first thinking that its a meteor. After they clearly discover its not, what emerges is a tall mechanical alien that the government names Gort (damn acronyms) and an alien named Klaatu (Keanu Reeves). Klaatu informs Connelly's scientist, Helen, that the rate at which humans have polluted the Earth have turned catastrophic, and in order to save it, he needs to gather up all the animals he can and destroy the human race altogether. It is up to Helen and her stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith) to try and convince Klaatu otherwise.

In the opening titles, the film references the screenplay by Edmund H. North but not its own basis of the short story "Farewell to the Mater" by Harry Bates. David Scarpa's script is a grand insult to the memory of that original film. The anti-war message at the end of the first film made sense given that Klaatu didn't want to have humans spread their destructive behavior to other planets, but it also made it clear that other worlds didn't care if we ruined our own planet. In the updated environmentalist approach, Klaatu's plight really doesn't make sense and then forces other sections to become peppered with stale dialogue and conventional turns.

Scott Derrickson is not a director with great credentials (Hellraiser: Inferno, The Exorcism of Emily Rose), and he overloads the film with too many action pieces that were completely unnecessary in the original. The visual effect scenes do look good, and there are times when the newly designed Gort looks very fierce and compelling. Still, it only serves as a reminder that when the story fails, needless action must try to save the day, and Derrickson's direction with those scenes does not feel like it's from someone who has respect for his source material, often times making some scenes unintentionally laughable and taking a page from the Michael Bay textbook of how to blatantly use product placement.

To say that Keanu Reeves is a bad actor is such a tiresome thing to say, that I almost hesitate to mention it. But his Klaatu is so one note that his lack of personality is heartbreaking. Connelly and Smith have the little chemistry that is necessary for the film to succeed halfway, but other stock characters such as the secluded professor (John Cleese), the smug government official (Kathy Bates) and the friendly defying scientist (Mad Men's John Hamm).

As a science fiction/action movie that exists within its own world, the movie has faults but isn't totally awful. In fact, there are many times when it's decent. However, the inevitable comparison to the original film hurts every bit of integrity this movie has. Of course, I encourage all to see the original film and discover why it retains its impact almost sixty years later. For this film, I would call Gort on it, and not once utter "klaatu birada nikto." If you know what that means, then I commend you. If you don't, then skip this trash and find out. *1/2 / ****; GRADE: D+

Review: Cadillac Records

Broken Record

It should be noted that I am still a believer that the so called "musical biopic" can offer something new and fresh to the genre. While Ray and Walk the Line have pretty much set an industry standard for how these stories should be told, I still remember the admittedly funny, and unjustly overlooked, Walk Hard, and while technically not a biopic (neither was Dewey Cox), Dreamgirls still followed the same basic rules and managed to become entertaining in the end. This film follows many of the standard rules, which makes it seem very tailored to those other films and eventually becoming a mere imitation.

The entire film chronicles the Chicago based record company Chess Records. Founded by Leonard Chess (Adrien Brody), a Polish immigrant struggling in America, the company soon became a basic name in blues, R&B, and jazz. Chess's personal life and finances were always in trouble, along with Muddy Waters (Jeffrey Wright) with his money instability and infidelity, Little Walters (Colombus Short) with his drug and alcohol dependency, Howlin' Wolf (Eamonn Walker) with his resistance to become a team player, Chuck Berry (Mos Def) with his sexual perversions, and Etta James (Beyoncé Knowles) with her own drug and family problems, along with a hinted affair with the married Chess.

As you can see, the movie has a lot on its plate, and there is the biggest flaw with the film. The plot is far too bloated and overblown with many storylines that the film never has a focus within its characters. Everyone who was vital to the production of Chess Records is given an equal amount of story, but sometimes less is more. Writer-director Darnell Martin already omitted some things out, whether the minuscule fact that Chess had already established themselves as jazz, rather than blues, in the beginning, or the mighty big facts of the influence of local radio station WVON or that another Chess brother also co-founded the company. The script also feels lazily executed and very drawn out.

However, a great redeeming factor is the cast. I mentioned in my review of Milk that Sean Penn is part of the very few group of actors that can completely disappear into a role. Wright is another member, and it is a shame that his fame is not matched by his talent. Players like Brody, Short, Walker and Gabrielle Union, who plays Muddy's wife, do well in their roles, but don't bring anything special to their characters. One true standout is Def, an amazing actor who brings light and charm to the role of Berry in a movie that desperately needed it. Then, there is Beyoncé. This role still shows that she is a more talented singer than actress, but I would say this is her best film performance. She always steals the scene when she appears and can truly make her renditions of James's songs very effective.

In truth, all the songs are effective, and it is partially why the movie can be enjoyable. Not every song is going to inspire joy, but a good amount of them will excite that basic joy within you and start your feet tapping in the theatre. After all, it is music from a bygone era, and sometimes that is enough to get your attention.

Still, the movie fails to grab all of that attention. The movie's way overblown plot, along with a ridiculously formulaic script, many times cause this second cousin to Ray begging to be removed from the family. However, many of the performances are fine (Def I believe is the best), the music track is very entertaining, and in the end the film is discussing a part of history that has become forgotten to many people today, and it is interesting to go back and look at that. A documentary on PBS might have sufficed more, but some of that is here as well. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Reviews: Milk & Slumdog Millionaire

Gay Old Times

Often times, there are words that describe films or other pieces of art that are either overused or misused. Words like "auteur", "groundbreaking" and "majestic" have been very popular ones, and I myself have sometimes been the perpetrator of this particular crime. However, one word that I hardly ever use is "inspirational." Not only do I never describe anything that is now a staple tagline to fact-based Disney sport movies, but it is a label for a film that does something much more than be good. It has to make an impact, but in such a way that the viewing stays long with you and forces a different outlook. Very few films are able to do that, even the best of ones, though I am extremely happy to report that Milk is one of the few that fits into that category.

The film details the life of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn), a fortysomething businessman who moves from his closeted New York home with his lover Scott Smith (James Franco) out to San Francisco. It is here where Milk began his prolific career in politics, running many times for the city's supervisor, and eventually winning in 1977, making him the first openly gay man to be elected to public office. The film offers up Harvey's strong political messages, his vigor toward change, his energetic personality, his distraught love life, his battle with other supervisor Dan White (Josh Brolin), and eventually his very tragic assassination at the hand of White in 1978.

It has been a long time since I've been excited to talk about a Gus Van Sant film. Actually, to be completely honest, I've never been excited about a Gus Van Sant film. Being too young to remember the release of Good Will Hunting, I've only been exposed to the reclusive and experimental film styles of Van Sant, which were often annoyingly free-spirited (Last Days) or smug social commentaries (Psycho, if you think about it long enough). However, Van Sant delivers a perfect mood here. His direction offers some unusual staging, but never in a way that feels forced. It seems to offer a greater intimacy with the story as well as the characters, and he does a great job at inviting us in to both.

Van Sant very successfully transports us into this time and story, and much of that has to do with his discreet use of archival stock footage. Edited wonderfully within the story by Elliot Graham, the footage enhances the energy in the room given off by the film, and something special has to be noted when the film can villainies conservative activist Anita Bryant without casting an actress and just using old footage (Clooney also did this well with McCarthey in Good Night, and Good Luck.).

Writer Dustin Lance Black's script initially feels like it's starting on the wrong foot, as it disregards the usual biopic rules by focusing on the last eight years of Milk's life and immediately plants us into the middle aged life. Then the screenplay then unfolds to reveal a treasure cove of little gems with characters, smart dialogue and very well crafted scenes. To be fair, Black's script doesn't vary too far away from usual biopics, but there are some exceptions taken, and even when not, the story about this man is executed in such a fascinating way. Some might also wonder about the seemingly unnecessary sexual scenes featured in the film. To that, I would say that anybody who has peered into the gay community knows that sex is an important element there, and also, when a film has a gay director, gay writer, gay crew members and is about a prolific gay politician, scenes like that are going to slip in and they're obviously not put in there for straight audiences.

Quite clearly, the magnificent star is Penn. Penn is one of those few kinds of actors who is able to completely disappear into a role. We no longer see Sean Penn playing Harvey Milk, we just see Harvey Milk. Even if someone did not know about this man, and the way he conversed, one would still recognize Penn completely fulfilling the role. I know that Mickey Rourke and Frank Langella are serious Oscar contenders this year, but Penn provides one his best performances in a very long time, even better than his great, but slightly hammy, work for his Oscar-winning role in Mystic River.

The film's supporting cast is also top notch. Franco proves himself here as a serious actor, bringing a tenderness that can be forgotten in the political world, as well as a great anchor for Harvey's flamboyancy. Emile Hirsch, who plays one of Milk's political activists, previously worked with Penn the director for last year's Into the Wild. That chemistry definitely comes across and he's a fine performer. Diego Luna is all charm and smiles as Milk's second, and erratic, lover, Alison Pill as the campaign manager brings a lot of good natured comic relief, Victor Garbor does well in the cameo role as the mayor, and Brolin as White paints him as a sort of humble idiot who couldn't control his emotions. It's an interesting ploy, but I would argue Brolin already did that for W., and I liked it better the first time.

Even with that seemingly repeat performance from Brolin, the film is nothing short of excellent. Intriguingly directed, wonderfully written, and marvelously acted by the whole ensemble, with Penn as the shining star, the movie is miraculous. It is inspirational, not only for all those reasons, but because the timing of the film has come out during a very prolific time for gay rights, and there are many times in the movie where the then ballot measure Proposition 6 could very much be switched with an 8 and still make sense. That is why the film is inspirational, because it forces us to look at the battles fought in the past and see the journey that has been made, and what a journey it was. **** / ****; GRADE: A



Dog Day Afternoon

Director Danny Boyle has always been a name that has fascinated me whenever I heard it. His attention to style for his films is generally something to truly marvel at and I do believe that he has done enough to be credited as a great filmmaker. The only reason why he may possibly not have that credit with some is because that style has usually been attached to pulp stories that do not tend to exist any farther beyond the celuloid. Here, however, Boyle has tapped into an area that finds universal appeal, and it is why this is an almost perfect film.

Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) is appearing on India's version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" when someone accuses him of cheating. After excessive lenghts are taken to root out this potential information from him. This sets into a chain of flashbacks featuring Jamal, his brother Salim, and friendly girl Latika after the deaths of their parents due to sectarian violence. They survive in the streets and pick up little things on the way, which the film intentionally shows to reveal how Jamal is so knowledgeable about the correct answers to the questions.

This is a great film from Danny Boyle, but some part of me thinks that calling it his best is not ture. In all honesty, I don't think this film is very different from what Boyle has done in the past. The sensationalism from the technical aspect is still there, there remains an intimate portrait of a narrow field of characters, and there is also a tendency for the ending to become bogged down with over-the-top galleries and genre cliches. This is the same type of film he's been always making, and I believe this is being called an exception only because this has been a rather disappointing year for films. Still, Boyle's sensationalism is always one to be enjoyed, especially guided by Anthony Dod Mantle's textured cinematography, Chris Dickens's lively editing, and A.R. Rahman's fast and delightful score. I would also give Boyle credit for best use of "Paper Planes" since the Pineapple Express trailer.

Patel shines in his first breakout role, but I was not completely blown away by his performance. It was good, but there's a shyness to his character, and it often times feels like Patel can go a greater distance. I certainly look forward to other films starring him. The two child actors that play the younger version of him are also terriffic, with the youngest being adorably cute, and the middle seeming very wise and camera friendly. The three actors who play Salim do good, but they all deliver the same performance basically. Freida Pinto does well as Latika, but her character is unfortunatelly hindered by the film's emphasis of her existance only for the eventual love story.

Simon Beaufoy's script is one that works well most of the time, and the flashbacks to the slums to the studio gives a great insight to how the mind of Jamal works and how he was able to find these unbelievable answers. The drawback is that some of the tension is taken out of the game show scenes and some flashbacks begin to feel more forced than previously nuanced. There is also a point at the end where the film reverts into a formulaic love story that starts to trivialize the movie and makes it hard earned edge from the beginning start to diminish. Fortunately this doesn't take up too much time, as the film knows when to end.

I think this is a great, great movie. However, I want to make it clear that those who have seen Boyle's work should not expect anything beyond what he has done. The film follows the same formula, and with it there are triumphs and faults to go along with it. Still, it is Boyle that makes the film succeed, and his stylish vision is very much appreciated here. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Reviews: Australia & Bolt

Down Under the Weather

As is now happening as we enter the final weeks of 2008, there is a barrage of films being released that had Oscar analysts and bloggers running wild in a frenzy to try and pick which films would hit the strongest mark upon their release. I remember when talk of this film surfaced, the long delayed and ambitious project from a noted, and Oscar-less, director. To many it sounded very intriguing. To me, however, it sounded like an bloated feature that would spend a fair amount of its time on the style and leaving the rest up to the suspension of the audience. So is the plight of Baz Luhrman, and so is why I continue to find his films wonderful looking messes.

In an obvious attempt to become a throw back epic of the 1940s, the story transports itself to Australia at the beginning of World War II. Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) goes to the continent/country to tend to a cow ranch that her recently murdered husband had in his possession in order to fulfil an army contract. After she fires the villain of the film (David Wenham) for moral corruption, she hires Drover (Hugh Jackman) to help her get the cattle to the ships. Things take a major turn when the love story begins to bloom between Sarah and Drover, as well as a complicated social relationship that she has with a half white, half Aboriginal boy (Brandon Walters).

The movie is the exact definition of epic. Nothing about the picture is ever small. The majestic landscape cinematography from Mandy Walker, as well as the intense close ups of Jackman and Kidman, make the movie feel as big as it can be. The film is also the definition of what a Baz Luhrman film is. Luhrman always has A-plus material when it comes to the style of his films, and the sets and costumes by two time Oscar winner Catherine Martin (Mrs. Luhrman) are in all excess and beautiful to look at. The same goes for Walker's lighting. However, very much like his praised Moulin Rouge!, the story then takes a backseat to the visual spectacle.

Hidden within the story are a few gems here and there, but a lot of if makes the movie shift from place to place. There's a rousing action adventure, a sweeping romance, a war time drama, and a schmaltzy tear jerker all rolled up into one. Of all of them, the action is the most impactful, and a scene involving a stampede near a cliff is a very exciting one. The rest of them would strike a chord if the film was not so self-consciously aware of its nostalgic scale. The film's continuing reference of The Wizard of Oz really makes the film come out as a bit smug.

Kidman has always been an actress that I've liked, but have never understood why the rest of the world loves (I'm looking at you too, Jennifer Aniston). She and Jackman, also wasted here, are just as much prop pieces as the CGI ships that glide in the background. Needless to say, the acting is not the main draw here, despite the very good Wenham and Aboriginal actor David Gulpilil to help bring the sinking ensemble up for air.

To be perfectly clear, Australia is a beautiful film to look at. Still, I cannot really say that you should spend ten dollars, as well as two hours and forty-five minutes, on a movie that really has no other satisfaction than that. The cast is okay, and the story is far too vast in trying to keep up with the visuals. I have still not seen a film from Luhrman that I really liked. However, I do believe the day will come where he will deliver a film that is equally capable of achieving a great visual spectacle along with a competent story. Unfortunately, this isn't it. ** / ****; GRADE: C






Doggy Style

Wherever you seek out the best animation, one should look no further than Disney. Actually, to be more precise, one should look a little bit to the left on the Disney property and look into the house with the name Pixar out in front. Future Oscar-winner Wall-E was an outstanding achievement and is certainly a true winner in everybody's books. Recently, in an effort to take back their own animation, Disney unveiled its new CG animation that wasn't quite Pixar, but wasn't quite Dreamworks either. The last one they had was Meet the Robinsons, and I'm guessing that those who actually remember that film are very few. Bolt isn't without its faults, but it is generally a fun ride that most kids and adults can enjoy.

The title character, voiced by John Travolta, is a dog who is also the star of a hit primetime show on television where he plays a dog with superpowers. The only catch is that the creators of the show have taken careful efforts to make the studio environment seem real to him (sort of like The Truman Show), and he comes to believe he actually possesses these powers. However, during an episode where Bolt believes his human master Penny (Miley Cyrus) is kidnapped by the show's villain, he breaks free to try and rescue her.

That attempt is foiled, and he gets shipped away from the LA set to New York. It's there where he forcibly recruits a stray cat (Susie Essman) to help him find Penny, along with an energetic hamster (Mark Walton) who is a fan of Bolt's show. During the trip is also when Bolt begins reconcile with the knowledge that he doesn't have any powers and learns the true value of friendship.

Being a Disney movie, it isn't without its traditional Disney sap, and when those scenes of danger or loss start to play to John Powell's stringy score, you can hear Martin Landau yelling, "Pull the string!" right next to your heart (that right, it's an Ed Wood reference). Even with all of that, the movie still remains effective in getting you emotionally involved with the characters, as well as being really funny. Some of the visual gags are good for everyone, and because this new Disney animation lies between Pixar and Dreamworks, there are occasional references to other movies and media, but never with a sense of an overbearing nature. When there are discussions about the world of television executives and pitch ideas, I could definitely hear more parents in the audience laughing than children.

The voice acting isn't superb, but it does a nice job with its cast. Travolta brings a little charm to his character, but not much. Most of it comes from the animators who, and I've never said this about any animated animal, is actually a really cute dog. Cyrus is good, but I was more entertained by a slight parallel of the studio's insistence to keep Bolt within their grasp to her own relationship with Disney. By far, the funniest performers are Essman and Walton, who deliver the right amount of energy in their characters. I do wish we could have heard more of Malcolm McDowell, but I'm satisfied enough just to hear him.

As I said, the movie isn't perfect. It's a fairly predictable family film that doesn't have a consistent comedic tone. However, there are enough full hardy laughs to say that a good time will be had at this show. I would still say that if you want great animated films, you should go to Pixar, but this other division of Disney is working just fine now. Also, if you can catch this movie in 3-D, I'd recommend it. It doesn't have a lot of the "in-your-face" 3-D, but it gives a lot more depth to the film, making it more of a 3-D movie and less of a movie in 3-D. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Review: Let the Right One In

Love at First Bite

After I finished watching this film, I started to amuse myself with some of the thoughts that were swirling around in my head. One was that I had just seen a movie that I had virtually never heard of, before a few days ago, and never would have seen without a good friend of mine's appreciation for Swedish cinema. The other thought was that I was seeing a vampire film, an interesting choice since on Friday marks the highly anticipated opening day of the Noggin-marketed Twilight. For those who have fallen in love with Edward Cullen, I'd actually say to them to look at this vampire film instead, because what they may find is a slight deviation from the usual genre steps that ends up being a nice surprise.

Based off of John Ajvide Lindqvist's book (who also wrote the screenplay), the story centers around Oskar (Kare Hedebrant), an ostracised twelve year old living with his divorced mother and constantly avoiding the insults of the school bully. He eventually strikes a friendship with the mysterious Eli (Lena Leandersson), who is also "twelve, more or less." Their friendship grows little each day, even though her arrival has been linked to several neighborhood murders, some performed by her guardian (Per Ragnar), that have left the victims at a loss of blood. Soon the truth comes out that Eli is a vampire, but their relationship tries to survive that test.

The vampire genre, and the horror movie one for that matter, tends to offer very little unless there is an attempt to alter the formula. This film attempts to do that, and it is probably why it is a vampire film of a slightly elevated class. Only once is the term "vampire" used it the film, and many of the cliches of those types of film are absent, such as the cross, the piercing of the heart, the garlic wreaths, the holy water, the non-reflected mirror and the transformation into a bat. Without these elements, the characters are able to form in a quasi-realistic way and it adds greatly to the picture. Director Thomas Alfredson does very well with framing the movie, always keeping the audience pent up within the atmosphere, very much to the appreciation of Hoyte Van Hoytema's muted cinematography.

Lindqvist's script works most of the time, but detracts major points when the storyline detours into the subplot of a newly transformed vampire. Some of it is because a scene of the nouveau vampire getting attacked by a house full of angry kittens features laughable special effects. Most of it is because that is when some of the old cliches start to come out (death by sunlight), and when the film spends a lot of time veering away from those elements, it's a little saddening the way it comes out. One of the last violent scenes in the film is beautifully shot by Alfredson and Hoytema, but as written, it feels a bit too dramatic in a circumstance I feel should have been left more ambiguous and intimate.

A great saving point for the film comes from the wonderfully talented younger cast. Hedebrant, looking like Paul Williams from Phantom of the Paradise, gives Oskar real depth, never making him a stock character that has a forced bond with the vampire. His problems exist within the real world that just so happens to have a supernatural backdrop. The same is said for Leandersson, who plays Eli in a status of almost an older adolescent trying to deal with her younger exterior, and it is fascinating to watch her balance that tricky act. Even the school bully, played by Patrik Rydmark, never feels cartoonishly cruel. Like most of the time in films centered on children, the adult actors are window dressing for the rest of the plot, constantly being outshone by their younger costars.

As my friend fervently told me, this is not a crowning achievement of Swedish cinema. Since I have seen very little of those films, I have no choice but to agree with him, and he is more than likely right. However, I considered this film, as it stand alone, to be a very intriguing piece. A plot detour and some half witted plot elements do cause some harm, but with the atmospheric direction and cinematography, along with the marvelous acting from the young cast, I certainly say this is one of the year's few gems to discover. Unfortunately by this point, the chance to catch this movie in the theatre has probably gone, especially with Twilight being released and an eventual American remake of this film planned in the near future. However, if you do happen to catch the DVD copy out of the corner of your eye, I'd advise you to take the same chance as I did. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Review: Quantum of Solace

The Spy Who Loathed Me

I admit it, that I'm a very huge James Bond fan. My passion for this secret agent goes beyond mild admiration. I know all of the films, the crew associated, the stories behind them and any other bit of trivial information that one can associate to a Bond film. I love the James Bond series. When I was younger, that bias usually meant that I rated the Bond films much higher than they deserved (Die Another Day is an example, I have since learned). Now, however, it has now made me be more critical of the Bond series in terms of the standards they now have to live up to. Despite the potential for this film to become something really special in the Bond franchise, it falls painfully flat.

The film picks up right after the events of the previous Bond flick Casino Royale left off (though it is not the only one to follow events from a previous film). After Bond questions the mysterious Mr. White, he discovers the larger organization known as Quantum (similar to SPECTRE, for all you Bond fanatics). In his quest, Bond comes across Dominique Greene (Mathieu Amalric), an international environmentalist who also spends his time setting up dictators and holding an iron grip on lands with barren water supplies. Also in his company is Camille (Ogla Kurylenko), the bombshell who is using Greene to get closer to the general who killed her family, once again adding to the revenge theme that the film has taken on.

When Daniel Craig was selected as Bond in Casino Royale, I remember vividly the outrage that people had, labeling him as "Mr. Blond" and calling for a boycott of the film. I never thought about doing anything that severe, but I did have my reservations about Craig (I still say Clive Owen would have been a wonderful choice). However, I was very impressed with Craig's first outing, but still said I had to wait until he could pull it off a second time until I could officially say he worked as the new 007. In this film, he works very hard to try and save it, and the faults are not with him. His Bond is still stern and edgy, even if the film is not. I wish the follow-up could have worked with Craig, but he brings it up enough for me to declare Daniel Craig is a good James Bond. Kurylenko is good, but rather forgettable as a Bond girl. But Bond's best girl for the series now is actually Dame Judi Dench, who still infuses M with a great sense of sternness and humor.

The villain embodied by Amalric is not very threatening or intimidating. The same could be said of the previous villain, Le Chiffe, as a force who was not very threatening in that film as well. However, I think Mads Mikkelsen worked because he refrained from any major physical altercations with Bond, keeping his character more so a cunning businessman than a disposable baddie. Amalric had the opportunity to become this, but as soon as he tries to fight Bond in a physical match, he gives up all of his mysterious credibility. There was also a strange note in his henchmen peculiarly looking like nerdier versions of Quentin Tarantino.

Nobody in the cast is really to blame for the major faults of this film, although the sort of throw away conflict provided by Bond stock writers Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, along Oscar-winner Paul Haggis, certainly doesn't help the movie either. The biggest liability for this film is its director. Marc Forster has always been a director that, to me, has made good films (Finding Neverland, Stranger than Fiction, The Kite Runner), but never has anything special about his films. His movies are usually enjoyable, but there is never an element of anything significant for the film to stay with you. The same is said here, only without the part about being good. Forster's background also does not support action films, and every adrenaline fueled scene reflects that. The action is put together so shoddy and sloppily, that we as an audience are constantly trying to figure out what's going on. It's a disorienting process that is very annoying.

Forster also does not have any real sense of how to look at an action scene. The stunts don't always have to be believable, but it's important for the audience to at least see them. Forster clumps the cuts together that the suspension of disbelief is cut, and falls straight to the ground with no protection net. Forster, also being the first European director of the series, seems more interested in showcasing the scenery and culture of the locations rather than focusing on the plight of Bond. There is also not any imagination in this film. There are elements borrowed from other Bond films such as From Russia with Love, The Spy Who Loved Me and even the all sacred Goldfinger. But the film also takes elements from the Jason Bourne series, even after countless efforts to distance the two franchises. But in the end, it is the terrible editing that persists not only in the action scenes, but throughout the whole film, much to the thanks of Forster's usual editor Matt Chesse and Paul Greengrass regular Richard Pearson.

Also, to mention quickly, the gun barrel scene does appear, but not where you'd have hoped. After that, the main titles, which have always been a proud staple of the Bond films, feel very flat and uninspired. The theme song, sung by artists Alicia Keyes and Jack White (White wrote the song) has better music than it does lyrics. I know not everybody agreed on the card motif and droning notes of Chris Cornell from the previous film, but it worked very well for me. Not so much this time.

The first film almost had an unfair advantage. The director of Casino Royale was Martin Campbell, an experienced Bond veteran having directed GoldenEye, knew what was needed for a Bond film to work, and Craig's debut set the bar very high for a follow up. Yet, even that handicap doesn't help this film. Forster's misstep with the film's action, plus his horrible sense of cutting, hurt the film tremendously. Some of the cast tires, but I don't see this film becoming a highpoint in the series. It breaks my heart for me not to recommend a Bond film, but instead of Connery's follow up, From Russia with Love, this might be more so remembered as The Man with the Golden Gun, Roger Moore's return. Thankfully, Forster has agreed not to sign for the next one. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Reviews: Madagascar 2 & Role Models

Into the Wild

I still say that the DreamWorks animation department has little to offer in terms of the advancement of animated films. I will relent that the Pixar standard is a very hard thing to live up to, but ever since Shrek 2, I have witnessed all their films morph into pop culture ridden pieces that do not really fulfill the laughter of children and fall flat with adults. After their abysmal failure with Shrek the Third, which I thought was the worst film of 2007, they bounced back this year with Kung Fu Panda, a delightful surprise that not only made me laugh at jokes that were contained inside the actual story (not borrowing like Shrek and Shark Tale did) and also had a meaningful story behind it. In the sequel to their (unexpected) mega-hit, Madagascar 2 strives a little better than its predecessor, but I feel still falls short in becoming something recommendable.

The movie's events start exactly where the first adventure ended, with Alex the arrogant lion (Ben Stiller), Marty the smart talking zebra (Chris Rock), Gloria the sassy hippo (Jada Pinkett Smith), and Melman the hypochondriac giraffe (David Schwimmer) trying to escape the island Madagascar in order to return to their New York home. After a shoddy plane captained by the penguins (the best part of the first film) crashes, the group discovers more of their kind in the inland parts of Africa. Here, Alex discovers his father (Bernie Mac) who is the king of their herd. A sort of silly conflict arises when rival lion Makunga (Alec Baldwin) plans to take control over the herd and become the new alpha lion.

The film is a little better than the first one only because of the element involving Alex and his father. Part of this might just be the circumstances surrounding the actor who voices the elder lion, but it is still something the original film did not have. It's a part of the story that is the most emotionally involved, and it pulls the audience along to watch something that is more than just the jokes. A father-son relationship isn't stretching in terms of complexity, but it's a lot more than previously tried for these types of films. At the same time, that tender part of the story is overwhelmed by a ridiculous villain (not the good kind of ridiculous) whose ambitions are not really noteworthy. The film also antagonizes the old lady from the first film ("Bad kitty") and gives her a much bigger role than I thought necessary. And still, these movies continue with the pop culture references that go way above the kids heads. A second Planet of the Apes joke was admittedly funny, and a scene with monkey workers striking and the penguins calling the unionization communist was something I indeed had to smile about. However, when their are joking references being made to the war in Iraq, no matter how funny they are, do not belong in this film (and it is in this film).

After making me smile with Tropic Thunder (Robert Downey Jr. made me laugh), Stiller has put in a pay check role for this rather bland character. The same could be said of all the returning leads for that matter as none of them really elevate the characters more than the first time. It even seems like Sacha Baron Cohen, as the cooky King Julian, seems to have suffered the Johnny Depp-Pirates syndrome as his character seems more forced than nuanced like it did before. Not even Alec Baldwin can save his character from the carelessness of the story. The only one that really resonates is Mac, and it is unfortunately influenced by his passing last August. Just hearing one of the last times he ever spoke is something to marvel at, even if the material isn't working, and it makes you sad to know that voice will never be heard again in the future.

To be honest, I really hated the first Madagascar. I felt it was a flimsy excuse to get a bunch of A-list actors and put their names on a product. But no matter how I felt about it, it worked, and the movie made tons of dough that nobody expected it to. This effort tries a little better, but it is still bogged down by a weak story and pop culture references. In the end, I look back to an analogy that I made about Fantastic Four 2 in relation to its predecessor: "It's like saying a stub toe is better than a broken foot. It's a little more tolerable, but in the end, you still in pain." **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-





Parental Guidance Restricted

The days when people thought that a comedy that people could take great offense with would be a sign of death are long gone. There are many people who contributed, but the most prolific would be Judd Apatow. His directorial debut of The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and subsequent line of producing, has made the edgy, R-rated comedies something to be greatly desired. With many of the players involved in this film, one would think that Apatow is behind this project as well. Those who assume that are mistaken. I'm reminded of Charade, which looked like an Alfred Hitchcock film, even starring Cary Grant, but was not one of his films. The same comparison can be said of this film to Apatow, only this one is not nearly as good as Charade was.

Paul Rudd, of the Apatow stock players, and Seann William Scott play Danny and Wheeler, two middle aged men who go around schools to sell their energy drinks and preach a message of drug abstinence. Danny is the emotionally distraught and dysfunctional one and Wheeler is the developmentally arrested, immature adult (as is always the case). After Danny's attorney girlfriend Beth (Elizabeth Banks, very popular this year) breaks up with him, Danny drives the advertising car with Wheeler onto a school's prolific property. The two are given a choice of thirty days in jail or 150 hours of community service at a mentoring program. For the sake of the plot, they decide to take the latter.

Upon their arrival, they are in a constant word battle with the program's director (Jany Lynch), who keeps bringing up her racy past, and the situations with their assigned kids aren't go well either (go figure). Danny is paired up with Augie (Christopher Mintz-Plasse, aka McLovin), an older, heavily anti-social boy who has a fascination with a fantasy role playing game within his own community that operates like a live action World of Warcraft. Wheeler's kid is Ronnie (Bobb'e J. Thompson, a long way from That's So Raven), a foul mouthed, rude little brat that tests the patience of everyone around him. Do you think these two guys will warm up to their little counterparts and start to respect them?

That's a stupid question because it has an obvious answer. Of course these two guys will learn to like the kids their with. They'll first start off despising them, then they'll do something that causes tension and phrases like "I never want to see you again" being thrown around until they make a final chance to rekindle the relationship and it works. The story doesn't really reach for new territory. Director David Wain knows about comedy (Wet Hot American Summer), but there are many times when the comedy feels uneven by the editing pace. The comedy itself within the dialogue is not much either, as a lot of it is either constant profanities or numerous double entendres that have Rudd wincing. It's funny the first time, but by the end it's time to hang up the gag. It becomes so bad, that you'd almost expect Steve Carell to walk by the frame and mutter, "That's what she said."

I've always believed that Paul Rudd is a greatly talented performer, and after supporting roles in films like The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Reno 911!: Miami, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, I thought he was more than qualified to carry a film as a leading man. This film does prove it, but Rudd tries desperately to work with unusable material. I give credit to him for trying and hope that a future project will help enhance his talent instead of enable it. Scott is okay, but it's the same type of character he has been playing since American Pie. Also, I think this is the perfect evidence to invite Elizabeth Banks into permanent residence for the all-boys club that is the Apatow stock players.

Now, I realize that this is only Mintz-Plasse's second film, but the character feels like McLovin-lite, a watered down version of a character already seen too much of. A lot of people think that seeing a child the way Thompson portrays him is a despicable act. I don't have a huge problem with it, I only ask the kid be cute as well. Not in the physical sense, but in the way that what they say may be obscene for a child, but is funny if an adult said it. Suffice it to say, the script does not have Ronnie become that cute. I do, however, give up a lot to Lynch, for even when she's poking at the material for it to move, she still delivers a few laughs.

What I found to be the funniest part of the movie actually has nothing to do with its theme of connection and discovering friends. It's an extended battle sequence in which the two adults and two kids participate in that is part of Augie's made up fantasy world. The fake deaths, attention to accurate dialect and nicely staged fight scenes make the sequence feel real, and it is really a marvel at how that is done. It's also the point where Lynch's frankness about her past finally becomes funny. Unfortunately, it's not enough to save it. Despite the best efforts from some members of the cast, the movie ultimately disappoints. I still hold out hope for Rudd, and I ask Apatow to throw Rudd a bone soon. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+