Reviews: Eagle Eye & Miracle at St. Anna

Big Brotherly Love

The term "event movie" is not something that has just been presented to movie-going audiences. They've been around ever since the three-hour plus Gone with the Wind came to audiences and attempted to thrill them with a sheer grand scale and great spectacle of the visuals. Since then, movies continuously aim for that type of class, always wanting the audiences to fall in love with the scale. Sometimes, however, that gets in the way of some other minor details, like, oh say, the plot. Such is the case with this film, an absurd presentation that still manages to keep you in your seat for its entire duration.

After the film's obligatory opening shot of an attack on a possible terrorist unit in the Middle East, the film opens on Jerry Shaw, played by new hot talent Shia LaBeouf. Jerry is an average Chicagoan (our city has been showing up a lot in films this year) who has traveled the world to "find himself" along with finding debts, family tensions and a low paying job. One day, he finds his bank account filled up and his apartment stocked with weapons and military equipment. Then, a voice from a call tells Jerry to run. He doesn't, and he's captured by the FBI and interrogated by agents trying to figure out what's going on (Rosario Dawson, Billy Bob Thornton). However, the voice has more in store for Jerry and plans an escape for him. That leads him to Rachel (Michelle Monaghan), another unfortunate victim of the caller who goes on the wild trip with Jerry as they are being moved around like pawns.

The film is a classic example of how the seed of a story is better than the actual execution. In the world we live in today, the idea of an overly invasive government not only peering, but controlling everything is an interesting thought. However, the film wants us to believe that the events are to be taken with a scent of realism. The government may be big, but it isn't as organized as this film portrays it as. That idea, plus territory from 2001 where technology backfires on its creators, is not anything original (director D.J. Caruso already knows about unoriginal ideas from Disturbia). However, I do give Caruso credit for knowing how to film some really interesting, if a tab implausible, chase sequences, despite a background that doesn't support him.

LaBeouf is the go-to-guy right now for films, and he is a very good actor. I am still waiting, however, for a role from him that will convince me he is a great one. I believe he has the capability, but a role that is essentially the grown-up version of his part in last year's mega-hit Transformers is not really letting me believe otherwise. The film also suffers from the two leads having absolutely no chemistry with each other, despite some good acting. The character actors in the background are also good (Michael Chiklis is terribly miscast as the Secretary of Defense), but they take a backseat to the film's fast paced plot.

This movie has flaws in it, but it still manages to keep you going. That is until about the last twenty minutes of the film, when every twist becomes completely predictable, and the ending chooses an onslaught of cliches and cop outs that had they been installed earlier would have left audiences jeering more than they would. But, taken for what the film is, it is a very worthy treat to audiences, even if the event might just be to finish your large tub of popcorn. *** / ****; GRADE: B


Why We Fight

It would be nice to preface this review with a little story, something that seemed little at first and then quickly grew into something bigger than it actually was. It started on a cool day in France during the Cannes film festival, where Spike Lee, in an obvious ploy to promote this film, attacked Clint Eastwood's films Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima for failing to include any black soldiers, despite that fact that the army was still segregated at this time. This prompted a war of words between the two filmmakers, with Lee proclaiming Clint was an "angry old man" and insinuated that he was a possible racist, and Clint simply say a guy like Lee should "shut his face." That brief war between the two was more exciting, and mysterious, than Lee's actual film, which is very ambitious, maybe a bit too much, but has enough passion running through it where you can see the importance it wants to convey.

The movie, which is based off of the James McBride novel, opens with a postal service worker who, without any provocation, pulls out a Luger and shots a customer point blank range. While institutionalized in a mental hospital, a reporter (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) goes in to interview the man. This sets into motion a flashback, which tells the true story of the Buffalo Soldiers, an all black regiment during World War II sent to fight Germans in occupied Italy. Among the chief players are the overbearing and collective staff Sargent (Derek Luke), the wild, flirtatious skirt chasing sergfent (Michael Ealy), the overtly religious and eagerly excitable private (Omar Benson Miller) and the calm and intellectual corporal (Laz Alonso). After their regiment is ambushed by a German army near a river bank, the groups heads into a civilian town to rest. They are also joined by the head of a priceless statue, and a little boy that was found nearly dead, Angelo (Matteo Sciabordi). In the town, there is already a presence of the surrounding enemies, and not only is the threat of these American soldiers possibly turning, but a renegade group has also hidden in the town. To make matters worse, there is a constant supernatural undercurrent as Angelo says he is getting messages from an unseen person.

This is Spike Lee's most ambitious film to date, and it is unlikely that this is like anything he has ever made before. You can see all of the passion and respect that Lee puts into this film. This is obviously a story that is very important, and Lee uses his talents as a very gifted filmmaker to portray that. Sometimes, it does work. Other times, the canvass is too broad, and all the messages can be lost within the sea of stories. That is also another major fault of the film: there are too many characters, subplots and stories going on here that it seems impossible to tell what the movie wants to be about. The battle scenes are intense, but most of them fail to have a sense of realism, and you get the feeling that you're watching a re-enactment on a movie set instead of the real thing. The film also has some of the most eccentric editing is used, but Lee's collaboration with composer Terrence Blanchard is always an irritating one. Blanchard's scores are not lacking in quality, but they never fit the moment on the screen. It's a trend of Lee's that has infuriated me because the music constantly distracts from the essence of the story.

I also didn't much care for the characters in this film, which is unusual considering that is generally the strong point in Lee's films. Every person is of predictable caliber and never offers anything new to the film. In fact, the characters played by Ealy and Miller seem like stereotypes of the long ago era that portrayed black men as either jolly, dancing grinners or sex craved offenders whose only goal was to sleep with white women. I don't know why Lee chose to have these characters act this way, especially when he has spent a lifetime of trying to demonize those images. All the actors are good in their respective roles, but they never excite the film. The only truly great performer is that of Sciabordi. He is the only one that keeps a sense of mystery in the film, which is an element it desperately needed. He has a natural love of the camera, and is the best thing in it. There are also good performances from from those in the framing device, such as John Tuturro, John Leguizamo, and Gordon-Levitt, who is the best of them all, but is unfortunately wasted in a segment with not much use.

I was all for this film until a certain scene came on. It was another flashback, within the flashback, that showed the black soldiers being refused service at an ice cream parlor, even though German POWs were allowed to eat there. The manager pulls a gun, makes several derogatory remarks, and explains to his young son that is the only way to treat black people. It's an engaging scene, but completely unnecessary. The point of racism is already inherit in the story, and there's no need to put a scene like that here to emphasize that point, especially when several characters argue against it. Still, I recommend the film on the sole notion of the passion that is involved. Sometimes, you have to admire the deep seeded respect the filmmakers have for a subject even if the execution is flawed. I saw that a couple years ago with Emilo Estevez's Bobby and Lee has provided the same type of film here. You might get a different take if you ask Clint Eastwood, but I'd say there's probably more passion here than realized, if only it were about a half an hour shorter. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Review: Ghost Town

Heavenly Creatures

I'll be completely honest that I wasn't really planning on seeing this film at all. The premise sounded like a bad television pilot and the entire movie seemed all one joke. I thought that maybe the brilliant comedian Ricky Gervais would be able to elevate it, but I wasn't betting on that notion. Then I saw Gervais at the Emmys on Sunday night, and out of a ceremony that was completely boring and self-gratifying, his quick banter with Steve Carell over the his "stolen" Emmy had me in tears all through the night. Those five minutes convinced me to eventually go see this film, and while it is not a perfect comedy, it still manages to make you laugh in enough places.

Gervais plays Bertrum Pincus, a disgruntled dentist living in New York City who has a habit of retreating from any type of social interaction. Bertram goes into the hospital for a routine colonoscopy, and upon his discharge, he begins to be approached by strangers who seem to disappear in the traffic. It is then revealed by his doctor (Kristin Wiig) that he died on the operating table for about seven minutes before he came back amongst the living. Now he has a whole team of ghost following him like the Verizon network and asking him to help with their unfinished business. Only one is tenacious enough to be granted help and that is Frank (Greg Kinnear) who believes he is still sticking around because he has to break up the new wedding of his widow (Téa Leoni) and sends Bertram to do the job who eventually falls for her.

Being an average comedy, the film follows the same basic rule of any other comedy. Gervais is obviously the main attraction, and his wit and comedic timing is spot on. Gervais has always had the ability to elevate the most mundane conversations and lamest comedies into something worthy (Stardust, Night and the Museum). In the beginning, though, it takes a while for Gervais to comfortably fit in with this character. You'll know as soon as he does because you won't stop laughing at his awkward way of handling things. Another great performer is Wiig, who has steadily built up a reputation of being a brief performer in films that manages to steal the show. A part of me doesn't want her to be in a major role that will eventually come; I want her to always remain an underrated performer. Kinnear is okay here, but the role is written for any kind likable actor who could play a borderline jerk (Kevin Spacey, George Clooney and Thomas Haden Church would have been good, even better, but more expensive substitutes). Leoni does actually tend to shine a bit in this role, but in a career plagued by films like Fun with Dick and Jane and Deep Impact, it's hard to see that as a great compliment.

Director and co-writer David Koepp has a familiarity in the sort of supernatural genre, as his film credits include the films War of the Worlds, Jurassic Park, Death Becomes Her and Stir of Echoes. He does not, however, have a lot of experience in comedy. The comedy that does work bears the sole credit of Gervais with a tiny bit of help from his co-stars. When it is relied only on Koepp, the comedic timing is poor, uneven and flat. Even his handling of the sentimental scenes with the other ghost trying to resolve their unfinished business goes mostly unfelt without the stringy score from Geoff Zanelli.

I want to make this perfectly clear: I am not saying that this film is a great comedy. In fact, it really isn't all that much a good comedy. Without Gervais, the whole thing would fall apart under Koepp's underdeveloped sense of comedy and melodrama. For all reasons, see this film for the wonderful Gervais, who provides enough laughs to keep you in the seat. *** / ****; GRADE: B

P.S. For those who need further convincing, watch this:

Reviews: Burn After Reading & Righteous Kill

On Burn Notice

Surprisingly, it seems like such a long time ago since the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, re-established themselves as the great auteurs of our time with the wonderful and clever No Country for Old Men, and with all the Oscar talk buzzing around new films, it doesn't seem like it was only six months ago when the directing/writing duo picked up three statues a piece from the Academy. They are great filmmakers; there is no doubt about it. However, the long wait for the brothers to give us a riveting new comedy is not imagined at all. It's been twelve years since Fargo, and in that time, the Coens have been attempting comedy with no real success, when even their cult hit The Big Lebowski is only noticeable on that cult status and not as a serious film. Burn After Reading isn't the best from these legends of cinema, but it's a hot way to start off the fall movie season.

The film opens with Osborne Cox (John Malkovich), a CIA analyst who was recently demoted because of his personal problems. Rather than take the reduced security status, Cox decided to quit and write a memoir, an obvious connection to a recent political trend. This new, disgruntled Osborne is causing a rift in his marriage, and his wife Katie (recent Oscar-winner Tilda Swinton) takes the road to divorce aided by the fact that she is sleeping with a CIA treasurer, Harry (George Clooney). To prepare for a messy divorce, Katie goes through many of Osborne's financial files and pulls out sections of his memoirs, which she loads onto a disk for evidence.

That disk is lost by a secretary at Hard Bodies, a second class membership gym that employs people who don't look like they work there. Linda (Frances MacDormand) and Chad (Brad Pitt) mistake the financial records as classified CIA files and want to blackmail Osborne for its safe return (Linda is also looking for payments on plastic surgeries). The characters sink even deeper in bed together when when Harry begins to date Linda via an online dating service.

The plot may not always make sense, but I think it's a brilliant mark on how magnificent the Coen brothers are as writers. In the beginning, it all seems a jumbled mess, and you wonder how on earth all of these different characters are going to come together. Then, by some miracle, it happens. The path that gets these characters interacting are not always subtle, but it's fascinating to see the minds of these filmmakers unravel. Their comedic tones as directors are always uneven, as one scene can rely on smart dialogue and slapstick gags simultaneously, but they serve their purpose at making us laugh.

Even though this is a Coen brothers comedy, it still suffers from my theory about all comedies: there is a single character who, despite the talents of the other actors, manages to be the driving force of the film and makes the piece watchable from beginning to end (examples from this year include James Franco in Pineapple Express and Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder). In this film, it is Brad Pitt. Pitt is completely out of touch with characters that he normally plays, and I think he has a perfect comedic sense in this film. In fact, is shows people that Pitt is much more that what people would make him out to be, and with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button coming out near Christmas, I think we'll have a perfect talent arch from Pitt this year. The rest of the cast does fine and score big laughs (especially with Tilda Swinton doing the "mean guy" role she chose to pass over for Michael Clayton), none of them really are at the level of comedy they could be, particularly a little too showy Malkovich. However, the scenes between J.K. Simmons and David Rasche are priceless as two CIA heads that have no idea what everyone is doing and what they should do about it.

While the film is very enjoyable, it isn't perfect. For the first half of the movie, it seems as if the Coens are unsure at first what characters they think are going to be the most entertaining, so they bait the audience with light jokes about each setting, and because of this, the film has a difficult time settling in. Then there seems to be a moment when the story finally finds its comfort zone and begins to feel not so tense.

Everyone will compare this film to Fargo, and while it is nowhere near the level of greatness that film was, I appreciated its attempt to almost be the same film except with a complete opposite in theme. In Fargo, the theme was that those who appear to be naive and incompetent are really the smartest ones in the room. In this film, the theme is that those who have all the intelligence and the best means of getting information can be just as moronic and dumb-witted as the next person. It's an interesting way to put things, and it's ending reflects that mood (this one is not as complicated as their last movie ending). It's not their best comedy, but I'm honestly happy with any of their comedies that make me smile after The Ladykillers. *** / ****; GRADE: B





Right as Strain

Jake La Motta and Lt. Col. Frank Slade. Jimmy Conway and Tony Montana. Travis Bickle and Frank Serprico. Vito and Michael Corleone. Nobody does it better, and no one need argue further that two of the greatest American actors were Robert De Niro and Al Pacino. Between them, there is nearly eighty years of acting experience, and they have proved themselves to us that they are the best and part of a privileged few to be called that. In describing them, however, I can't help but continue to use the past tense, in particular they "were" the greatest. That is because recently, they have also joined another group of prestigious actors who have given up proving themselves in great roles because they already did that thirty years ago. Now, we get silly comedies and implausable "dramas" from the both of them. The thought behind some studio executive's suggestion for this film was that pairing these two legends together on screen would mean a really good film. Well, for those hoping that De Niro's and Pacino's first film together since Heat thirteen years ago was going to be as good will end up being disappointed.

Like most cop dramas, this film is held together by the bond of two partners that have been together on the force for a very long time. De Niro and Pacino play Turk and Rooster, respectively, and the case they're working on now is a serial killer targeting many lowlifes in the city (there's a plot we've never heard of before). To add some help, new, younger cops are brought into the investigation (John Leguizamo, Donnie Wahlberg) and their speculation concludes that the killer might be a cop (and the originality keeps on springing up).

It would be futile to continue on with trying to explain the plot because it doesn't really matter. The reason why people are going to spend money on this picture is because of the leads. Not even Curtis Jackson (the artist formerly known as 50 Cent) is going to get people to see this film when he has two Oscar-winners in front of him. It's a shame that the plot is taken so carelessly, considering writer Russell Gewirtz mined a great story out of Inside Man (which was hurt by some passive editing). Director Jon Avnet directs this film as mediocre as it could get, but I will say it's a step up from his previous collaboration with Pacino 88 Minutes, which I still consider to be the worst film of the year thus far.

There is also not much to say about the acting either. Pacino and De Niro are good, of course, but it seems like there are times when both of their personalities try to overpower the other. It's not a case of upstaging one another, but more so like there are too many big names here with distinct personas, and they keep tripping over each other. All the other characters are cookie-cutter types from all other genre pics, including Brian Dennehy's grouch but understanding lieutenant.

Had this movie not starred these two great actors, I doubt people would be heading in droves to see this film. I doubt that any positive critical reception it receives would be still be said. Despite these great actors, Righteous Kill is nothing more than a predictable, run-of-the-mill cop drama that's probably worth a rental on Netflix. I'd recommend people go watch the two other movies that De Niro and Pacino both starred in: Heat and The Godfather Part II. They didn't have that much screen time together, but maybe that was a good thing. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Review: Traitor

Expatriate

I did something with this film that I normally never do with any movie: I took a chance. There was very little I knew about this film before I saw it. I had sneaked a few miscellaneous shots throughout the trailer, but nothing really grabbed me that much. The only thing I knew about the film was that it starred Don Cheadle and Guy Pearce, and had a running time of 114 minutes. In retrospect, I'm very glad that I took that chance because the end result was a welcomed surprise, something that is rarely seen in films, and especially from one that is so politically charged as this one.

The story centers around Samir Horn, played by the always wonderful Don Cheadle. Samir is a Sudan native whose father was killed by a terrorists bomb. Years later, Samir is seen as a man who prospers by selling explosive devices to neighboring terrorists. During one negotiation, he is ambushed by the police where he and a fellow terrorist, Omar (Said Taghmaoui) are hauled off to prison. During their stay, the two begin to bond and after a planned escape, they two begin to partner up for their terrorist doings.

Back at home, two FBI agents (Guy Pearce, Neal McDonough) are trying to find Samir and stop whatever terrorist threats he has been planning. However, unbeknownst to them, Samir is actually a double agent. He is secretly working with the CIA and gets frequent visits from its representative (Jeff Daniels).

Being completely unfamiliar to this film, it was a welcomed change (and shock) to see the lead character in such an antagonistic role. Because of Cheadle's great performance, Samir remains a character to follow even though he is committing terrible acts of violence. It was a chance that I thought would lead to the filmmakers doing something very different. However, I was a little sad when it was revealed so quickly that Samir was actually working with the CIA. It seems like it would have been better to push the audience's acceptance of this character all the way to the very end. Still, director Jeffrey Nachmanoff does a decent job of shooting this film, which tries to be like The Bourne Ultimatum except not as stylized and not as good. Also, the script, which was developed from a story by Nachmanoff and Steve Martin (yes, that Steve Martin) goes into some pretty good intrigue while trailing off at some points, particularly in the third act (which is where films usually lose their footing).

As I said, Cheadle is an amazing actor. He has always made a point to attach himself to roles that do not define a genre or career. He can take dramatic risks like inde films like Crash or Hotel Rwanda, turn a comedic edge in Talk to Me or The Rat Pack, and even go all out in a big budget franchise like the Ocean's films. Cheadle is all professional, and it is probably why he is able to pull of this character. Taghmaoui was recently seen as a terrorist in this year's critical dud Vantage Point, and while he is showing some promise to American audiences, I wish he would venture beyond the scope of Arab terrorist. Pearce is good, but attempting an American accent from the South is not one of his talents, and I very much disliked the character played by McDonough. It was not his acting (even though McDonough is usually one note) but more so that his is given nearly every simple line that clarifies a point as if presented to a seven-year-old. While Jeff Daniels is a good, and very underrated actor (thanks to films like Dumb and Dumber), I would have preferred his character erased from the story all together, which would have pushed the Cheadle character being a terrorist even longer, a risk I think could have worked.

Traitor is the type of political film that paints its message in very broad strokes. The greatest evidence is probably seen in the title itself. Is Samir a traitor to the US because he is a terrorist? Is he a traitor to the terrorist for working with the US? Or are those who organize terrorist plots traitors because they betray the deeply seeded religious beliefs of Muslims? The argument presented doesn't sound like it has much thought, although the movie tries very hard to overcome that hurdle. Cheadle is the main part that makes the film work, despite some cowardice in the story. If anyone else has little to no knowledge of this film, then I would encourage them to take the same chance I did. I doubt there will be any grand disappointment. *** / ****; GRADE: B