Reviews: "Beowulf" and "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead"

Epic Distortions

It’s amazing what the new wave of technology can do now. It can take Ray Winstone and turn him into a lean blonde with a strong six pack and huge biceps. It can take Crispin Glover and transform him into a nine foot tall, horrific monster. It can even make the 3-D process one of the best ways to see a movie. However, all that technology doesn’t mean very much when the actual depth of a story hasn’t caught up with those advancements. Beowulf suffers from a problem like this, and it is the reason it is a near miss of a film.

Taken from the ancient, and one of the most despised, epic poems, this grand tale revolves around the central title character, acted by Ray Winstone but modeled by someone with a much better body, who is a hero sent to destroy the monster Grendel, played by Crispin Clover. It is here we get a barrage of characters which include King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) who is an aging coot that is losing his grip on his kingdom, his queen (Robin Wright Penn), who is there to look good while keeping her clothes on, and Grendel’s mother (Angelina Jolie) who is there to look good without keeping her clothes on. The eye is also treated to a world of fancy with gushing blood, limbs torn apart, and animated nudity. Oh boy, what a nickel!

However, while Beowulf is very pleasing to the eye, there is a substance to it that is inherently missing. I think the missing element is something that cannot be avoided, no matter who adapted it, and it is the simple fact of the source material. Epic poems and ancient works are very difficult to translate into the modern age without either losing the symbolic references or adding too much joyride action. Strangely enough, this film actually suffers more so from the latter. When the action scenes do arrive, it never seems to be in great numbers. One of the first battles between Beowulf and Grendel has a balance of excitement and campy humor. Beowulf goes into this fight completely nude while director Robert Zemeckis takes cues from the Austin Powers filmmakers by strategically covering up his genitals with a sword or arm. However, once it is over, the fight doesn’t seem to have any significance, mainly because almost all the scenes involving Grendel that take place after a battle slow down the pace to an irritable crawl. Also, in the magnificent climax of the film when Beowulf fights off a dragon, it feels over too quickly and without any satisfaction afterward.

Even still, the film has a quality to it that will more than likely draw us in, and that is the animation. Robert Zemeckis, whose directorial career has included blockbusters like Back to the Future and the Oscar-winning Forrest Gump, has cornered the market on the motion capture animation industry that absolutely dazzles the eye. The sweat that falls from the heads, the gleaming of muscles, even the perfect capture of skin is much more refined than Zemeckis previous attempt with the Polar Express, and his style of direction makes good use of how technology can help a story.

Yet, technology still can only go so far. Screenwriters Roger Avery and Neil Gaiman have made what was an epic piece of ancient literature and have basically turned it into a thirteen year old boy’s fantasy. A movie with this much violence, gore, and nudity would be rated R in the live action world, but now animation has granted it a lower rating. I’ve no problem with the rating. I do have a little problem with technology at this point, however. It can make Ray Winstone look attractive, but still cannot make a plot have a lasting impact. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-.






It's A Family Affair

Every once in a while, I see a film that possesses an unknown quality but does its best to capture my senses. I don’t know why I’m engrossed, but there is something about the presentation that arrests my mind and yields my thoughts to believe that what I’m watching is something grand and extraordinary. That element is what I felt when viewing this film, a smart, fast paced thrill ride that is also a great piece of filmmaking.

The story is a crime thriller, of sorts, that takes the cues of the multiple perspectives that interlock with other characters. At the center are the Hanson brothers. Hank Hanson, played with a wonderful sense of angst from Ethan Hawke, is a divorced dad with a nagging wife looking for her alimony payments, played by Amy Ryan who made an impressive turn in Gone Baby Gone. He is in desperate need of money and a break. Andy Hanson, with the impressive aid of Philip Seymour Hoffman, is a well to do businessman with a social life in shambles, a nasty drug habit and a hollow relationship with his wife, fellow Oscar winner Marisa Tomei. He is in desperate need of money and a break. It is Andy who proposes a solution to the problem of his and Hank’s. The plan: organize a faux robbery of their parents’ jewelry store and make off with the cash. However, the plan doesn’t go as conceived and painstaking detail is taken to reveal the events that led up to and followed that tragic moment.

A great strongpoint of the film is the magnificent ensemble where at the center is Hawke and Hoffman. Hoffman’s Andy is a devious and maniacal little man, but there is a sense that he isn’t totally bad. His ethics are very much in question, but the way he describes his plans and then his reaction to the botched robbery seem like genuine emotions that could draw us in and believe that his intentions are good. Hawke’s Hank is obviously a good man at heart with problems that would convince anyone to go along with Andy’s plan. Yet he handles situations very poorly, which causes resentment in his character that he could be so gullible. Both Hawke and Hoffman pull of these characters’ persona and make them believable. It does seem that Hoffman is on an acting level that’s a little higher than Hawke, which Hawke tries to match up to, but the two do excellent work. The supporting players, ranging from Tomei’s wife who only wants a spark in her marriage, to Albert Finney’s Charles, the father of the two who goes on a Death Wish like hunt to find answers surrounding what happened, are also a fine addition to the story that gives it an extra sense of wonder.

With its capitol use of interlocking storylines, different perspectives, fast dialogue, long camera takes, and quirky editing, one would think this is the work of a fresh-out-of-film-school director with an encyclopedic knowledge of Reservoir Dogs to his credit. What makes the film even more interesting is that is actually the work of legendary director Sidney Lumet, who at the spry old age of eighty-three manages to prove that he has no signs of stopping. Lumet is a director from the fifties, and that style is one that no longer is carried even by the best of filmmakers. It is a style that uses the actual art of making a movie to display its own characters. Every time Lumet moves the camera or edits to a different scene, it is actually an attempt to look into the soul of a character. Classic films like 12 Angry Men and Network use this similar method and Lumet knows how to use it. He also has the thankfulness of Kelly Masterson’s screenplay, a first attempt from this unknown writer who flushes out a rich story with characters to match.

This is more than likely the type of film that won’t get as much play or press time than others. And quite honestly, when December rolls around, and studios start campaigning for their releases two weeks before the year is gone, this will more than likely be film that will become lost. That is a shame because here is a great work of art that indulges the mind in viewing characters with questionable senses or morality while still containing a deep, emotional and human core. Not many films have done that for me. This one has, and I only hope that it can for others. **** / ****; GRADE: A.

Reviews: "No Country for Old Men" and "Lions for Lambs"

Coensisting

In the first few moments of No Country for Old Men, there is already a feeling that this is a tale that will spark a trip that one might not expect. The cool landscape of the Texas desert combined with a somber narration from Tommy Lee Jones registers heavily with the viewers. It seems to speak that what we are about to see is grimly dark, yet at the same time poetic and beautiful. I feel that perfectly sums up this film, which is a grand return from the famous directing duo.

Though normally Joel and Ethan Coen have divided up the work of producing, writing and directing (over the years they've done it all, but only one would take credit for directing and the other producing), here they share all three credits. The film, which the Coens adapted from the Cormac McCarthy novel, is set in a seemingly deserted Texas landscape around 1980. In this barren wasteland, there enters an assortment of fascinating characters. One is Llewelyn Moss, played with deep earnest by Josh Brolin. He's a Vietnam vet who tries to just make ends meet when, while hunting antelope, he stumbles upon a drug trade off gone bad. It is here he discovers a suitcase filled to the brim with hundred dollar bills and, being the opportunist, he takes the money. This sets into motion a driving plot that introduces even more wild characters. We get Ed Tom Bell, played with considerable ease by Tommy Lee Jones, as the local sheriff. Bell is an old fashioned guy who detests the way violence has spread through America and also hopes to find Llewelyn before someone else does. That someone else is Anton Chigurh, the infamous Javier Bardem. Chigurh is an assassin hired to find Llewelyn and the money, and he obviously has no shame in killing anything that gets in his way.

The most interesting thing about the film, and the most celebrated part, is how the Coen brothers crafted this film. They use a balance of interesting angles and quirky editing (done by the Coens under their trademarked pseudo name "Roderick Jaynes") to infuse the piece with a wondrous sense. Even a strange use of sound editing is perfectly matched in this film, such as early on when Chigurh strangles a deputy, a train whistle can be heard. There's no explanation, but it adds a little more to the scene than had it been left disturbingly silent. Much of their success is also added by the brilliant cinematography from their long time collaborator Richard Deakins. Deakins has already provided the photography for two other films this year, and the Academy should certainly see fit to award him an Oscar this year either for this film of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. It is really the Deakins cinematography that brings life to this film, and it is mixed with the Coens' direction that gives it a real instense feeling.

Certainly the main attraction in terms of the performances is Javier Bardem. He does indeed create a chilling and demonic psychopath that will definitely be remembered throughout the history of films. Armed with a compressorized slaughter gun and a shotgun fitted with a bold silencer, Chigurh defines himself as a force to be reckoned with. Even his low voice can send chills down the spine as it reminds us of a sosciopathic personalitly that is very unpredictable. Brolin also does good work at creating a character that we can both root for and despise at the same time. He isn't a saint, and many times he is a selfish bastard who likes to think about the money he's got stowed away more so than other's safety. However, we do get tender moments from him, and it is a nice mix to his character. As for Tommy Lee Jones, he is a great actor, however one cannot deny that the role of a Texas sherriff is by no means a stretch for the man, but he does a nice job at portraying some sort of morality pole in the entire film.

As much as I loved this movie, I have to admit that I did find flaws. As poetic as those first few moments of the film are, the film does take its tedious time in getting into its suspenseful plot, mainly because Chigurh is more so portrayed as a more laughable/horrific psychopath rather that a totally frightening one. Also, and I'll attempt not to give too much away, the ending is missing a sense of closure. An idea like this is often debatable, but for this viewer it was certainly necessary to completely fall in love. Still, those are small complaints and should not be judged heavily in watching this film. After a string of interesting, but ultimately, underwhelming flops like O Brother Where Art Thou, The Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty, it seems that Joel and Ethan Coen have finally reminded us why their classic black comedy from more than a decade ago put them on the movie scene as gifted filmmakers. They are now back in a familiar country again: watching bad things happen to questionable people. *** 1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-.

The Political Seen

If anybody read my review of Rendition a few weeks ago (don't bother raising your hands), I mentioned an infection to be tearing itself through Hollywood about the onslaught of post-9/11 films that attempted to deal with the subject of battling terrorism and commenting on the war in Iraq. That film was by no means an antidote, and the only thing that had come close at the time was Paul Haggis' very flawed In the Valley of Elah. Now Robert Redford and an impressive cast chime in with his film, which is still flawed but possesses something that the others lack, which also gives it stance of recommendation: actually talking about politics.

The film contains three different stories that are central to its theme. The first, and the undeniably more interesting one, is the trade off between Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise. Cruise is Jasper Irving, an ambitious Republican senator from Illinois who has agreed to be interviewed by Streep's Janine Roth, a television journalist (strangely absent from a camera).

The second scenario involves Robert Redford as Stephen Malley, a political science professor at a California University having an intense political/sociological debate with hard ass student Todd Haynes, played by Andrew Garfield.

The last story explores the lives of Ernest Rodriguez and Arian Finch, two soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, played by Crash's Michael Peña and Antwone Fisher's Derek Luke, respectively, that are trapped on a snowy mountaintop in the country surrounded by the enemy. This story is a bit of a cheat at combining two, because it also includes flashbacks to scenes when Rodriguez and Finch were students in Malley's classroom and the intense arguments they had about joining the military.

Though this is a flawed film, I found that the actual discussions about politics was really the determining factor that sets this apart from other films about this subject. You really get this from the Cruise/Streep scenes. Their clever banter with each other are well played, and you can really see the great chemistry these two have. Their scenes also work because both liberal and conservative ideals are both supported and attacked. Irving is very ambitious and has the tongue of a usual politician, but also understands that being a Republican is a tough job, and he knows the tricks of the trade to get people to try and see his justification. Roth points out the flaws in Irving's grand idealism, but also is subjected to the slander that liberal media stations often endure in order to get a story by taking interviews out of context. It is really fascinating watching these two go at each other.

Redford is a fine actor and director, but its normally a role that must be separated. When it is shared on screen, there is a feeling of laziness with his direction and he resorts to stationary camera moves and formulaic editing styles. With one exception, this is the case, but Redford as director is better when he isn't directing himself. His scenes with Garfield aren't quite as provocative as the ones with Cruise and Streep, but they do bring up interesting subjects to talk about, such as the affect of politics on the youth and the unwillingness to sacrifice, even if they don't necessarily resolve the issues at hand. Likewise, conversations between Redford and the soldiers hold high marks in showing how some members of the youth feel the need to sacrifice and how that decision can be met with some opposition. However, the scenes that actually take place in Afghanistan are the weakest part of the movie. I think these two soldiers behave irrationally, and the ending they encounter is very far-fetched and unbelievable.

In the end, what makes this movie works better than most other films about this subject is its commitment to politics. The whole situation in Iraq and the war on terror is very politically motivated, and I feel it is the best option to discuss when approaching this subject. Rendition came close to that ideal, but failed to devote as much screen time to those characters. Robert Redford's film is occasionally murky, with one story line that feels out of place, but the overall message is clear. I don't think we have found that "antidote" yet, but the closest thing we have is the blood from this lion. *** / ****; GRADE: B.

Review: "American Gangster"

Gangster Rap

I love the many parts that make up this movie. Denzel Washington is one of the finest American actors working today, Russell Crowe is a powerful persona and Ridley Scott has a strong and stylish vision as a director. So when it came time for this film to be released, I was ready for another masterpiece that would re-establish Scott as one of the great directors, and hopefully get him the Oscar that was denied when his film Gladiator won Best Picture. I was expecting something great. What I got was something good. Not great, and that is disappointing.

Denzel Washington plays the notorious, and factual, Harlem drug trafficker Frank Lucas whose Scarface-esque story built him up from a low level chauffer for a previous drug lord to a powerful man who controlled nearly the entire heroin flow heading in across One Hundred and Tenth Street. Russell Crowe is Ritchie Roberts, he’s a too-polished police officer who heads the newly formed narcotics unit in New York City. The film goes back and forth showcasing the lives of these two men, and the stark contrasts they share: Lucas is criminal and drug runner, but has a strong sense of family values; Roberts is so clean of a cop that he alienates himself when he refuses to pocket nearly a million dollars found in a truck, but has a horrific personal life that is riddled with divorce, custody battles and questionable friends. So it is inevitable that the lives of these two men eventually cross, and they meet each other face to face.

The movie tries so hard to have itself be the next great American crime drama, to follow in the footsteps of The Godfather and The Departed. Sadly, it never gets there. The film, at many points, seems so overwhelmed by its central character, that if forgets to actually show him. It bombards the audience with work and his process for handling delicate situations, but the actual man who is Frank Lucas is never fully exposed. We get some spots of his sociopathic ways, but then he subsides into his businessman suit. However, Washington does do an outstanding job at taking a character who appears to be so limited and churning out as much as he can, as well as making him as rich of a personality as he can be. Russell Crowe does a good job at taking this character that is very opposite from Lucas, and making him a person just as interesting. Most of the time, his character would be a useless subplot that is only to pad the movie’s long length, but Crowe makes us believe in this character and sympathize for him. The two do excellent work as they perform solo, and their confrontation at the end of the film is the stuff that cinematic excellence is made from.

Ridley Scott is one of my all-time favorite filmmakers, but I couldn’t help but think something was missing here. Scott is a director that has normally relied on style, such as in Gladiator, Alien and Black Hawk Down. However, the film feels more structured, and I kind of resent that. Any director could have done that, but I wanted Scott to use his touches to flush out the swaying camera moves and peculiar angles. Not much of that is present here. It by no means diminishes Scott’s ability to direct a movie, but it does set a different mood. Perhaps it is also Steve Zallian’s script, who writes like he’s still trying to dry up his tears from the panning of his remake to All the King’s Men. The script is layered with good characters, but all their dialogue feels labored. Hopefully, Zallian will remind us that he is still the Oscar-winning writer of Schindler’s List, but it hasn’t happened yet.

This film has been hyped, hyped, hyped for Oscar attention, and it does live up to some potential, but not all. Washington is the star player here, but Scott is disappoints by not providing a film that is on his level of prestige. This isn’t a bad film. It is very good. But when you’ve spent the better part of six months waiting for the next American classic, it’s a little saddening to find the next American popcorn flick. *** / ****; GRADE: B.

Ten Best Director/Composer Collaborations

10. Alejandro González Iñarritú and Gusatvo Santaolalla

There's always something special that happens when these two get together. They both have a unique sense of style that seems like a perfect match. Both of them have a somber tone within their work that can be powerful without being overly dramatic. The two have had a strong career together, working on Iñarritú's three most memorable works Amores Perrors, 21 Grams and Babel. The last film in this self described trilogy garnished Best Picture and Director nominations for Iñarritú, and granted Santaolalla his second consecutive Oscar for Best Original Score.

9. John Carpenter and John Carpenter

Most of the time, a director and composer should not be shared by the same person. However, I believe this to be the only exception where the shared position works out with fantastic results. There have been very few times that John Carpenter has not provided the music for his own films, and when he does we get an unbelievable score. He's had many to his credit, such as The Fog, Village of the Damned, Vampires and Big Trouble in Little China, but it is those daunting piano keys from Halloween that will always bring a chill to the spine.

8. M. Night Shyamalan and James Newton Howard

Even though many might argue that Shyamalan's work has diminished over they years, his great collaboration with James Newton Howard has not shown any signs of stopping. Ever since The Sixth Sense, M. Night has relied on Howard to create his eerie scores to perfectly fit the mysterious mood of his films. Shyamalan and Howard have continued to work together all the way up through The Lady in the Water, but listen to the chilling score to Signs in order to understand the true magic these two can bring to the screen.

7. Robert Zemeckis and Alan Silvestri

Zemeckis and Silvestri seem to go so perfect together simply because of the product that happens to come out. They first worked together for 1984's Romancing the Stone, and since that film their collaboration has not stopped. While we will always have scores like Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, What Lies Beneath, The Polar Express and Death Becomes Her, it will be the operatic and playful tunes of the Back to the Future trilogy that we'll always be humming.

6. David Cronenberg and Howard Shore

Howard Shore will always have Peter Jackson to thank for his three Oscars, but he'll also have to pay tribute to David Cronenberg for his instance in the very beginning to always keep him working. Cronenberg has made it very well known that he prefers to continue working with his Canadian film crew, and that persistence has led to some great scores between the two of them. Cronenberg's sense of foreboding darkness and twisted morality is perfectly captured by Shore's abundant use of horns and violins. The best highlights: the cool and somber notes to 2005's A History of Violence and the chilling, almost operatic score to the 1986 horror remake of The Fly.

5. Ridley Scott and Hans Zimmer

These two are one of the greatest matches ever. This is probably because they both share a love for the operatic and theatrical. We remember Scott from films like Alien, Legend and Blade Runner while Zimmer has been known for his impactful scores to As Good as It Gets, Rain Man, and not to mention his Oscar-winning work on The Lion King. These two first met up with 1991's Thelma & Louise, but nine years later, they'd be back with a punch for 2000's Best Picture winner Gladiator. Since then, with movies like Hannibal, Matchstick Men and Black Hawk Down, these two keep providing great works that forever establishes them as the masters of epic.

4. Sergio Leone and Ennio Morricone

These two masters pioneered the "spaghetti western"genre with their unique style of the tunes they managed to create. Leone's epic grand scale was perfectly manifested in Morricone's playful use of instruments such as the guitar and strings. Together, they provided the memorable scores to films such as Once Upon a Time in the West, A Fistful of Dollars, Once Upon a Time in America, For a Few Dollar More, and, perhaps the best use of a whistle in a motion picture score: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly.

3. Steven Spielberg and John Williams

One of the things that makes a collaboration so great is the mere fact of a lasting impact. These is perhaps more than present in the famous duo of Steven Spielberg and John Williams. Ever since their Oscar-winning work on Jaws, the two have never stopped working together. Every film from then on that Spielberg has directed, with the exception of The Color Purple, has been scored by John Williams. Some examples of the most memorable pieces of music history they have made: Indiana Jones, E.T. The Extra Terrestrial, Saving Private Ryan, Amistad, Jurassic Park and Munich.

2. Alfred Hitchcock and Bernard Herrmann

Alfred Hitchcock was dubbed the master of suspense when he was at his prime. Bernard Herrmann was just the composer to bring the grand vision of Hitchcock to the screen and translate it into an epic sound. Their collaboration came late in Hitch's career, in 1956 with The Trouble with Harry, but this duo soon learned there was much more to be found. North by Northwest succeed on creating the magnificence of the set and big stars, Vertigo was a masterful art piece that swayed its audience with lullaby notes, and no one will ever forget Psycho's daunting, high pitched violins.

1. Tim Burton and Danny Elfman

Never has there probably been a greater marriage between film and music than that of Tim Burton and Danny Elfman. Both of their film careers being started for 1985's Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, these two have been working together for all of Tim's films, with the exception of Ed Wood and the forthcoming Sweeney Todd. Burton's exquisite sense for the Gothic and macabre is solidly matched in Elfman's stylish mood in the music. It is difficult to imagine what their films would have been like if they weren't together. Such wonderful scores like Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Batman, Sleepy Hollow and Big Fish might never have reached our ears. Let us be thankful that it has.

Like the list? Did I leave a duo out? Comment below.

Reviews: "Gone Baby Gone" and "Rendition"

Afflecks Baby Afflecks

Ben Affleck. What can you say about him except that his notorious off screen personality has most of the time eluded an audience from recognizing him as a talented actor. Personally, I don't think Mr. Affleck is all that terrible of an actor, he's just a very limited one. The same thing could be said about Clint Eastwood, whose presence on screen is very defining, but is still plagued with familiarity. But no one knows about that because he has the talents of directing to aid him. Now Ben Affleck has found that niche with this film, marking his directorial debut. And it is a commendable effort.

Taken from the Dennis Lehane novel, who also provided the source material to Eastwood's Mystic River, the film tells the story of a small girl who has been abducted in the middle of the night in her Boston neighborhood, which causes an immediate media frenzy. Ben's bro, Casey Affleck, plays Patrick, a private detective who has been hired by the girl's relatives to hopefully bring in better results that the police could ever do. Patrick and his partner/girlfriend Angie, played by Michelle Monoghan, start their investigation into the dark streets and eventually come to a conclusion that shakes both of them down to their emotional cores.

Everything about this film is good. Not great, mind you, but good. For instance, Casey Affleck glides through this performance with ease, much to the thanking of his big brother's direction, and it easy for us to root for him. It's not a spectacular performance, but it is one that I hope when people see will be reminded of an earlier film he appeared in this year where he truly defined himself as a great screen presence, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. The entire supporting players ranging from Michelle Monoghan, Ed Harris, who plays a street detective with a twisted sense of morality, and Morgan Freeman, unusually hidden from off-camera-voice-over-monologues as a police captain, all do their best to give their characters a nice treatment without trying to unjustly steal the spotlight. There is one great thing about the film, and that is Amy Ryan. She plays the mother of the missing child, and she pours her soul into this character. Every questionable decision, every wrong move, and every teary eyed scene feels so authentic that all her scenes will blow you away.

Ben Affleck has already proven himself as a talented writer, and the Oscar winner's screenplay, which he adapted with Aaron Stockard, does its best to successfully display the storylines without getting very preachy. We do get one or two of those moments of inner reflection of the characters, but it generally does a good job of moving the plot along.

Gone Baby Gone isn't a great film, but it is a recommendable one. The performances are good, the story is intriguing, and Affleck's direction is really the part that draws us. Affleck has started off his directorial career on a high note, and I predict a much better, or at least more applauded, career choice behind the camera than in front of it. And while this film will have constant parallels to Mystic River, it still is not. However, one must remember that even Clint Eastwood didn't start his film career with Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby or Letters from Iwo Jima. His directorial debut was 1971's Play Misty for Me, a good film, but not a great film. But four Oscars and thirty-six years later, we think differently. While I don't know if their is a directing Oscar in Affleck's career, and I do believe there is a possibility, I will say the one thing that most people will get upset about, but I don't care: Ben Affleck is just like Clint Eastwood. *** / ****; GRADE: B.

Rendered Helpless

An infectious and dangerous epidemic is running rampant through our movie theatres. The illness: post-9/11 films that attempt to deal with the hot topic issue of battling terrorism. The cause: an abundance of liberal slanted news topics from sources like CNN and MSNBC. The cure: a film that can succeed on some decent level at portraying real human characters in these drastic situations. The closest we had to a cure was Paul Haggis' engaging, yet very flawed, In the Valley of Elah. This film does not turn out to be an alternate medication.

The central storyline of the film takes place in "North Africa" (a country isn't assigned) and it involves the capture and torture of an Egyptian born scientist Anwar El-Ibrahimi, played by Omar Metwally, over information he may have about a recent terrorist attack in the region. Jake Gyllenhaal plays the CIA agent, newly inducted in the ranks, who is sent to oversee the investigation. Back on the homefront, Reese Witherspoon is Anwar's wife who is desperately combing through Washington to find answers surrounding his disappearance. She finds Peter Sarsgaard (a.k.a. Jake's future brother-in-law), a bureaucratic assistant, who finds Alan Arkin, a tired, veteran senator, who then finds Meryl Streep, a cold government official who sees the logic in torturing without publicly saying the United States uses this.

This film suffers from a similar problem that last year's Babel suffered from. There are many interesting stories in this film. The problem does not come from the overtly liberal agenda, nor from the great actors that fill the screen with them. The problem is that there are too many storylines, and what happens is that every actor is given too little time to progress and too much time is then given to stories that do not register as much. As much as I like Gyllenhaal, who would be called an Oscar winner if I had my pick of the bunch in 2005, I feel he is horribly miscast as a novice agent who is trying to decipher the morality issues here. It's not a lack of acting here, it is more a personality problem. His persona just doesn't fit the character here because very little about him is revealed. Witherspoon has a very emotional character, but that is an overdone storyline that is not elevated to anything new in this film. Even Metwally is uncomfortably deadpan in this film, and we as an audience never want to know him.

Two actors that excel in this film are also horribly plagued by limited screen time. Alan Arkin does a wonderful job at portraying an elderly senator who knows the world isn't perfect, but must compromise in order to even keep the position of power that might influence it, and Meryl Streep is absolutely amazing as that cold hand of the government explaining to the liberals why they aren't right. It's a noticeable performance that could have made a better movie had it been expanded.

Director Gavin Hood, most noted for his film Tsotsi which won the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar in 2005, does the best he can with the muddled mess of a story. The screenplay by Kelly Sane is a horrible collage of plot holes, confusion and melodramatic ironies. Hood job as director to get all of these things in a cohesive storyline is a failed attempt, but I don't think anybody could have done any better.

What could have been the most provocative and influential films of the year has turned out to be a royal disappointment. While the acting is good, it suffers from a lack of screen presence for its better players, and the film itself is a disaster in its storytelling. I only hope that as the year comes to a close, that maybe Robert Redford's upcoming Lions for Lambs can provide another antidote for a disease that doesn't seem to be subsiding. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+.

Review: Michael Clayton

Send in the Clayton.

Is there anything that George Clooney can do that won't attract the adoring public? Whenever we he's teaming up with Stephen Soderbergh and making another "Ocean's" film, we line up to see the impressive cast. When we hear he's starring in a controversial indie film, we have no problem giving him an Oscar. Even when he gets into a motorcycle accident, we have no problem whatsoever giving him our attention for very little reason. However, Clooney now gives us a reason to pay attention to him with this enticing, suspenseful, and yet occasionally tiring film.

Clooney plays the title character, a former hero at a district attorney's office who now has basically been reduced to cleaning up the messes of rich, white clients who don't want to spend that two weeks in jail. He's now been assigned to a case where the leading litigator for an insurance company's law firm has experienced, what can only be perceived, as a psychotic breakdown. Michael thinks that he's just off of his meds, but Arthur, played by wonderful Tom Wilkinson, knows the real truth about everything that company stands for, and why he feels he must speak up. Tilda Swinton is another lawyer attached to the case, who is more or less the watcher of everything but has a fragile personality herself. All of this, of course, boils up to a big climax where we are dazzled by the ending.

In actuality, that never fully happens, but that doesn't mean we aren't satisfied with this film. Writer-director Tony Gilroy knows how to set this kind of movie up. Even in the first few minutes as we are bombarded with an grand voice over monologue from Wilkinson, we can tell the writing is a style that tries to elevate itself and critique the world in gray areas instead of black and white. That style is nice, but usually lets itself into too many of these one man shows for Wilkinson and it can get a little tiresome. Gilroy the writer is much more accomplished that Gilroy the director ("Michael Clayton" is his directorial debut), who seems to know how to write a scene but doesn't know how to guide the actors through it with major success.

Clooney is Clooney, of course. No matter what, we will be drawn to him. And, very surprisingly, Michael is a character that possesses the qualities of being interesting and boring at the same time, and usually in the wrong places. There is almost a sense that there is greater depth and mystery to him when he is struggling through everyday life, but when the mayhem and mischief start to unravel, he feels distantly cold and lets his co-stars work their magic.

Speaking of, Tom Wilkinson is an actor I deeply respect, but I must lament a tad disappointment. Wilkinson is never really given a chance to really let his character develop. It always feels as if we just get the crazy man turned vigilante who continues giving strange speeches about being born out of an asshole and thinking about complex legal matters to take his mind of the two prostitutes performing fellatio. Still, Wilkinson has an aura about him that still makes him attractable. Swinton also does a fine job in a role that most would have played as cold as ice. She is human, and shows some weaknesses and it is refreshing to see that type of character being brought down to another level. Even director/casual actor Sydney Pollack (a producer on the film) has some entertaining trade-offs with Clooney.

If you walk into "Michael Clayton" expecting a top notch thriller that critiques our current failures in the legal system as well as engaging us in a suspenseful plot, then you will be disappointed that the former is significantly missing. However, "Michael Clayton" offers an escape that movies generally do provide. It is two hours of pure popcorn entertainment that indulges us in watching our favorite Hollywood bachelor with an Oscar to show for it. *** / ****; GRADE: B.

Top 10 and Big 8

Best Picture
**Criminal Origins**
The Dark Tower I: The Gunslinger
For Pay
Switching Time
Things We Lost in the Time of War

Best Director
**Criminal Origins - David Fincher**
The Dark Tower I: The Gunslinger - David Lynch
The Dead President - Mike Nichols
For Pay - Gus Van Sant
Switching Time - David Fincher

Best Actor:
The Dead President - Jeff Bridges
**For Pay - Macaulay Culkin**
Switching Time - Harrison Ford
Behind Closed Doors - John Goodman
The Dark Tower I: The Gunslinger - Viggo Mortensen

Best Actress:
**Switching Time - Fairuza Balk**
Harvey Black. - Virgina Madsen
The Cloud - Natalie Portman
Things We Lost in the Time of War - Susan Surandon
Field of Desire - Kerry Washington

Best Supporting Actor:
The Dark Tower I: The Gunslinger - Tobin Bell
For Pay - Richard Chamberlin
Criminal Origins - Dennis Haysbert
**Things We Lost in the Time of War - Emile Hirsch**
The Dead President - Jeremy Piven

Best Supporting Actress:
Things We Lost in the Time of War - Kimberly Elise
Behind Closed Doors - Maggie Gyllenhaal
For Pay - Dominique Swain
**The Dead President - Patricia Wettig**
Zeppelin 2020 - Grace Zabriskie

Best Original Screenplay:
Catastrophe-astrophe - Christopher McQuarrie
The Dead President - David E. Kelly
For Pay - Gus Van Sant
Needle in the Hay - Wes Anderson, Noah Baumbach, and Owen Wilson
**Things We Lost in the Time of War - Paul Haggis and Mark Boal**

Best Adapted Screenplay:
The Cloud - Eric Roth
Criminal Origins - James Vanderbilt
The Dark Tower I: The Gunslinger - David Lynch
To Serve Man - James Cameron
**Switching Time - Ted Tally**


Top 10:
1. Criminal Origins
2. For Pay
3. Switching Time
4. Things We Lost in the Time of War
5. The Dark Tower I: The Gunslinger
6. The Dead President
7. The Cloud
8. Needle in the Hay
9. Behind Closed Doors
10. The Good Guy

Bait Ratings

Behind Closed Doors: I liked the John Goodman casting, and it was well written (B)

Catastrophe-astrophe: Intersting plot that could have used better execution (B-)

The Cloud: Good plot and characters (B+)

Criminal Origins: David Fincher is totally the right person for this. I also loved the whole feel of it too. It really seemed like it was owned by him. (A-)

The Curious Savage: Neither the characters nor the plot really moved me. (C)

The Dark Tower I: The Gunslinger: I thought this was great. I loved the choices for director and the cast as well. I only wish Bell's character could have had a little more depth. (B+)

The Dark Tower II: The Drawing of the Three: The first was much better. The whole time jumping thing really lost me. (C+)

The Dead President: It was a good bait. Good characters and story. (B+)
Field of Desire: It didn't excite me as much as the next person, but there was good casting. (B-)

For Pay: A great vehicle for Caulkin. His character is the driving force of the bait (A-).

The Gold of Cajamarca: It was decent, but I would have liked more knowledge about some of the other characters (B).

The Good Guy: A decent biopic with a good cast. (B).

Greensleeves: Story didn't seem to go anywhere and the characters weren't very interesting. (C-).

Harvey Black.: Written well, but something in the execution, I think, was lacking. (B-)

Home Sweet Home: Story was intersting, but excessive vanity (writer-director-actor-composer credit) didn't really help it either. (C+).

The Ice Princess: Your're getting better, and Kudrow does seem well placed. It's still only average as of now, but keep working at it. (C).

If Tomorrow Never Comes...: It didn't really excite me. (C)

Kathy's Desire: I would have liked the use of pronouns, but the characters are very baity. (B-)

LD: A high school debate drama isn't high up on the topics I want discussed. (C+).

A Modern Tale: A very strange tale, but the casting and director choices are solid. (B-)

Mr. & Mrs. Woods: Reusing Dayton and Faris are tricky (I would know) and this is an example of only succeeding minorly (C+).

Needle in the Hay: If interpreted the right way, I could see this as an Anderson project. Macavoy is a good casting choice. (B).

The Road We Traveled: The introduction of Murphy's character signals a dark downfall. Everything else was interestingly exciting. (B).

Stuck on Level 13: Characters were uninteresting and plot was dull. (C-)

Switching Time: Great bait. I really enjoyed it. (A-)

Tabula Rasa: Only average in my opinion. (B-)

Things We Lost in the Time of War: It takes the shameless Oscar vehicle literally and appeals with an intruiging story and good casting. (B+).

Thoroughly Modern Millie: It takes a lot for me to enjoy a musical, and I'm not a fan of this one. (C).

To Serve Man: I like how you acknowledge how this isn't really Oscar bait, but it does have some desrving qualities. (B).

Welcome Back: How much hardship does this guy have to go through? I don't believe these circumstances would ever be present. (C)

The Witch of Portobello: It was decent, but nothing spectacular to me. (B-).

Zeppelin 2020: Reminded me of those all-star disaster pics out of the 70s, and this one is slightly elevated over its predecessors (B).

I'll try to have up a Big 8 listing later on.

Assassin's Greed

Here's my very first review for this blog:

.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

.

I remember a time when everyone was under the impression that the western genre died shortly after the releases of Tombstone and Unforgiven, the latter being the last film, as of now, to be a western Best Picture at the Oscars. Despite numerous (failed) attempts predominately by Kevin Costner, it never really revived the American spirits as it once did in the past. This year, we had the benefit of witnessing two westerns being released: the one that is titled above and James Mangold's remake 3:10 to Yuma. I am happy to say that the former is a much better work of art.

.

This film is amazing probably for some of the reasons that many might dislike it. For one thing, it is a long, 160 minute adventure that will drive some people to insanity. However, that two hours and forty minutes allows us to get lost into the story and these characters. Writer-director Andrew Dominik does a fantastic job at approaching this film and treating it not as a shoot-em-up piece like Mangold did, but instead takes a step back and makes us look at these characters and the deep emotional connections they make. It is a bold execution that pays off in the end.

.

The news is also true that Casey Affleck greatly surpasses his co-star Brad Pitt, despite Pitt winning Best Actor at Venice. Affleck's Robert Ford is a rich character that Affleck plays to perfection. His fascination with James makes his sheepish quality and hoarse voice seem like calculated tools to lure him into the gang's company, and as we spend more time with him, we start to see a change that only invigorates our spirits even more. It would be wonderful if Affleck was considered for an Oscar come late in the year. As for Pitt, he isn't terrible. In fact, he's quite good, but nowhere near as impressive as Affleck. Most of the time, it seems like Pitt is just playing his own personality and just happens to be wearing the Jesse James costume. Still, he has bouts of showcasing his high acting level, and it is appreciated. Among the other players, a standout is Sam Rockwell, who plays Robert Ford's brother. If Affleck were not getting most of the attention, Rockwell could have been a viable candidate as well. Still, it is a great performance from an actor that many might not expect it from.

.

I don't know if the western has finally come back or not. I also am not sure if this film, or even Mangold's, will be recognized when Academy members start filling out their Oscar ballots. However, I can say now that "The Assassination of Jesse James..." is a film that resonates with you long after you see it, and it's added great performances, intriguing script, and beautiful designs of sets, costumes and cinematography influenced my decision to say that this is the best film of the year that I have seen so far. **** / **** ; GRADE: A.

Add anoter to the list...

I know people are about ready for all this blog stuff to stop (and normally I don't go onto blogs myself), but I just couldn't resist creating one myself. However, it really isn't going to be bait emphasized. Don't be mistaken, though. I will give out the occassional reviews, discuss my upcoming ones, and discuss baits. But the major emphasis for this blog is current films. I'll be doing several reviews, providing a ranking list of what I think are in the top spots, and giving my own thoughts about the Oscar season. I know the Igloo does pretty much the same thing, but this is mine, so I wanted to do it as well. I hope you all visit and make me feel welcomed on the blogs.

Yours,
Josh P.