O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 31, 2009
It is remarkable how the cinema can empower us to see through another person’s eyes — not merely a physical point of view — but an ideological perspective that may altogether differ from our own beliefs. Film can so effectively draw us into a character’s story, we begin to see where he or she is coming from. Some motion pictures wield the power to exploit our common ground of humanity. Gus Van Sant’s “Milk” has this ability.
Sean Penn seems to have become Harvey Milk — the Martin Luther King Jr. of the Gay Rights Movement. At the risk of redundancy, and for clarity’s sake, King is to the Civil Rights Movement what Milk is to the Gay Rights Movement, according to the film’s portrayal of him. (Perhaps there have been other significant figures in gay rights history, but I admit my ignorance of the subject.)
“Milk” is set in the 1970s. It begins with black-and-white images that inform us of the violent clashing between homosexuals and the police. Next we see Harvey Milk, accomplished politician and gay activist, sitting at a table, speaking into a tape recorder. He is keenly aware that his crusade could have him killed, so Milk is telling his tale, leaving his testament.
The film is structured with flashbacks that continue to intercut, from time to time, with Penn’s narration. The flashbacks show us Milk’s life beginning on his 40th birthday, when he meets the love of his life, Scott Smith (James Franco). We see some of the difficult circumstances that gay men face, and these persuade him to pursue a political career, where, in hoping to make a difference, Milk incites a whole revolution. And we follow the resultant turmoil, which is punctuated with victories and defeats.
At its core, “Milk” is more than a film about a gay rights activist — more than historical highlights of a political movement — it’s a bold statement that proclaims that living a homosexual lifestyle (or simply being homosexual) is a basic human right, and perfectly normal. Of course, with this agenda, “Milk” favors the cause of homosexuals and demonizes traditional conservatives. OK, maybe I shouldn’t go so far as to say it “demonizes” conservatives, but the film’s depiction of Milk’s opponents paints them as not much more than small-minded bigots. (Naturally, as a religious, traditional conservative myself, I don’t perceive myself to be a small-minded bigot, but I’m sure there are those who would disagree, especially upon reading the rest of this review.)
Though it is a well made, entertaining drama, “Milk” probably isn’t a film for everyone (but I bet those same people mentioned above would argue that it should be). In fact, when I watched “Milk,” there was only a heterosexual couple with me in the theater. But after about 10 minutes into the film, they left. I don’t know why, but perhaps it was one of the passionate kissing scenes between Sean Penn and James Franco that drove them away.
In any case, if you have an aversion to seeing gay men being affectionate, you’ll probably want to skip this movie. (It’s not my cup of tea, either, but my film criticism subjects me to a number of images I don’t particularly enjoy watching, or personally approve of.)
And for those of you who object to such depictions of homosexuality in the mainstream cinema, you should be aware that Ang Lee’s “Brokeback Mountain” (2005) and “Milk” have paved the way for many more films of this nature. Just the other day, my mom called and told me about “Prayers for Bobby,” a made-for-TV movie about a kid whose parents’ religious intolerance of his homosexuality leads him to suicide.
The times, they are a changin’, and I bet Harvey Milk would be pleased.
Directed by Gus Van Sant
Sean Penn / Emile Hirsch / Josh Brolin
Biography / Drama 128 min.
MPAA: R (for language, some sexual content and brief violence)
U.S. Release Date: November 26, 2008
Copyright 2008: 334
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Henry Poole Is Here (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 28, 2009
Do you ever remember feeling irrationally agitated in school upon noticing that the teacher didn’t completely erase all the lines on the chalkboard? Well, somehow, “Henry Poole Is Here” manages to evoke those same feelings.
But with the wisdom that comes with time, we realize that the teacher’s instruction was of far greater importance than our trivial annoyances.
And so it is with “Henry Poole Is Here,” a film that has a higher purpose for pulling the rug out from under us. The movie questions the merits of faith, pitting believers against nonbelievers. And we take the bait — take sides — and are willingly drawn in to the debate.
Yet the so-called lines on the chalkboard are some intentional contradictions that, at first blush, seem to have been designed to create ambiguity. Upon further thought, we suspect the filmmakers (director Mark Pellington and screenwriter Albert Torres) have succumbed to a bit of filmmaking cowardice, or fear of ultimately choosing a side.
But I’m convinced now that neither suspicion is true. As I’ve considered the film, I’ve concluded that the filmmakers were reaching for an effective way to depict how people will always find ways to reinforce themselves in their own beliefs. The filmmakers’ method of demonstrating this human tendency is subtle enough that I think most viewers will miss the point altogether, and leave their classroom only noticing the lines on the chalkboard, and not the lesson. Indeed, that very thing nearly happened to me.
Though this underscored principle of humans recognizing only the evidence that supports their way of thinking is a worthy theme, “Henry Poole Is Here” isn’t overly entertaining or satisfying.
The film’s name is a miscalculation: After encountering the phrase “Henry Poole Was Here” written several times during the movie, we already know from the title that the verb is going to change tenses, which robs the film of one of its few, potentially fulfilling moments.
When we meet Henry Poole (Luke Wilson), he is buying a house. He’s sold right away (even though it’s not the home he wanted). We can plainly see that Poole is apathetic and listless, and above all, he seems to be irreversibly unhappy.
From the start, Poole becomes an intriguing character, as does his neighbor, Millie (Morgan Lily), a six-year-old who secretly tape-records other people’s conversations and plays them back immediately. The movie draws us in by making us wonder why Poole is so sad and why Millie is so strange.
Less interesting is the side of Poole’s stucco house: A neighbor and busybody, Esperanza (Adriana Barraza), says she can see the face of Christ and calls it a miracle, while Henry only sees a water spot and calls it religious fanaticism. This back-and-forth dialogue goes on and on. Esperanza recruits many other believers from the neighborhood, and Henry — who obviously needs a miracle — only gets more irritated. If I wasn’t imagining things, I started to be able to make out a face on the wall the longer the movie went on. My wife agreed.
So having worked out my feelings for this movie through pondering it at length, I rate “Henry Poole Is Here” as OK, since it’s lacking in entertainment value. But I’ll give the movie credit for being one of the few PG-rated movies that’s intelligent enough to watch.
Directed by Mark Pellington
Luke Wilson / Radha Mitchell / Adriana Barraza
Drama / Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG (for thematic elements and some language)
U.S. Release Date: August 15, 2008
Copyright 2008: 333
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 28, 2009
Do you ever remember feeling irrationally agitated in school upon noticing that the teacher didn’t completely erase all the lines on the chalkboard? Well, somehow, “Henry Poole Is Here” manages to evoke those same feelings.
But with the wisdom that comes with time, we realize that the teacher’s instruction was of far greater importance than our trivial annoyances.
And so it is with “Henry Poole Is Here,” a film that has a higher purpose for pulling the rug out from under us. The movie questions the merits of faith, pitting believers against nonbelievers. And we take the bait — take sides — and are willingly drawn in to the debate.
Yet the so-called lines on the chalkboard are some intentional contradictions that, at first blush, seem to have been designed to create ambiguity. Upon further thought, we suspect the filmmakers (director Mark Pellington and screenwriter Albert Torres) have succumbed to a bit of filmmaking cowardice, or fear of ultimately choosing a side.
But I’m convinced now that neither suspicion is true. As I’ve considered the film, I’ve concluded that the filmmakers were reaching for an effective way to depict how people will always find ways to reinforce themselves in their own beliefs. The filmmakers’ method of demonstrating this human tendency is subtle enough that I think most viewers will miss the point altogether, and leave their classroom only noticing the lines on the chalkboard, and not the lesson. Indeed, that very thing nearly happened to me.
Though this underscored principle of humans recognizing only the evidence that supports their way of thinking is a worthy theme, “Henry Poole Is Here” isn’t overly entertaining or satisfying.
The film’s name is a miscalculation: After encountering the phrase “Henry Poole Was Here” written several times during the movie, we already know from the title that the verb is going to change tenses, which robs the film of one of its few, potentially fulfilling moments.
When we meet Henry Poole (Luke Wilson), he is buying a house. He’s sold right away (even though it’s not the home he wanted). We can plainly see that Poole is apathetic and listless, and above all, he seems to be irreversibly unhappy.
From the start, Poole becomes an intriguing character, as does his neighbor, Millie (Morgan Lily), a six-year-old who secretly tape-records other people’s conversations and plays them back immediately. The movie draws us in by making us wonder why Poole is so sad and why Millie is so strange.
Less interesting is the side of Poole’s stucco house: A neighbor and busybody, Esperanza (Adriana Barraza), says she can see the face of Christ and calls it a miracle, while Henry only sees a water spot and calls it religious fanaticism. This back-and-forth dialogue goes on and on. Esperanza recruits many other believers from the neighborhood, and Henry — who obviously needs a miracle — only gets more irritated. If I wasn’t imagining things, I started to be able to make out a face on the wall the longer the movie went on. My wife agreed.
So having worked out my feelings for this movie through pondering it at length, I rate “Henry Poole Is Here” as OK, since it’s lacking in entertainment value. But I’ll give the movie credit for being one of the few PG-rated movies that’s intelligent enough to watch.
Directed by Mark Pellington
Luke Wilson / Radha Mitchell / Adriana Barraza
Drama / Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG (for thematic elements and some language)
U.S. Release Date: August 15, 2008
Copyright 2008: 333
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 24, 2009
What if all the worst days of your life added up to give you exactly what you needed to experience the best day of your life?
We hear this equation frequently, especially in theology. In the Old Testament, for example, we read that “the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning.” Also, “(God) shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain,” or “all things work together for good to them that love God.”
Though it isn’t overtly religious, the brilliance that is “Slumdog Millionaire” is designed after this principle of life’s bitterest lemons rendering sweet lemonade. The film’s trailer reveals that Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) is a triumphant winner on India’s version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”
The big question is how does an uneducated “slumdog” know the answers to all those questions? Did he cheat? No. He knows the answers because life cheated him. The film is built upon flashbacks between each game-show question that reveal how Jamal’s knowledge of these random answers happens to come from their being burned into his memory through several unbearable experiences. Essentially, Jamal knows the answers because they’re scars on his soul.
I am convinced that an element of great storytelling gives us little satellite stories within the primary story. I’m not referring to relevant subplots that obliquely tie into the principal plot, but instead, fanciful wanderings off the beaten path that help us know something more about the characters.
I’ll never forget the horrid mini tale told in “Gremlins” — from 1984 — when Kate, the character played by Phoebe Cates, explains why she doesn’t like Christmas. (Remember? — because her dad got stuck in the chimney while trying to play Santa Claus for her family, and they didn’t discover him until days later when they started to smell a terrible odor.)
Another more recent example would be in “The Dark Knight,” when Michael Caine tells how he and his cohorts had to deal with an infamous jewel thief in the jungles of Burma. Well, “Slumdog Millionaire” is filled with several of these sad but chilling mini tales, and that’s what makes the film so spectacular.
It has already received widespread critical acclaim: At the 66th Annual Golden Globes, “Slumdog” won four awards, including Best Motion Picture Drama and Best Director for its captain, Danny Boyle. And two days ago we heard the nominees for the 81st Academy Awards. “Slumdog” has 10 nominations, including Best Motion Picture. I suspect it will be a titanic winner.
“Slumdog” is filmed mostly in English, though it’s about 40 percent subtitled. Above all, it is meant to be a love story, but “Slumdog’s” theme, which I mentioned already, is so consuming, it unintentionally eclipses the romance.
Dev Patel’s performance as Jamal should be admired: He’s a serious and sober young man whose confidence comes from his unflinching resilience to fear. Jamal is unafraid, and therefore, unstoppable. How can you intimidate or hurt someone whose life is comprised of so many unthinkable tragedies that pain has become normalcy. And really, Jamal doesn’t care one bit about the money — all he wants is his destiny, his true love, Latika (Freida Pinto). Patel effectively conveys all of the above.
“Slumdog” and its makers have been receiving a lot of heat from India, because it serves as an exposé of the country’s profound poverty. But the film doesn’t blatantly critique India; it frankly shows us the deplorable conditions of its people peripherally, as a conspicuous backdrop to the story.
And yet, even with all its power, “Slumdog” is a throwback to the conventions of Hollywood, even classical cinema — minus the star power — where we have a narrative form, conflict and resolution. But here we are dazzled with familiar elements of formulaic storytelling that have been delivered and executed with excellence.
Directed by Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan
Dev Patel / Freida Pinto / Madhur Mittal
Drama / Romance 120 min.
MPAA: R (for some violence, disturbing images and language)
U.S. Release Date: November 12, 2008
Copyright 2008: 332
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 24, 2009
What if all the worst days of your life added up to give you exactly what you needed to experience the best day of your life?
We hear this equation frequently, especially in theology. In the Old Testament, for example, we read that “the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning.” Also, “(God) shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain,” or “all things work together for good to them that love God.”
Though it isn’t overtly religious, the brilliance that is “Slumdog Millionaire” is designed after this principle of life’s bitterest lemons rendering sweet lemonade. The film’s trailer reveals that Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) is a triumphant winner on India’s version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”
The big question is how does an uneducated “slumdog” know the answers to all those questions? Did he cheat? No. He knows the answers because life cheated him. The film is built upon flashbacks between each game-show question that reveal how Jamal’s knowledge of these random answers happens to come from their being burned into his memory through several unbearable experiences. Essentially, Jamal knows the answers because they’re scars on his soul.
I am convinced that an element of great storytelling gives us little satellite stories within the primary story. I’m not referring to relevant subplots that obliquely tie into the principal plot, but instead, fanciful wanderings off the beaten path that help us know something more about the characters.
I’ll never forget the horrid mini tale told in “Gremlins” — from 1984 — when Kate, the character played by Phoebe Cates, explains why she doesn’t like Christmas. (Remember? — because her dad got stuck in the chimney while trying to play Santa Claus for her family, and they didn’t discover him until days later when they started to smell a terrible odor.)
Another more recent example would be in “The Dark Knight,” when Michael Caine tells how he and his cohorts had to deal with an infamous jewel thief in the jungles of Burma. Well, “Slumdog Millionaire” is filled with several of these sad but chilling mini tales, and that’s what makes the film so spectacular.
It has already received widespread critical acclaim: At the 66th Annual Golden Globes, “Slumdog” won four awards, including Best Motion Picture Drama and Best Director for its captain, Danny Boyle. And two days ago we heard the nominees for the 81st Academy Awards. “Slumdog” has 10 nominations, including Best Motion Picture. I suspect it will be a titanic winner.
“Slumdog” is filmed mostly in English, though it’s about 40 percent subtitled. Above all, it is meant to be a love story, but “Slumdog’s” theme, which I mentioned already, is so consuming, it unintentionally eclipses the romance.
Dev Patel’s performance as Jamal should be admired: He’s a serious and sober young man whose confidence comes from his unflinching resilience to fear. Jamal is unafraid, and therefore, unstoppable. How can you intimidate or hurt someone whose life is comprised of so many unthinkable tragedies that pain has become normalcy. And really, Jamal doesn’t care one bit about the money — all he wants is his destiny, his true love, Latika (Freida Pinto). Patel effectively conveys all of the above.
“Slumdog” and its makers have been receiving a lot of heat from India, because it serves as an exposé of the country’s profound poverty. But the film doesn’t blatantly critique India; it frankly shows us the deplorable conditions of its people peripherally, as a conspicuous backdrop to the story.
And yet, even with all its power, “Slumdog” is a throwback to the conventions of Hollywood, even classical cinema — minus the star power — where we have a narrative form, conflict and resolution. But here we are dazzled with familiar elements of formulaic storytelling that have been delivered and executed with excellence.
Directed by Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan
Dev Patel / Freida Pinto / Madhur Mittal
Drama / Romance 120 min.
MPAA: R (for some violence, disturbing images and language)
U.S. Release Date: November 12, 2008
Copyright 2008: 332
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Nominees for the 81st Academy Awards
Nominations for the 81st Academy Awards were announced this morning by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences President Sid Ganis and Oscar winner Forest Whitaker. The Academy Awards for outstanding film achievements of 2008 will be presented on Sunday, February 22, 2009 on ABC. (Jason Notes: Yes, “The Dark Knight” was slighted for at least being nominated for Best Picture, and Clint Eastwood was regrettably snubbed with “Gran Torino” for Best Picture and Directing. I predict “Slumdog Millionaire” will win Best Picture, with “Milk” a close second.)
Best Motion Picture of the Year
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.)
“Frost/Nixon” (Universal)
“Milk” (Focus Features)
“The Reader” (The Weinstein Company)
“Slumdog Millionaire” (Fox Searchlight)
Achievement in Directing
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - David Fincher
“Frost/Nixon” - Ron Howard
“Milk” - Gus Van Sant
“The Reader” - Stephen Daldry
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Danny Boyle
Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Anne Hathaway in “Rachel Getting Married”
Angelina Jolie in “Changeling”
Melissa Leo in “Frozen River”
Meryl Streep in “Doubt”
Kate Winslet in “The Reader”
Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Richard Jenkins in “The Visitor”
Frank Langella in “Frost/Nixon”
Sean Penn in “Milk” (Focus Features)
Brad Pitt in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
Mickey Rourke in “The Wrestler”
Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Amy Adams in “Doubt”
Penélope Cruz in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”
Viola Davis in “Doubt”
Taraji P. Henson in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
Marisa Tomei in “The Wrestler”
Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Josh Brolin in “Milk”
Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder”
Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Doubt”
Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight”
Michael Shannon in “Revolutionary Road”
Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
“The Baader Meinhof Complex” (Germany)
“The Class” (France)
“Departures” (Japan)
“Revanche” (Austria)
“Waltz with Bashir” (Israel)
Best Documentary Feature
“The Betrayal (Nerakhoon)” - Ellen Kuras and Thavisouk Phrasavath
“Encounters at the End of the World” - Werner Herzog and Henry Kaiser
“The Garden” - Scott Hamilton Kennedy
“Man on Wire” - James Marsh and Simon Chinn
“Trouble the Water” - Tia Lessin and Carl Deal
Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
“Bolt”
“Kung Fu Panda”
“WALL-E”
Original Screenplay
“Frozen River” - Written by Courtney Hunt
“Happy-Go-Lucky” - Written by Mike Leigh
“In Bruges” - Written by Martin McDonagh
“Milk” - Written by Dustin Lance Black
“WALL-E” - Screenplay by Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon, Original story by Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter
Adapted Screenplay
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (Paramount and Warner Bros.), Screenplay by Eric Roth, Screen story by Eric Roth and Robin Swicord
“Doubt” - Written by John Patrick Shanley
“Frost/Nixon” - Screenplay by Peter Morgan
“The Reader” - Screenplay by David Hare
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Screenplay by Simon Beaufoy
Achievement in Cinematography
“Changeling” - Tom Stern
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Claudio Miranda
“The Dark Knight” - Wally Pfister
“The Reader” - Chris Menges and Roger Deakins
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Anthony Dod Mantle
Achievement in Film Editing
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall
“The Dark Knight” - Lee Smith
“Frost/Nixon” - Mike Hill and Dan Hanley
“Milk” - Elliot Graham
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Chris Dickens
Achievement in Sound Editing
“The Dark Knight” - Richard King
“Iron Man” - Frank Eulner and Christopher Boyes
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Tom Sayers
“WALL-E” - Ben Burtt and Matthew Wood
“Wanted” - Wylie Stateman
Achievement in Sound Mixing
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce and Mark Weingarten
“The Dark Knight” - Lora Hirschberg, Gary Rizzo and Ed Novick
“Slumdog Millionaire” - Ian Tapp, Richard Pryke and Resul Pookutty
“WALL-E” - Tom Myers, Michael Semanick and Ben Burtt
“Wanted” - Chris Jenkins, Frank A. Montaño and Petr Forejt
Achievement in Visual Effects
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton and Craig Barron
“The Dark Knight” - Nick Davis, Chris Corbould, Tim Webber and Paul Franklin
“Iron Man” - John Nelson, Ben Snow, Dan Sudick and Shane Mahan
Achievement in Art Direction
“Changeling” - Art Direction: James J. Murakami, Set Decoration: Gary Fettis
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Art Direction: Donald Graham Burt, Set Decoration: Victor J. Zolfo
“The Dark Knight” - Art Direction: Nathan Crowley, Set Decoration: Peter Lando
“The Duchess” - Art Direction: Michael Carlin, Set Decoration: Rebecca Alleway
“Revolutionary Road” - Art Direction: Kristi Zea, Set Decoration: Debra Schutt
Achievement in Costume Design
“Australia” - Catherine Martin
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Jacqueline West
“The Duchess” - Michael O’Connor
“Milk” - Danny Glicker
“Revolutionary Road” - Albert Wolsky
Achievement in Makeup
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Greg Cannom
“The Dark Knight” - John Caglione, Jr. and Conor O’Sullivan
“Hellboy II: The Golden Army” - Mike Elizalde and Thom Floutz
Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original score)
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” - Alexandre Desplat
“Defiance” - James Newton Howard
“Milk” - Danny Elfman
“Slumdog Millionaire” - A.R. Rahman
“WALL-E” - Thomas Newman
Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original song)
“Down to Earth” from “WALL-E,” Music by Peter Gabriel and Thomas Newman, Lyric by Peter Gabriel
“Jai Ho” from “Slumdog Millionaire,” Music by A.R. Rahman, Lyric by Gulzar
“O Saya” from “Slumdog Millionaire,” Music and Lyric by A.R. Rahman and Maya Arulpragasam
Best Live Action Short Film
“Auf der Strecke (On the Line)” - Reto Caffi
“Manon on the Asphalt” - Elizabeth Marre and Olivier Pont
“New Boy” - Steph Green and Tamara Anghie
“The Pig” - Tivi Magnusson and Dorte Høgh
“Spielzeugland (Toyland)” - Jochen Alexander Freydank
Best Documentary Short Subject
“The Conscience of Nhem En” - Steven Okazaki
“The Final Inch” - Irene Taylor Brodsky and Tom Grant
“Smile Pinki” - Megan Mylan
“The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306” - Adam Pertofsky and Margaret Hyde
Best Animated Short Film
“La Maison en Petits Cubes” - Kunio Kato
“Lavatory - Lovestory” - Konstantin Bronzit
“Oktapodi” - Emud Mokhberi and Thierry Marchand
“Presto” - Doug Sweetland
“This Way Up” - Alan Smith and Adam Foulkes
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Nights in Rodanthe (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 20, 2009
Rodanthe is a community in North Carolina that’s ambiguously situated amid Cape Hatteras and the Outer Banks. In 2002 American author Nicholas Sparks published a novel titled “Nights in Rodanthe,” which this movie is adapted from. In 2006 I released a CD whose first track featured a song I wrote titled “Rodanthe,” which is based on a monumental vacation that my family spent there in 1988. So how does this obscure place become the muse for writers’ artistic creations? It’s hard to explain unless you’ve been there.
I haven’t read Sparks’ book, but the film gives us Richard Gere playing Paul Flanner, a visibly agitated doctor who has an uncomfortably unpleasant matter to attend to in Rodanthe. Diane Lane is cast as Adrienne Willis, a divorced (or perhaps separated) mother of two who sneaks away for a few days to think about her ex’s intense pleas to get back together, and to oversee her friend Jean’s (Viola Davis) beachfront bed-and-breakfast — also in Rodanthe. The two burdened singletons meet, and though they are distracted by their respective problems, they are not so preoccupied as to fail to notice how appealing middle-aged counterparts can be.
I’m told that the movie follows the book fairly closely, so I’ll aim my critique at Sparks for the movie’s “imminent storm” scenario, which is a heavy-handed metaphor meant to parallel inevitable conflicts … a storm, I should mention, that leads to an illogical cause-and-effect sequence: The storm hits; the two are frightened; so they have sex.
Screenwriters (and authors) love the “set-up and pay-off” plot frill, where something addressed earlier in the story is “Paul Harvey-ed,” later revealing “the rest of the story.” “Nights in Rodanthe” strains a bit with an equestrian set-up and pay-off.
And perhaps the lowest point of the movie is a pantry-cleaning scene — surely that isn’t in the book! (Watching it is mildly tolerable, but I can’t imagine reading about it.) On the other hand, the highlight of “Nights in Rodanthe” is the doctor’s discussion with Robert Torrelson (Scott Glenn), with whom Paul has the inciting-incident conflict.
Some couples work well together on screen. Gere and Lane are two such people. If you like what you see here, they were also cast together in Coppola’s “The Cotton Club” (1984) and “Unfaithful” in 2002 (but Olivier Martinez tends to get in the way a little of the latter).
In summary, since it is so steeped in melodrama and manipulating emotional cues, “Nights in Rodanthe” is basically a visual manifestation of a country song committed to film.
P.S. This concluding tidbit has nothing to do with “Nights in Rodanthe” or the cinema, for that matter, but I note here — if only for posterity — that today, Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama became the first black president of the United States. Obama is the 44th U.S. president.
Directed by George C. Wolfe
Richard Gere / Diane Lane / Scott Glenn
Romance 97 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some sensuality)
U.S. Release Date: September 26, 2008
Copyright 2008: 316
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 20, 2009
Rodanthe is a community in North Carolina that’s ambiguously situated amid Cape Hatteras and the Outer Banks. In 2002 American author Nicholas Sparks published a novel titled “Nights in Rodanthe,” which this movie is adapted from. In 2006 I released a CD whose first track featured a song I wrote titled “Rodanthe,” which is based on a monumental vacation that my family spent there in 1988. So how does this obscure place become the muse for writers’ artistic creations? It’s hard to explain unless you’ve been there.
I haven’t read Sparks’ book, but the film gives us Richard Gere playing Paul Flanner, a visibly agitated doctor who has an uncomfortably unpleasant matter to attend to in Rodanthe. Diane Lane is cast as Adrienne Willis, a divorced (or perhaps separated) mother of two who sneaks away for a few days to think about her ex’s intense pleas to get back together, and to oversee her friend Jean’s (Viola Davis) beachfront bed-and-breakfast — also in Rodanthe. The two burdened singletons meet, and though they are distracted by their respective problems, they are not so preoccupied as to fail to notice how appealing middle-aged counterparts can be.
I’m told that the movie follows the book fairly closely, so I’ll aim my critique at Sparks for the movie’s “imminent storm” scenario, which is a heavy-handed metaphor meant to parallel inevitable conflicts … a storm, I should mention, that leads to an illogical cause-and-effect sequence: The storm hits; the two are frightened; so they have sex.
Screenwriters (and authors) love the “set-up and pay-off” plot frill, where something addressed earlier in the story is “Paul Harvey-ed,” later revealing “the rest of the story.” “Nights in Rodanthe” strains a bit with an equestrian set-up and pay-off.
And perhaps the lowest point of the movie is a pantry-cleaning scene — surely that isn’t in the book! (Watching it is mildly tolerable, but I can’t imagine reading about it.) On the other hand, the highlight of “Nights in Rodanthe” is the doctor’s discussion with Robert Torrelson (Scott Glenn), with whom Paul has the inciting-incident conflict.
Some couples work well together on screen. Gere and Lane are two such people. If you like what you see here, they were also cast together in Coppola’s “The Cotton Club” (1984) and “Unfaithful” in 2002 (but Olivier Martinez tends to get in the way a little of the latter).
In summary, since it is so steeped in melodrama and manipulating emotional cues, “Nights in Rodanthe” is basically a visual manifestation of a country song committed to film.
P.S. This concluding tidbit has nothing to do with “Nights in Rodanthe” or the cinema, for that matter, but I note here — if only for posterity — that today, Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama became the first black president of the United States. Obama is the 44th U.S. president.
Directed by George C. Wolfe
Richard Gere / Diane Lane / Scott Glenn
Romance 97 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some sensuality)
U.S. Release Date: September 26, 2008
Copyright 2008: 316
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Quarantine (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 18, 2009
Exactly a year ago today I saw “Cloverfield” upon its theater release, and I loved it. In fact, I ranked “Cloverfield” the third best film of 2008 (acknowledging that I only saw a limited number of critically acclaimed films last year).
“Quarantine,” a much lesser movie, seems to be modeled after “Cloverfield’s” entertaining subjective point-of-view gimmick: I call it “spectator casting,” which is where we, the viewers, are figuratively dragged out of our seats and directly involved in the film. In both “Cloverfield” and “Quarantine,” we essentially become the cameramen.
The spectator always identifies with the camera, because it is the universe-bridging eye that enables us to peer into the world portrayed within the film. Indeed, the exploitation of this association is not new to film or television. There have been variations on this technique for quite some time.
Alfred Hitchcock pulled us into his pictures by trapping us into owning some of his characters’ guilt: We become co-voyeurs in “Rear Window” (1954), as well as in “Psycho” (1960); the latter even has us sympathizing with Norman Bates, a murderer, edging us creepily close to becoming his co-conspirators.
Then on TV, “M*A*S*H” had an episode titled “Point of View” (1978) [Season 7, Episode 10], where our subjective point of view made us the patient, as the cast of the show spoke directly to us (the camera).
And of course, I don’t cite these examples as the first instances of employing this spectator casting device. Unfortunately, I can’t readily reference the first example (perhaps it was the last shot of Porter’s “The Great Train Robbery” (1903), when that six-shooter is unloaded at us).
All this unnecessary prelude is noted for its cinematic interest and merely to state that “Quarantine” isn’t overly novel, though it’s somewhat unusual.
Angela Vidal (Jennifer Carpenter) works the evening shift as a news reporter for a local TV station in Los Angeles. She and her faithful cameraman, Scott (Steve Harris), are doing a feature story where they follow L.A.’s finest (the fire department) on some 911 calls.
It turns out that they receive a medical call about some old lady who’s screaming abnormally. This is the portion you’ve probably seen on the previews. The lady has some alarming problems, and bloodshed ensues, all while the camera keeps rolling. But “Quarantine” isn’t about this one lady, as the previews would lead you to believe. Basically, it’s another zombie movie that begins unsettlingly well and progressively transgresses toward mediocrity as it proceeds all the way overboard.
Both “Cloverfield” and “Quarantine” have been criticized for making their viewers experience motion sickness with their shaky, handheld cinematography. “Cloverfield” was tolerable, but the photography in “Quarantine” is irritatingly erratic, which was probably intended to heighten the horror, but alas, it diminishes the overall production.
“Quarantine” does do something original that I don’t think I’ve seen in any other movie: At one point the cameraman uses his camera to pummel “something” to death. Since we identify with the camera, this act makes us the killer — a perverse but brilliant twist on Hitchcockian transference of guilt.
Directed by John Erick Dowdle
Jennifer Carpenter / Steve Harris / Jay Hernandez
Thriller / Horror 89 min.
MPAA: R (for bloody violent and disturbing content, terror and language)
U.S. Release Date: October 10, 2008
Copyright 2008: 318
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 18, 2009
Exactly a year ago today I saw “Cloverfield” upon its theater release, and I loved it. In fact, I ranked “Cloverfield” the third best film of 2008 (acknowledging that I only saw a limited number of critically acclaimed films last year).
“Quarantine,” a much lesser movie, seems to be modeled after “Cloverfield’s” entertaining subjective point-of-view gimmick: I call it “spectator casting,” which is where we, the viewers, are figuratively dragged out of our seats and directly involved in the film. In both “Cloverfield” and “Quarantine,” we essentially become the cameramen.
The spectator always identifies with the camera, because it is the universe-bridging eye that enables us to peer into the world portrayed within the film. Indeed, the exploitation of this association is not new to film or television. There have been variations on this technique for quite some time.
Alfred Hitchcock pulled us into his pictures by trapping us into owning some of his characters’ guilt: We become co-voyeurs in “Rear Window” (1954), as well as in “Psycho” (1960); the latter even has us sympathizing with Norman Bates, a murderer, edging us creepily close to becoming his co-conspirators.
Then on TV, “M*A*S*H” had an episode titled “Point of View” (1978) [Season 7, Episode 10], where our subjective point of view made us the patient, as the cast of the show spoke directly to us (the camera).
And of course, I don’t cite these examples as the first instances of employing this spectator casting device. Unfortunately, I can’t readily reference the first example (perhaps it was the last shot of Porter’s “The Great Train Robbery” (1903), when that six-shooter is unloaded at us).
All this unnecessary prelude is noted for its cinematic interest and merely to state that “Quarantine” isn’t overly novel, though it’s somewhat unusual.
Angela Vidal (Jennifer Carpenter) works the evening shift as a news reporter for a local TV station in Los Angeles. She and her faithful cameraman, Scott (Steve Harris), are doing a feature story where they follow L.A.’s finest (the fire department) on some 911 calls.
It turns out that they receive a medical call about some old lady who’s screaming abnormally. This is the portion you’ve probably seen on the previews. The lady has some alarming problems, and bloodshed ensues, all while the camera keeps rolling. But “Quarantine” isn’t about this one lady, as the previews would lead you to believe. Basically, it’s another zombie movie that begins unsettlingly well and progressively transgresses toward mediocrity as it proceeds all the way overboard.
Both “Cloverfield” and “Quarantine” have been criticized for making their viewers experience motion sickness with their shaky, handheld cinematography. “Cloverfield” was tolerable, but the photography in “Quarantine” is irritatingly erratic, which was probably intended to heighten the horror, but alas, it diminishes the overall production.
“Quarantine” does do something original that I don’t think I’ve seen in any other movie: At one point the cameraman uses his camera to pummel “something” to death. Since we identify with the camera, this act makes us the killer — a perverse but brilliant twist on Hitchcockian transference of guilt.
Directed by John Erick Dowdle
Jennifer Carpenter / Steve Harris / Jay Hernandez
Thriller / Horror 89 min.
MPAA: R (for bloody violent and disturbing content, terror and language)
U.S. Release Date: October 10, 2008
Copyright 2008: 318
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Appaloosa (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 17, 2009
In addition to “Appaloosa,” actor-director Ed Harris also directed and starred in “Pollock” (2000), a biography about abstract painter Jackson Pollock. I haven’t seen it, so I have no verdict on that one.
But I can tell you that “Appaloosa” aspires to the believable tone of better, more successful westerns like “Unforgiven” (1992) and the recent remake of “3:10 to Yuma” (2007). Of the three, “Appaloosa” is the third-place horse, but it still runs a respectable, 101-minute race.
The year is 1882 and the place is Appaloosa, a dusty town situated in the New Mexico Territory. A group of ruffians led by Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons) has begun plaguing the community with violence and lawlessness.
So Appaloosa hires the eminent Virgil Cole (Ed Harris) and his right-hand man, Everett Hitch (Viggo Mortensen) to keep the peace by any means necessary. Indeed, the duo has a reputation for being proficient at such tasks.
That’s the premise of “Appaloosa.” In many ways, it follows the usual conventions associated with this familiar plot, but “Appaloosa” also defies our expectations, here and there, which is refreshing.
And though it’s good, from the looks of it, “Appaloosa” seems like it would be an exceptional western. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen paired as town cleaner-uppers — how could it possibly miss? I don’t know. It’s difficult to articulate. I guess in its attempt to aspire to be a realistic western, “Appaloosa” isn’t as engaging as other films that more closely typify the genre.
Perhaps more disappointing, Harris and Mortensen just aren’t as good as you’d expect them to be … for that, you’d need to refer to “A History of Violence” (2005).
Directed by Ed Harris
Ed Harris / Viggo Mortensen / Jeremy Irons
Western 101 min.
MPAA: R (for some violence and language)
U.S. Release Date: October 3, 2008
Copyright 2008: 319
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 17, 2009
In addition to “Appaloosa,” actor-director Ed Harris also directed and starred in “Pollock” (2000), a biography about abstract painter Jackson Pollock. I haven’t seen it, so I have no verdict on that one.
But I can tell you that “Appaloosa” aspires to the believable tone of better, more successful westerns like “Unforgiven” (1992) and the recent remake of “3:10 to Yuma” (2007). Of the three, “Appaloosa” is the third-place horse, but it still runs a respectable, 101-minute race.
The year is 1882 and the place is Appaloosa, a dusty town situated in the New Mexico Territory. A group of ruffians led by Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons) has begun plaguing the community with violence and lawlessness.
So Appaloosa hires the eminent Virgil Cole (Ed Harris) and his right-hand man, Everett Hitch (Viggo Mortensen) to keep the peace by any means necessary. Indeed, the duo has a reputation for being proficient at such tasks.
That’s the premise of “Appaloosa.” In many ways, it follows the usual conventions associated with this familiar plot, but “Appaloosa” also defies our expectations, here and there, which is refreshing.
And though it’s good, from the looks of it, “Appaloosa” seems like it would be an exceptional western. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen paired as town cleaner-uppers — how could it possibly miss? I don’t know. It’s difficult to articulate. I guess in its attempt to aspire to be a realistic western, “Appaloosa” isn’t as engaging as other films that more closely typify the genre.
Perhaps more disappointing, Harris and Mortensen just aren’t as good as you’d expect them to be … for that, you’d need to refer to “A History of Violence” (2005).
Directed by Ed Harris
Ed Harris / Viggo Mortensen / Jeremy Irons
Western 101 min.
MPAA: R (for some violence and language)
U.S. Release Date: October 3, 2008
Copyright 2008: 319
Friday, January 16, 2009
Doubt (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 16, 2009
Where I grew up our sixth grade classes went camping for a week. On one of the nights, we were divided into groups and encouraged to write skits; our only requirement was to design a tale that explained how the “mongoose” got its name.
I wrote my group’s script. Inevitably, since I had no idea what a mongoose was, our skit ended with a gaggle of baby geese following their mother, with one lagging behind, calling, “Mom-goose! Mom-goose!” … Exeunt. The end. I know, profoundly dumb, but I was in sixth grade.
“Doubt,” which is based on a stage play by John Patrick Shanley (who also wrote the screenplay and directed), more or less ends his motion picture like my sixth-grade play. Up to that point, it’s a wonderful film.
Set in December of 1964, “Doubt” magnifies the conflict between three people who have completely committed themselves to God, thereby embracing faith and typically eschewing doubt.
Meryl Streep plays Sister Aloysius Beauvier, a disciplinarian nun who surely frightens even the devil. Philip Seymour Hoffman is Father Brendan Flynn, an insightful priest who perceives imperfections within himself just as easily as he can in others. And Amy Adams plays Sister James, whose bright-eyed innocence almost makes the other nuns seems scandalous.
In short, Sister Beauvier suspects that Father Flynn is molesting one of the altar boys, a new student at their private Catholic school, St. Nicholas. Sister James is dragged into the ensuing fray. Conflict. More conflicts. Exeunt. The end.
“Doubt” is almost all dialogue — very clean — and could have possibly been rated PG. It is worth seeing for its acting alone: Streep, Hoffman, Adams — bravo all. But looking at its principals, we knew “Doubt” would give us worthy performances.
What we did not know, however (but I suspected it), is how “Doubt” would be riddled with ambiguity, subjecting us to tangibly taste of the same internal struggle that is suggested by its title. The film (and no doubt the play) engages in this game with us where we teeter back and forth with our own doubts, which follow suit with the characters’ suspicions. Brilliant.
And yet, all along we come to desperately depend on an eventual, definitive resolution — the long-awaited answers to our burning questions. Unfortunately, “Doubt’s” precarious dance with dubiety is its ultimate undoing.
Directed by John Patrick Shanley
Meryl Streep / Philip Seymour Hoffman / Amy Adams
Drama 104 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for thematic material)
U.S. Release Date: December 12, 2008
Copyright 2008: 331
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 16, 2009
Where I grew up our sixth grade classes went camping for a week. On one of the nights, we were divided into groups and encouraged to write skits; our only requirement was to design a tale that explained how the “mongoose” got its name.
I wrote my group’s script. Inevitably, since I had no idea what a mongoose was, our skit ended with a gaggle of baby geese following their mother, with one lagging behind, calling, “Mom-goose! Mom-goose!” … Exeunt. The end. I know, profoundly dumb, but I was in sixth grade.
“Doubt,” which is based on a stage play by John Patrick Shanley (who also wrote the screenplay and directed), more or less ends his motion picture like my sixth-grade play. Up to that point, it’s a wonderful film.
Set in December of 1964, “Doubt” magnifies the conflict between three people who have completely committed themselves to God, thereby embracing faith and typically eschewing doubt.
Meryl Streep plays Sister Aloysius Beauvier, a disciplinarian nun who surely frightens even the devil. Philip Seymour Hoffman is Father Brendan Flynn, an insightful priest who perceives imperfections within himself just as easily as he can in others. And Amy Adams plays Sister James, whose bright-eyed innocence almost makes the other nuns seems scandalous.
In short, Sister Beauvier suspects that Father Flynn is molesting one of the altar boys, a new student at their private Catholic school, St. Nicholas. Sister James is dragged into the ensuing fray. Conflict. More conflicts. Exeunt. The end.
“Doubt” is almost all dialogue — very clean — and could have possibly been rated PG. It is worth seeing for its acting alone: Streep, Hoffman, Adams — bravo all. But looking at its principals, we knew “Doubt” would give us worthy performances.
What we did not know, however (but I suspected it), is how “Doubt” would be riddled with ambiguity, subjecting us to tangibly taste of the same internal struggle that is suggested by its title. The film (and no doubt the play) engages in this game with us where we teeter back and forth with our own doubts, which follow suit with the characters’ suspicions. Brilliant.
And yet, all along we come to desperately depend on an eventual, definitive resolution — the long-awaited answers to our burning questions. Unfortunately, “Doubt’s” precarious dance with dubiety is its ultimate undoing.
Directed by John Patrick Shanley
Meryl Streep / Philip Seymour Hoffman / Amy Adams
Drama 104 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for thematic material)
U.S. Release Date: December 12, 2008
Copyright 2008: 331
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Pride and Glory (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 13, 2009
Evidently the cop movie genre is endlessly fascinating, which is not to say that all cop movies are individually interesting, but collectively they have intrigued the movie-going public for decades. Interestingly, similar to those “Othello” game chips which are white on one side — black on the other, police films are also simultaneously criminal films. So what is it about this genre that we find so captivating? The cops, or the robbers? Through which group are we vicariously living?
Well, more often than not, it’s not black and white, like Othello. We have myriad films about corrupt cops, and a few with antihero criminals. Usually movies have a good dose of villainy on both sides of the jail cell. “Pride and Glory” poses this kind of uneasy predicament, a shameful “Serpico” (1973) scenario, where the good guy has to deal with bad guys on the streets, as well as in his department.
Yes, “Pride and Glory” has its treachery, and it’s an unpleasantly gritty affair. There’s a particularly awful scene in this movie where some dude’s baby is used for leverage, to make him talk. And though I’m sure “no babies were harmed in the making of this film,” had it gone on five seconds longer, (I’d like to think) I would have left the theater. No doubt much of today’s desensitized audience wouldn’t flinch, but I can’t remember another film that pushes that same dismal circumstance to such limits.
I should admit that my relatively newfound fatherhood (one year today!) has made me a little soft, but I couldn’t help but think the filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for this appalling scene. Then again, using precariously placed babies to harrow viewers is nothing new to the cinema: Even the infamous Odessa steps sequence in Eisenstein’s “Battleship Potemkin” — from 1925! — employs a pitifully helpless infant in a doomed baby carriage.
As for the story, I’m reluctant to describe much because of its intended secrets. Essentially, there’s a father (Jon Voight) and his two sons (Edward Norton and Colin Farrell) who are all veterans of the NYPD in Brooklyn. When four officers get killed in the line of duty, the family becomes closely entangled in the investigation.
Edward Norton is a fine actor; "Primal Fear" (1996) establishes that fact. And we saw in "The Italian Job" (2003) that Norton can pull off “downright despicable” easily enough. He even handles himself well in "The Incredible Hulk" (2008), which would have been surprisingly tricky to negotiate. Think about it: If somebody makes you angry enough, you turn into a monster … that gig is a red-carpet invitation, beggin' for you to over-act. See Ben Stiller in “Mystery Men” (1999).
In spite of his proven abilities, Norton's tough-as-nails cop persona doesn't sell me. In one scene Norton’s character chases down (and roughs-up) an informant — who's obviously afraid of him — and it just doesn't work. I don’t believe it.
Otherwise, “Pride and Glory” is a pretty good (albeit violent) movie. And though it’s awfully reminiscent of the previous year’s “We Own the Night,” and about a million other cop movies, “Pride and Glory” is a satisfying fix for the hero — or villain — in you.
Directed by Gavin O’Connor
Edward Norton / Colin Farrell / Jon Voight
Crime 130 min.
MPAA: R (for strong violence, pervasive language and brief drug content)
U.S. Release Date: October 24, 2008
Copyright 2008: 320
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 13, 2009
Evidently the cop movie genre is endlessly fascinating, which is not to say that all cop movies are individually interesting, but collectively they have intrigued the movie-going public for decades. Interestingly, similar to those “Othello” game chips which are white on one side — black on the other, police films are also simultaneously criminal films. So what is it about this genre that we find so captivating? The cops, or the robbers? Through which group are we vicariously living?
Well, more often than not, it’s not black and white, like Othello. We have myriad films about corrupt cops, and a few with antihero criminals. Usually movies have a good dose of villainy on both sides of the jail cell. “Pride and Glory” poses this kind of uneasy predicament, a shameful “Serpico” (1973) scenario, where the good guy has to deal with bad guys on the streets, as well as in his department.
Yes, “Pride and Glory” has its treachery, and it’s an unpleasantly gritty affair. There’s a particularly awful scene in this movie where some dude’s baby is used for leverage, to make him talk. And though I’m sure “no babies were harmed in the making of this film,” had it gone on five seconds longer, (I’d like to think) I would have left the theater. No doubt much of today’s desensitized audience wouldn’t flinch, but I can’t remember another film that pushes that same dismal circumstance to such limits.
I should admit that my relatively newfound fatherhood (one year today!) has made me a little soft, but I couldn’t help but think the filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for this appalling scene. Then again, using precariously placed babies to harrow viewers is nothing new to the cinema: Even the infamous Odessa steps sequence in Eisenstein’s “Battleship Potemkin” — from 1925! — employs a pitifully helpless infant in a doomed baby carriage.
As for the story, I’m reluctant to describe much because of its intended secrets. Essentially, there’s a father (Jon Voight) and his two sons (Edward Norton and Colin Farrell) who are all veterans of the NYPD in Brooklyn. When four officers get killed in the line of duty, the family becomes closely entangled in the investigation.
Edward Norton is a fine actor; "Primal Fear" (1996) establishes that fact. And we saw in "The Italian Job" (2003) that Norton can pull off “downright despicable” easily enough. He even handles himself well in "The Incredible Hulk" (2008), which would have been surprisingly tricky to negotiate. Think about it: If somebody makes you angry enough, you turn into a monster … that gig is a red-carpet invitation, beggin' for you to over-act. See Ben Stiller in “Mystery Men” (1999).
In spite of his proven abilities, Norton's tough-as-nails cop persona doesn't sell me. In one scene Norton’s character chases down (and roughs-up) an informant — who's obviously afraid of him — and it just doesn't work. I don’t believe it.
Otherwise, “Pride and Glory” is a pretty good (albeit violent) movie. And though it’s awfully reminiscent of the previous year’s “We Own the Night,” and about a million other cop movies, “Pride and Glory” is a satisfying fix for the hero — or villain — in you.
Directed by Gavin O’Connor
Edward Norton / Colin Farrell / Jon Voight
Crime 130 min.
MPAA: R (for strong violence, pervasive language and brief drug content)
U.S. Release Date: October 24, 2008
Copyright 2008: 320
Sunday, January 11, 2009
4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 11, 2009
Without question, “4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days” has the saddest scene I have ever witnessed in the cinema. The sadness is so profound during this moment, it disquiets the soul. If you’ve seen this film, you’ll know exactly what I’m referring to. I dare say it’s unforgettable — I know I’ll never forget it.
“4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days” tells a simple story (with complex implications), but it’s a horrifying one. Not horrifying in the same way as some slasher flick or a supernatural monster movie, but this film is alarming for its stark plausibility. It could happen; it has happened; it does happen.
Somewhat like Lars von Trier’s “Dogville” (2003), “4 Months…” is troubling for what it purports about the unscrupulousness of at least some of those around us. None of the native residents in “Dogville” was a serial killer — and no one in “4 Months…” is a serial killer (though I guess that’s debatable, technically speaking), but both films provoke our worrisome speculation about what your next-door neighbor might be capable of within the privacy of his or her own home.
Set in Romania in 1987, “4 Months…” is a film about a young woman named Gabriela (Laura Vasiliu) who wants to get an abortion, but at that time in Romania, abortions were illegal. (Roger Ebert noted in his review that Romania was under the rule of Nicolae Ceausescu, who forbade abortions not for moral reasons but because he “wanted more subjects to rule.”)
The expecting “Gabita,” as she is called, is determined to undergo the procedure, so she and her friend, Otilia (Anamaria Marinca), seek out the services of a black-market abortionist (Vlad Ivanov). And we follow along and watch the two girls’ perilous events.
Notably, it’s difficult to take a definitive stance on whether “4 Months…” is pro- or anti-abortion. To me, the film paints such bleakness on both sides of the fence, it seems to purposely state the opposing cases (abortion equals murder — versus — desperate times call for unsafe measures) to remove itself from the fray that it may be free to tell its story.
I wouldn’t call this film entertaining; in fact, it’s decidedly unpleasant to watch. But regardless of your feelings — whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice — I think every adult should see this film.
“4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” has the capacity to truly be a life-changing film for advocates of either moral position.
Directed by Cristian Mungiu
Anamaria Marinca / Laura Vasiliu / Vlad Ivanov
Drama 113 min.
MPAA: Not Rated (but R)
U.S. Release Date: January 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 321
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / January 11, 2009
Without question, “4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days” has the saddest scene I have ever witnessed in the cinema. The sadness is so profound during this moment, it disquiets the soul. If you’ve seen this film, you’ll know exactly what I’m referring to. I dare say it’s unforgettable — I know I’ll never forget it.
“4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days” tells a simple story (with complex implications), but it’s a horrifying one. Not horrifying in the same way as some slasher flick or a supernatural monster movie, but this film is alarming for its stark plausibility. It could happen; it has happened; it does happen.
Somewhat like Lars von Trier’s “Dogville” (2003), “4 Months…” is troubling for what it purports about the unscrupulousness of at least some of those around us. None of the native residents in “Dogville” was a serial killer — and no one in “4 Months…” is a serial killer (though I guess that’s debatable, technically speaking), but both films provoke our worrisome speculation about what your next-door neighbor might be capable of within the privacy of his or her own home.
Set in Romania in 1987, “4 Months…” is a film about a young woman named Gabriela (Laura Vasiliu) who wants to get an abortion, but at that time in Romania, abortions were illegal. (Roger Ebert noted in his review that Romania was under the rule of Nicolae Ceausescu, who forbade abortions not for moral reasons but because he “wanted more subjects to rule.”)
The expecting “Gabita,” as she is called, is determined to undergo the procedure, so she and her friend, Otilia (Anamaria Marinca), seek out the services of a black-market abortionist (Vlad Ivanov). And we follow along and watch the two girls’ perilous events.
Notably, it’s difficult to take a definitive stance on whether “4 Months…” is pro- or anti-abortion. To me, the film paints such bleakness on both sides of the fence, it seems to purposely state the opposing cases (abortion equals murder — versus — desperate times call for unsafe measures) to remove itself from the fray that it may be free to tell its story.
I wouldn’t call this film entertaining; in fact, it’s decidedly unpleasant to watch. But regardless of your feelings — whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice — I think every adult should see this film.
“4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” has the capacity to truly be a life-changing film for advocates of either moral position.
Directed by Cristian Mungiu
Anamaria Marinca / Laura Vasiliu / Vlad Ivanov
Drama 113 min.
MPAA: Not Rated (but R)
U.S. Release Date: January 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 321
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
