Overall rating from 1 to 100: 86
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
A good story can go a long way. Exhibit A: “Michael Clayton.” Often, filmmakers mistakenly assume that special effects can compensate for a poor story. Heresy. Exhibit B: “D-War.”
“Michael Clayton” has few noticeable special effects and is still exceptional entertainment thanks to its story’s quality.
If it’s not evident by the aforementioned exhibits, “Michael Clayton” is a thriller involving high-powered attorneys, corporate litigation and an exhibitionist.
Thankfully, this movie spares us the overused courtroom-drama sequences for more exciting, behind-the-scenes finagling, giving it inherent intrigue, despite its unconvincing, unappealing trailer. Exhibit C: “Do I look like I’m negotiating?”
Notably, notwithstanding Exhibit C, the film is worth seeing for George Clooney’s title-role performance. Watch him closely during scenes with his character’s son; or, when he holds his composure during a very long close-up of his face.
So, what is the overall verdict on whether to watch this movie? See Exhibit A.
Directed by Tony Gilroy
George Clooney / Tom Wilkinson / Tilda Swinton
119 min. Drama / Crime
MPPA: R (for language including some sexual dialogue)
Copyright 2007. 199
Saturday, November 10, 2007
We Own the Night (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 73
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
The time is 1988. The place is Brooklyn, N.Y. Robert Duvall plays an NYPD police chief and the father of two sons, Bobby (Joaquin Phoenix) and Joseph (Mark Wahlberg).
Joseph is the good son and an exceptional, decorated police officer; while Bobby is the black sheep who manages a popular nightclub where he associates with shady people of the underworld, natural enemies of his brother and father.
The movie’s primary conflict revolves around Bobby’s having to choose between his friends and his family (a choice that’s tougher than it sounds), and then trying to live with that choice.
“We Own the Night” is unmistakably contrived, but at the same time it takes some unconventional turns that pleasantly surprise us and defy our expectations of the genre. It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s definitely worth checking out.
Directed by James Gray
Joaquin Phoenix / Mark Wahlberg / Robert Duvall
117 min. Action / Crime
MPPA: R (for strong violence, drug material, language, some sexual content and brief nudity)
Copyright 2007. 200
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
The time is 1988. The place is Brooklyn, N.Y. Robert Duvall plays an NYPD police chief and the father of two sons, Bobby (Joaquin Phoenix) and Joseph (Mark Wahlberg).
Joseph is the good son and an exceptional, decorated police officer; while Bobby is the black sheep who manages a popular nightclub where he associates with shady people of the underworld, natural enemies of his brother and father.
The movie’s primary conflict revolves around Bobby’s having to choose between his friends and his family (a choice that’s tougher than it sounds), and then trying to live with that choice.
“We Own the Night” is unmistakably contrived, but at the same time it takes some unconventional turns that pleasantly surprise us and defy our expectations of the genre. It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s definitely worth checking out.
Directed by James Gray
Joaquin Phoenix / Mark Wahlberg / Robert Duvall
117 min. Action / Crime
MPPA: R (for strong violence, drug material, language, some sexual content and brief nudity)
Copyright 2007. 200
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 71
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Adapted from a Ron Hansen novel, “Jesse James” defies the shoot-‘em-up western genre to deliver a biographical drama starring Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck.
Those who seek the gun fighting of a rootin’, tootin’ western will be happier seeing this year’s “3:10 to Yuma.”
An oddly quiet and poetic film, “Jesse James” depicts the downtime between events, and usually not the events themselves, which are occasionally shown later. Uncommonly yet admirably, action is incidental.
Complaints abound accusing “Jesse James” of dragging, but the film’s lackadaisical pacing isn’t the problem: A movie this slow shouldn’t run this long (or vice versa). Indeed, the only thing that exceeds the 160-minute runtime of “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” is the movie’s title.
All in all, the film is well made and memorable, with lines like “Poetry don’t work on whores,” which could also be said of westerns.
Directed by Andrew Dominik
Brad Pitt / Casey Affleck / Paul Schneider
160 min. Drama / Western
MPPA: R (for some strong violence and brief sexual references)
Copyright 2007. 198
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Adapted from a Ron Hansen novel, “Jesse James” defies the shoot-‘em-up western genre to deliver a biographical drama starring Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck.
Those who seek the gun fighting of a rootin’, tootin’ western will be happier seeing this year’s “3:10 to Yuma.”
An oddly quiet and poetic film, “Jesse James” depicts the downtime between events, and usually not the events themselves, which are occasionally shown later. Uncommonly yet admirably, action is incidental.
Complaints abound accusing “Jesse James” of dragging, but the film’s lackadaisical pacing isn’t the problem: A movie this slow shouldn’t run this long (or vice versa). Indeed, the only thing that exceeds the 160-minute runtime of “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” is the movie’s title.
All in all, the film is well made and memorable, with lines like “Poetry don’t work on whores,” which could also be said of westerns.
Directed by Andrew Dominik
Brad Pitt / Casey Affleck / Paul Schneider
160 min. Drama / Western
MPPA: R (for some strong violence and brief sexual references)
Copyright 2007. 198
In the Valley of Elah (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 95
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
"In the Valley of Elah" is a mystery, specifically a police procedural, whose commentary on the Iraq War is stirring and memorable, regardless of your political position. But above all, this is an exceptional film, and without question, one of the year's best.
"Inspired by actual events," the film begins in 2004 when Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) receives a phone call from the U.S. Army, informing him that his son who recently returned from the war in Iraq is AWOL, and presumably somewhere in New Mexico. This inciting incident initiates the retired military-police sergeant’s search for his missing son.
Sadly, a mini review doesn’t permit me the space to adequately emphasize the excellence of this film. But to name one example, many scenes are shot with Jones behind glass, usually a truck window. Thanks to his MP experience, Deerfield can see things the investigative detectives cannot. But because he’s just a civilian, the sergeant isn’t permitted to act directly (hence the recurring image of seeing clearly from behind glass). Watch what happens, however, during the scene where the window is rolled halfway down.
The viewer who pays close attention to the film’s subtle set-ups, will reap rich rewards from its pay-offs.
Directed by Paul Haggis
Tommy Lee Jones / Charlize Theron / Susan Sarandon
124 min. Mystery / Drama
MPAA: R (for violent and disturbing content, language and some sexuality/nudity)
Copyright 2007. 197
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
"In the Valley of Elah" is a mystery, specifically a police procedural, whose commentary on the Iraq War is stirring and memorable, regardless of your political position. But above all, this is an exceptional film, and without question, one of the year's best.
"Inspired by actual events," the film begins in 2004 when Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) receives a phone call from the U.S. Army, informing him that his son who recently returned from the war in Iraq is AWOL, and presumably somewhere in New Mexico. This inciting incident initiates the retired military-police sergeant’s search for his missing son.
Sadly, a mini review doesn’t permit me the space to adequately emphasize the excellence of this film. But to name one example, many scenes are shot with Jones behind glass, usually a truck window. Thanks to his MP experience, Deerfield can see things the investigative detectives cannot. But because he’s just a civilian, the sergeant isn’t permitted to act directly (hence the recurring image of seeing clearly from behind glass). Watch what happens, however, during the scene where the window is rolled halfway down.
The viewer who pays close attention to the film’s subtle set-ups, will reap rich rewards from its pay-offs.
Directed by Paul Haggis
Tommy Lee Jones / Charlize Theron / Susan Sarandon
124 min. Mystery / Drama
MPAA: R (for violent and disturbing content, language and some sexuality/nudity)
Copyright 2007. 197
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 94
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
If “3:10 to Yuma” can’t revive the western genre, nothing can. Another noteworthy attempt at resuscitation was made back in 1992 with Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven,” also an exceptional film that won Best Picture. But honestly, I don’t know that I could tell you the better film between the two, unless we had them duel.
This film is actually a remake of an earlier film by the same name (unseen by me), so I couldn’t really tell you how closely this movie follows its predecessor. But if the first film was about “doin’ the right thing” and “cowboying up,” then I’d say it holds true where it counts.
Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is a bad, bad man, an outlaw and a killer who’s notoriously ruthless and profoundly deadly. (Yes, “profoundly” is the right word. You’ll see.)
When Wade is captured and needs to be on the 3:10 train to Yuma for his court date, the short-handed law men agree to pay poor Dan Evans (Christian Bale) to help transport the prisoner, keeping him from being sprung by his fellow bandits.
“3:10 to Yuma” has excellent dialogue. In fact, it has the best line I’ve ever heard in a western, though I won’t recite it here in case you’re one of the lucky ones who haven’t heard it from the trailers. But I will tell you this: “3:10 to Yuma” proudly ranks among the top five films of 2007.
Directed by James Mangold
Russell Crowe / Christian Bale / Peter Fonda
117 min. Western
MPPA: R (for violence and some language)
Copyright 2007. 187
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
If “3:10 to Yuma” can’t revive the western genre, nothing can. Another noteworthy attempt at resuscitation was made back in 1992 with Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven,” also an exceptional film that won Best Picture. But honestly, I don’t know that I could tell you the better film between the two, unless we had them duel.
This film is actually a remake of an earlier film by the same name (unseen by me), so I couldn’t really tell you how closely this movie follows its predecessor. But if the first film was about “doin’ the right thing” and “cowboying up,” then I’d say it holds true where it counts.
Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is a bad, bad man, an outlaw and a killer who’s notoriously ruthless and profoundly deadly. (Yes, “profoundly” is the right word. You’ll see.)
When Wade is captured and needs to be on the 3:10 train to Yuma for his court date, the short-handed law men agree to pay poor Dan Evans (Christian Bale) to help transport the prisoner, keeping him from being sprung by his fellow bandits.
“3:10 to Yuma” has excellent dialogue. In fact, it has the best line I’ve ever heard in a western, though I won’t recite it here in case you’re one of the lucky ones who haven’t heard it from the trailers. But I will tell you this: “3:10 to Yuma” proudly ranks among the top five films of 2007.
Directed by James Mangold
Russell Crowe / Christian Bale / Peter Fonda
117 min. Western
MPPA: R (for violence and some language)
Copyright 2007. 187
Resurrecting the Champ (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 86
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Sometimes movies that were “inspired by a true story,” such as “Catch a Fire” (2006), tell a story that’s not really worth telling. Other films like “Resurrecting the Champ” have a narrative worthy of our attention.
Unfortunately, “Resurrecting the Champ” is going to go down as one of those underrated, underappreciated, unknown films, ironically enough. But trust me: You should check out this movie.
As cryptic as this may sound, “Resurrecting the Champ” is about being what you wanted to be, regardless of not getting to be what you wanted to be. I know, maddening. But that is the greatness that is the concept of this movie. “Resurrecting the Champ” will also be of interest to sports fans, journalists, fathers and sons.
Erik Kernan (Josh Hartnett) is a sports writer who is struggling to live up to the journalistic greatness of his father. But when he discovers a former boxing champion (Samuel L. Jackson) who is now a homeless person, the young writer has the boxer’s incredible story to tell.
And that’s all I can tell you. The less you know about the film, the better. But be prepared for Samuel L. Jackson’s character’s voice: You’ll either love it, or you’ll hate it; but either way, you should appreciate his ability to maintain such a high pitch.
Directed by Rod Lurie
Samuel L. Jackson / Josh Hartnett / Alan Alda
111 min. Drama
MPPA: PG-13 (for some violence and brief language)
Copyright 2007. 185
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
Sometimes movies that were “inspired by a true story,” such as “Catch a Fire” (2006), tell a story that’s not really worth telling. Other films like “Resurrecting the Champ” have a narrative worthy of our attention.
Unfortunately, “Resurrecting the Champ” is going to go down as one of those underrated, underappreciated, unknown films, ironically enough. But trust me: You should check out this movie.
As cryptic as this may sound, “Resurrecting the Champ” is about being what you wanted to be, regardless of not getting to be what you wanted to be. I know, maddening. But that is the greatness that is the concept of this movie. “Resurrecting the Champ” will also be of interest to sports fans, journalists, fathers and sons.
Erik Kernan (Josh Hartnett) is a sports writer who is struggling to live up to the journalistic greatness of his father. But when he discovers a former boxing champion (Samuel L. Jackson) who is now a homeless person, the young writer has the boxer’s incredible story to tell.
And that’s all I can tell you. The less you know about the film, the better. But be prepared for Samuel L. Jackson’s character’s voice: You’ll either love it, or you’ll hate it; but either way, you should appreciate his ability to maintain such a high pitch.
Directed by Rod Lurie
Samuel L. Jackson / Josh Hartnett / Alan Alda
111 min. Drama
MPPA: PG-13 (for some violence and brief language)
Copyright 2007. 185
The Last Legion (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 53
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
My good friend and esteemed fellow movie critic, Luke Hickman, told me he walked into the theater during this film, stayed for 15 minutes, and laughed the whole time. So why did I see it? Because the film I was planning to see wasn’t playing (for some reason), and this was my only option. Poor movie critic me, I know. Tough job.
Let’s take a moment to notice that my rating scale doesn’t go down to zero, the lowest it gets is 1. That’s because, it seems to me, that the wonder of the motion picture, no matter how detestable its images, should at least register on the scale.
“The Last Legion” isn’t hideously horrible; in fact, it clocks in at a 53, which is better than half and translates to “OK.” But the worst movie of 2007 is easily “Delta Farce,” which received an 8. Avoid that puppy at all costs.
I mention all of this to simply say that I’d watch “The Last Legion” 100 times in a row before subjecting myself, once again, to the likes of “D-War” or “Daddy Day Camp” or “Delta Farce.” My laughing friend, Luke, obviously has yet to experience the pains of those “D” movies, if he’s so amused by “The Last Legion.” Which reminds me ... in my college cafeteria once, I saw “all-purpose meat” boxes which read, “Grade D but edible.” The same cannot be said of those films.
Truly, it is a testament to the talents of Colin Firth and Ben Kingsley (who carry this entire film) that they are able to carry this entire film. Yes, I know I wrote that twice. Young Thomas Sangster, who plays the last Caesar, also does a fair job with his performance.
But what harms this sword-in-the-stone/Camelot rendition is its low-budget look. The lead actors are fine, the story is tried and true (obviously, since it’s been retold 41 million times), but it all falls apart because we cannot take “The Last Legion” seriously.
But, alas, any eight- to 10-year-old boys would probably love it. My buddy, Luke, sure got a kick out of it.
Directed by Doug Lefler
Colin Firth / Ben Kingsley / Thomas Sangster
110 min. Action / Adventure
MPPA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence)
Copyright 2007. 184
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
X OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Mini Review by Jason Pyles / November 10, 2007
My good friend and esteemed fellow movie critic, Luke Hickman, told me he walked into the theater during this film, stayed for 15 minutes, and laughed the whole time. So why did I see it? Because the film I was planning to see wasn’t playing (for some reason), and this was my only option. Poor movie critic me, I know. Tough job.
Let’s take a moment to notice that my rating scale doesn’t go down to zero, the lowest it gets is 1. That’s because, it seems to me, that the wonder of the motion picture, no matter how detestable its images, should at least register on the scale.
“The Last Legion” isn’t hideously horrible; in fact, it clocks in at a 53, which is better than half and translates to “OK.” But the worst movie of 2007 is easily “Delta Farce,” which received an 8. Avoid that puppy at all costs.
I mention all of this to simply say that I’d watch “The Last Legion” 100 times in a row before subjecting myself, once again, to the likes of “D-War” or “Daddy Day Camp” or “Delta Farce.” My laughing friend, Luke, obviously has yet to experience the pains of those “D” movies, if he’s so amused by “The Last Legion.” Which reminds me ... in my college cafeteria once, I saw “all-purpose meat” boxes which read, “Grade D but edible.” The same cannot be said of those films.
Truly, it is a testament to the talents of Colin Firth and Ben Kingsley (who carry this entire film) that they are able to carry this entire film. Yes, I know I wrote that twice. Young Thomas Sangster, who plays the last Caesar, also does a fair job with his performance.
But what harms this sword-in-the-stone/Camelot rendition is its low-budget look. The lead actors are fine, the story is tried and true (obviously, since it’s been retold 41 million times), but it all falls apart because we cannot take “The Last Legion” seriously.
But, alas, any eight- to 10-year-old boys would probably love it. My buddy, Luke, sure got a kick out of it.
Directed by Doug Lefler
Colin Firth / Ben Kingsley / Thomas Sangster
110 min. Action / Adventure
MPPA: PG-13 (for sequences of intense action violence)
Copyright 2007. 184
Friday, November 2, 2007
Dan in Real Life (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 85
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 2, 2007
Since “Lars and the Real Girl” is the sweetest movie of the year, “Dan in Real Life” can safely be called the happiest, feel-good movie of 2007.
Remember how the end of “Little Miss Sunshine” (2006) and “Hitch” (2005) brought feelings of self-consciousness, for fear of potential Amelies in the theater looking back at us to see our gleeful, smiling faces? “Dan in Real Life” has similar good vibrations.
Dan Burns (Steve Carell) is a newspaper advice columnist, an author, a widower, father of three girls and a good man. Annually, Dan's extended family gathers at a cabin in Rhode Island. While visiting the New England town, the lonely bachelor meets Annie (Juliette Binoche), the perfect woman. But it turns out that Dan's brother, Mitch (Dane Cook), is already dating Dan's new dream girl.
“Dan in Real Life” is fun because Dan and Annie's affinity for each other is a secret. And Dan is torn between being a loyal brother and pursuing such an evident "keeper."
What makes this comedy particularly enjoyable is that we are genuinely intrigued by not knowing how this mess could ever be untangled. We have suspicions, sure, but resolution seems impossible.
The dynamics and exchanges among the family members are humorous, making “Dan in Real Life” reminiscent of “The Family Stone” (2005), which is another "bring the new gal to meet the whole fam" farce.
There's something about this film's quality and substance that places it higher than a typical, hollow, romantic comedy. It almost feels like a tame Wes Anderson project or a Sundance indie film.
“Dan in Real Life” has some pitch-perfect moments of playful revenge, genuine humor and touching sincerity. There's even a brief spell where Steve Carell gets to evoke the obnoxiousness of his “Office” persona, Michael Scott.
“Dan in Real Life” is delightful, quaint and a great option for a date movie.
Directed by Peter Hedges
Steve Carell / Dane Cook / Juliette Binoche
95 min. Comedy / Romance
MPPA: PG-13 (for some innuendo)
Copyright 2007. 205
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / November 2, 2007
Since “Lars and the Real Girl” is the sweetest movie of the year, “Dan in Real Life” can safely be called the happiest, feel-good movie of 2007.
Remember how the end of “Little Miss Sunshine” (2006) and “Hitch” (2005) brought feelings of self-consciousness, for fear of potential Amelies in the theater looking back at us to see our gleeful, smiling faces? “Dan in Real Life” has similar good vibrations.
Dan Burns (Steve Carell) is a newspaper advice columnist, an author, a widower, father of three girls and a good man. Annually, Dan's extended family gathers at a cabin in Rhode Island. While visiting the New England town, the lonely bachelor meets Annie (Juliette Binoche), the perfect woman. But it turns out that Dan's brother, Mitch (Dane Cook), is already dating Dan's new dream girl.
“Dan in Real Life” is fun because Dan and Annie's affinity for each other is a secret. And Dan is torn between being a loyal brother and pursuing such an evident "keeper."
What makes this comedy particularly enjoyable is that we are genuinely intrigued by not knowing how this mess could ever be untangled. We have suspicions, sure, but resolution seems impossible.
The dynamics and exchanges among the family members are humorous, making “Dan in Real Life” reminiscent of “The Family Stone” (2005), which is another "bring the new gal to meet the whole fam" farce.
There's something about this film's quality and substance that places it higher than a typical, hollow, romantic comedy. It almost feels like a tame Wes Anderson project or a Sundance indie film.
“Dan in Real Life” has some pitch-perfect moments of playful revenge, genuine humor and touching sincerity. There's even a brief spell where Steve Carell gets to evoke the obnoxiousness of his “Office” persona, Michael Scott.
“Dan in Real Life” is delightful, quaint and a great option for a date movie.
Directed by Peter Hedges
Steve Carell / Dane Cook / Juliette Binoche
95 min. Comedy / Romance
MPPA: PG-13 (for some innuendo)
Copyright 2007. 205
Friday, October 26, 2007
Things We Lost in the Fire (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 75
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 26, 2007
Jerry: Your dad was my best friend.
Harper: When?
Jerry: When I was your age ... and last week.
Such is the mostly pitch-perfect dialogue in “Things We Lost in the Fire,” a story about characters who try to overcome the most difficult challenges of their lives, one day at a time.
In modern-day Seattle, Brian (David Duchovny) and Audrey Burke (Halle Berry) have a blissful marriage and two kids, Harper (Alexis Llewellyn) who’s 10 and Dory (Micah Berry) who’s six. Their idyllic life together is permanently altered when Brian heroically tries to intervene during a domestic dispute and is murdered. (That was not a spoiler but common knowledge regarding the film’s premise.)
Brian’s lifelong friend and recovering heroine addict, Jerry (Benicio Del Toro), comes to the funeral and is asked to help the grieving family, which, of course, is mutually beneficial to him.
“Things We Lost in the Fire” could have been a masterpiece, perhaps a perfect 100, had it not tried so hard to “swing for the fence.” There are moments (unmistakably saccharine, bittersweet moments) when we can sense the film trying to manipulate us to tears (much like the scads of country songs whose last verse takes place in heaven). I will refrain from citing specific examples from the movie, in case you’re a sucker for such moments. Why spoil them for you, too?
But the film’s biggest problem and evidence of overextending an arty appeal to “Oscar” is the two parents’ abundant use of the “F-word.” Sure, many adults say that word – often, in fact. But “good,” intelligent parents, such as those depicted here, who have two sets of small, impressionable ears always listening, do not use such language with such fervor and frequency.
To the film’s credit, it attempts to travel unforeseen roads, surprising us by not becoming what we think it will inevitably become; but the plot’s alternate course is, at times, tiresome. Specifically, Audrey’s reaction to Jerry’s helpfulness seems improbable.
Though the movie is about love, friendship and the death of the family’s father, it is equally about Jerry’s attempt to overcome his heroine addiction. Berry’s acting is commendable, even excellent at times, but Del Toro’s nuanced performance is nothing less than Oscar-worthy. His screen presence alone is worth the price of admission.
Despite some exceptions, “Things We Lost in the Fire” shines with credibility, offering moments that feel exactly right: Reminiscent conversations around a table about the departed enable us to see that Jerry truly was Brian’s best friend. And we get to see other little details like the endearing sensitivities of a tender wife and child in response to an animal activist group’s commercial. These are inclusions of careful filmmakers.
But the movie’s most novel filmmaking technique is the subjective soundtrack that we hear while Jerry is listening to his blaring headphones. We hear them as he does – loudly. Then, when he removes them from his ears, his tunes reduce to small background noise, playing faintly from their source. There are also lots of close-ups of sad eyes, which are probably relevant in this narrative, albeit overdone.
At one point, the widowed Audrey asks another woman who also lost her true love, “Does it get better?” The answer: “It gets different,” which is also an accurate description of this film.
Directed by Susanne Bier
Halle Berry / Benicio Del Toro / David Duchovny
119 min. Drama
MPPA: R (for drug content and language)
Copyright 2007. 204
O Masterpiece (100)
X Excellent (75-99)
O Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 26, 2007
Jerry: Your dad was my best friend.
Harper: When?
Jerry: When I was your age ... and last week.
Such is the mostly pitch-perfect dialogue in “Things We Lost in the Fire,” a story about characters who try to overcome the most difficult challenges of their lives, one day at a time.
In modern-day Seattle, Brian (David Duchovny) and Audrey Burke (Halle Berry) have a blissful marriage and two kids, Harper (Alexis Llewellyn) who’s 10 and Dory (Micah Berry) who’s six. Their idyllic life together is permanently altered when Brian heroically tries to intervene during a domestic dispute and is murdered. (That was not a spoiler but common knowledge regarding the film’s premise.)
Brian’s lifelong friend and recovering heroine addict, Jerry (Benicio Del Toro), comes to the funeral and is asked to help the grieving family, which, of course, is mutually beneficial to him.
“Things We Lost in the Fire” could have been a masterpiece, perhaps a perfect 100, had it not tried so hard to “swing for the fence.” There are moments (unmistakably saccharine, bittersweet moments) when we can sense the film trying to manipulate us to tears (much like the scads of country songs whose last verse takes place in heaven). I will refrain from citing specific examples from the movie, in case you’re a sucker for such moments. Why spoil them for you, too?
But the film’s biggest problem and evidence of overextending an arty appeal to “Oscar” is the two parents’ abundant use of the “F-word.” Sure, many adults say that word – often, in fact. But “good,” intelligent parents, such as those depicted here, who have two sets of small, impressionable ears always listening, do not use such language with such fervor and frequency.
To the film’s credit, it attempts to travel unforeseen roads, surprising us by not becoming what we think it will inevitably become; but the plot’s alternate course is, at times, tiresome. Specifically, Audrey’s reaction to Jerry’s helpfulness seems improbable.
Though the movie is about love, friendship and the death of the family’s father, it is equally about Jerry’s attempt to overcome his heroine addiction. Berry’s acting is commendable, even excellent at times, but Del Toro’s nuanced performance is nothing less than Oscar-worthy. His screen presence alone is worth the price of admission.
Despite some exceptions, “Things We Lost in the Fire” shines with credibility, offering moments that feel exactly right: Reminiscent conversations around a table about the departed enable us to see that Jerry truly was Brian’s best friend. And we get to see other little details like the endearing sensitivities of a tender wife and child in response to an animal activist group’s commercial. These are inclusions of careful filmmakers.
But the movie’s most novel filmmaking technique is the subjective soundtrack that we hear while Jerry is listening to his blaring headphones. We hear them as he does – loudly. Then, when he removes them from his ears, his tunes reduce to small background noise, playing faintly from their source. There are also lots of close-ups of sad eyes, which are probably relevant in this narrative, albeit overdone.
At one point, the widowed Audrey asks another woman who also lost her true love, “Does it get better?” The answer: “It gets different,” which is also an accurate description of this film.
Directed by Susanne Bier
Halle Berry / Benicio Del Toro / David Duchovny
119 min. Drama
MPPA: R (for drug content and language)
Copyright 2007. 204
Rendition (2007)
Overall rating from 1 to 100: 73
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 26, 2007
By now most of the escapist-entertainment fare of summer has gone with the leaves, and with the chill of autumn comes an even chillier cinema. Heavy, emotional and brooding, the Oscar gunners this year are pointed, political, and sociological dramas, such as “In the Valley of Elah,” “The Kingdom” and “Gone Baby Gone.”
“Rendition” boldly stands among these, posing rhetorical questions for our consideration, the foremost of which is “To what extremes are we justified going to in order to protect ourselves from terrorist extremists?” Or, in other words, does the means of torture justify the end ... and by the way, what is that end?
As you can see, much like “Gone Baby Gone,” “Rendition” isn’t really a movie you’d watch to be entertained. It is unpleasant and uncomfortable. It will likely anger you, while simultaneously making you feel paranoid and fearful. Art is often created in hopes of agitating its partakers toward action. And sometimes, its implications simply evoke despair.
Anwar El-Ilbrahimi (Omar Metwally) lives in Chicago with his very pregnant wife, Isabella (Reese Witherspoon), and their little son, Jeremy (Aramis Knight). Anwar travels to Cape Town, South Africa to give a presentation at a conference for his fellow chemical engineers.
But on his way back to the states, Anwar is intercepted and abducted by the CIA, because he is under suspicion of having terrorist ties with an Egyptian national whose terrorist group is claiming responsibility for increasingly potent bombing attacks in North Africa.
The CIA seems convinced that Anwar is affiliated with the terrorist group. Isabella, his wife, is convinced of his absolute innocence. Both sides have compelling evidence, insomuch that we are unsure ourselves, which is worrisome. But in the meantime, brutal methods of interrogation are used at a foreign prison in an attempt to ascertain the truth. (Though unpleasant, watching these scenes is not like watching the “Saw” movies, thankfully.)
Whether Anwar truly is a terrorist, is innocent or even survives the abusive imprisonment, I dare not reveal. The bulk of “Rendition” is designed to be ambiguous, that we, the viewer, may become engaged in mulling over the issues, while identifying with the various characters’ points of view.
And while we automatically empathize with this apparent family man who’s being tortured, the filmmakers successfully instill within us the alarming nature of the terrorist extremists, which is conducive to feelings of desperate urgency toward finding an effective solution for investigating such suspects. This film also demonstrates various pitfalls (such as politicians’ fears of public perception) that lull a nation into turning its head and fooling itself about the necessity of resorting to unthinkable measures for extracting information.
Though it may seem like I have been overly generous in my elaborations, “Rendition” is much richer than this discussion represents. Truly, it is a film whose viewing will yield a personal, emotional experience, much like “A Mighty Heart.” The more films I see like these, the louder the final moments of “In the Valley of Elah” ring true to me. I guess that’s why it’s just easier to look the other way and watch popcorn movies like “Transformers.”
Directed by Gavin Hood
Meryl Streep / Reese Witherspoon / Jake Gyllenhaal
120 min. Drama / Crime
MPPA: R (for torture/violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 203
O Masterpiece (100)
O Excellent (75-99)
X Rental (60-74)
O OK (50-59)
O Mediocrity (30-49)
O Avoid (1-29)
Review by Jason Pyles / October 26, 2007
By now most of the escapist-entertainment fare of summer has gone with the leaves, and with the chill of autumn comes an even chillier cinema. Heavy, emotional and brooding, the Oscar gunners this year are pointed, political, and sociological dramas, such as “In the Valley of Elah,” “The Kingdom” and “Gone Baby Gone.”
“Rendition” boldly stands among these, posing rhetorical questions for our consideration, the foremost of which is “To what extremes are we justified going to in order to protect ourselves from terrorist extremists?” Or, in other words, does the means of torture justify the end ... and by the way, what is that end?
As you can see, much like “Gone Baby Gone,” “Rendition” isn’t really a movie you’d watch to be entertained. It is unpleasant and uncomfortable. It will likely anger you, while simultaneously making you feel paranoid and fearful. Art is often created in hopes of agitating its partakers toward action. And sometimes, its implications simply evoke despair.
Anwar El-Ilbrahimi (Omar Metwally) lives in Chicago with his very pregnant wife, Isabella (Reese Witherspoon), and their little son, Jeremy (Aramis Knight). Anwar travels to Cape Town, South Africa to give a presentation at a conference for his fellow chemical engineers.
But on his way back to the states, Anwar is intercepted and abducted by the CIA, because he is under suspicion of having terrorist ties with an Egyptian national whose terrorist group is claiming responsibility for increasingly potent bombing attacks in North Africa.
The CIA seems convinced that Anwar is affiliated with the terrorist group. Isabella, his wife, is convinced of his absolute innocence. Both sides have compelling evidence, insomuch that we are unsure ourselves, which is worrisome. But in the meantime, brutal methods of interrogation are used at a foreign prison in an attempt to ascertain the truth. (Though unpleasant, watching these scenes is not like watching the “Saw” movies, thankfully.)
Whether Anwar truly is a terrorist, is innocent or even survives the abusive imprisonment, I dare not reveal. The bulk of “Rendition” is designed to be ambiguous, that we, the viewer, may become engaged in mulling over the issues, while identifying with the various characters’ points of view.
And while we automatically empathize with this apparent family man who’s being tortured, the filmmakers successfully instill within us the alarming nature of the terrorist extremists, which is conducive to feelings of desperate urgency toward finding an effective solution for investigating such suspects. This film also demonstrates various pitfalls (such as politicians’ fears of public perception) that lull a nation into turning its head and fooling itself about the necessity of resorting to unthinkable measures for extracting information.
Though it may seem like I have been overly generous in my elaborations, “Rendition” is much richer than this discussion represents. Truly, it is a film whose viewing will yield a personal, emotional experience, much like “A Mighty Heart.” The more films I see like these, the louder the final moments of “In the Valley of Elah” ring true to me. I guess that’s why it’s just easier to look the other way and watch popcorn movies like “Transformers.”
Directed by Gavin Hood
Meryl Streep / Reese Witherspoon / Jake Gyllenhaal
120 min. Drama / Crime
MPPA: R (for torture/violence and language)
Copyright 2007. 203
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
