Background: Yet another installment in this season's "post-9/11 America/War in Iraq/War on Terror" series, Gavin Hood's Rendition stars Jake Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko, Brokeback Mountain), Reese Witherspoon (Walk the Line), Peter Sarsgaard (Kinsey), Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine), and Meryl Streep (The Devil Wears Prada). Hood, a South African who deservedly won an Oscar for writing and directing Best Foreign Feature Tsotsi in 2006, is currently working on the next X-Men sequel. Quite a Hollywoodized career arc if you ask me. Rendition was partially filmed in Morocco and Cape Town, the latter only because Hood probably wanted to stay home for as much of the production as possible, since there was no other reason for the opening scene in Rendition to be filmed there, let alone even set there.
Synopsis: Douglas Freeman (Gyllenhaal) is a rookie CIA analyst in "North Africa" who drinks too much and cares too little. When he has a near-miss with a suicide bombing, he is assigned to observe the interrogation of suspect Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally from Munich), an Egyptian-born American immigrant who is husband to "Izzie" (Witherspoon) and dad to Jeremy ("Jeremy El-Ibrahimi"?). El-Ibrahimi was detained upon arrival at Dulles Airport and, under orders of "extraordinary rendition" from CIA higher-up Corinne Whitman, (Streep) shipped off to a secret detention facility/torture dungeon in "North Africa." The local authorities are in charge of the interrogation, allowing Freeman only to look bored/uncomfortable during the torture sessions (and throughout the movie). In the meantime, super-pregnant Izzie desperately runs around D.C. trying to find information on what happened to her husband. Conveniently, her ex-boyfriend Alan (Sarsgaard) is a staffer for a U.S. Senator (Arkin), and eventually Izzie gets the opportunity to confront the ice-cold Whitman and scream at her for a couple of minutes. Back in "North Africa," Freeman is trying to expedite the interrogation, and his local counterpart is busy dealing with his teenage daughter Fatima, who is dating Khalid, an impressionable young "North African" who has extremist tendencies and is the doppelganger of actor James Franco. The plot speeds up here as all of the characters become desperate to finish the movie, and an odd time warp brings us back to the beginning, where we see the suicide bombing all over again. Some new details emerge and we're left with a predictable made-for-bad-TV ending.
I Loved:
+ Nothing.
I Liked:
+ Peter Sarsgaard's short screen time - his scene with Streep, second scene with Arkin, and second scene with Witherspoon.
I Disliked:
- That the identity of the country was deliberately ambiguous, and poorly hidden at that. We learn it's Tunis, Tunisia from Douglas Freeman's Interpol search.
- The gratuitous shots of Washington D.C. in the background of every scene. Izzie has the master hotel suite with the perfect view of the capitol? Doubt it.
- That it looked like it was filmed on a really bad set - dark, wet alleys; cliched torture dungeon; quaint city square in "North Africa," etc.
- The silly subplot about the "North African" interrogator's daughter Fatima - a total waste of time.
- The silly subplot about Douglas Freeman's lover/girlfriend - what was the point of that?
I Hated:
- The time warp - another unnecessary Hollywood gimmick that had no place here.
- The neatly wrapped, very predictable ending.
- Fatima's discovery of Khalid's delicately crafted and totally bizarre scrapbook.
- The stereotypical Islam = terrorism theme, capped off with the exaggerated locker-room speech about killing Americans. Anyone with a middle school (which I taught) knowledge of Islam should bristle at how it's misconstrued here, but we're so used to it we don't even notice anymore.
Grade:
Writing - 5
Acting - 7
Production - 6
Emotional Impact - 6
Music - 5
Significance - 5
Total: 34/50= 68% = D
Last Word: Boy, this got worse really quickly after I started thinking about it. Between painful cliches, a convoluted story and bad acting, I really can't understand how Rendition was so well received, aside from the fact that it's the first movie to deal with extraordinary rendition. But the subplots and unnecessary characters really get in the way of what could have been an extremely significant, moving film. I'm not sure what Gavin Hood's motivations are, but this kind of mainstream/fast-food filmmaking is not his strength. Stick with a character-driven story like Tsotsi, which had important lessons and a simple plot, without all of the stereotypical characters and bizarre scenes. Maybe it was the writer's fault, whose only writing credit prior to Rendition was a comedy musical about drag queens. I'm sure there's a lesson to be learned somewhere in that fact, but a general rule we seem to be learning is to not make films about extremely complex global issues as they are happening. Like Matt said after we left this, the best movies about Vietnam, for example, came out several years after everything was over. You need perspective to understand how to make meaningful films about these subjects, but Hollywood is just rushing to make sensational fluff like Rendition and The Kingdom. Since the trend will presumably continue, here's hoping for at least a more thoughtful movie in the near future.
Background: You'd be forgiven in thinking We Own the Night is a sequel to The Yards, what with the same look, feel, leading actors, writer and director. Somehow, it's not, mostly because the police play a larger role in this one. Written and directed by James Gray (The Yards...and that's about it) and starring Mark Wahlberg (The Departed, Shooter) and Joaquin Phoenix (Walk the Line), We Own the Night was filmed on location in Coney Island. No word on the inspiration for the story, but it's your basic brothers-on-two-sides-of-the-law plot, with a couple of twists.
Synopsis: Brighton Beach/Coney Island, 1988. Bobby Green (Phoenix) is a free-wheeling nightclub manager who is quickly getting involved in the growing Russian drug trade. Bobby's brother Joe Grusinsky (Wahlberg) is a celebrated young NYPD narcotics task force lieutenant, and their father Burt Grusinsky (Duvall) is the NYPD deputy chief. Joe and Burt try to persuade Bobby to act as in informant, but Bobby is just starting to earn respect from the Russians and besides, he's having too much fun with his girlfriend Amada (Mendes). Lucky for Bobby, the Russians are unaware of his police relations (because Bobby uses his mother's last name...?), but when Joe makes a bust at the nightclub and the Russians decide to wage war against the police, Bobby finds himself caught in the middle and wanted to fight for both sides. He chooses his family, of course, and even goes so far as to enlist in the NYPD. By this time, though, it's too late - the Russians are wise to the situation and all that's left is to see who can kill whom first.
I Loved:
+ The ultra-real car chase in the rain.
I Liked:
+ Eva Mendes showing some real acting chops - I was impressed.
+ The 80's soundtrack that helped set the mood.
+ Joaquin Phoenix's performance - solid again, and able to elicit both sympathy and disgust from me at different times.
I Disliked:
- That I felt like I was watching Mark Wahlberg in The Departed - his character could have been given some more unique traits.
- The anticlimactic, almost cliched shootout ending - it was kind of how movies used to end before Hollywood went all mind-trippy in the mid-90's. This was kind of refreshing, but still a letdown.
I Hated:
- Nothing, really, besides some graphic violence.
Grade:
Writing - 8
Acting - 9
Production - 8
Emotional Impact - 8
Music - 4
Significance - 2
Total: 39/50= 78% = C+
Last Word: This is a classic shoulder-shrugger. It's entertaining and you maybe gain some insight into the war on drugs in the 80's, but it doesn't really take you anywhere. Looking at my grade, it was pretty well made, but it's just not an important movie. Joaquin Phoenix is at his best in roles like this where he can express a full range of emotions, compared with his stilted performance in Gladiator. You'll probably enjoy We Own the Night if you like police movies, drug movies, or bad television crime series. The acting is solid with the exception of the Russians, and the film color makes for an appropriate mood, but the story is unoriginal. Apparently it received a standing ovation at Cannes, which baffles me. Maybe the French have never seen an American cop movie, or maybe people were just glad to see a straight good guy vs. bad guy movie. One last thing - anyone understand what the title means?
Background: Tony Gilroy, screenwriter for the Bourne trilogy and a sampling of other random 90's movies, shopped his draft of Michael Clayton around Hollywood for several years. Because he insisted on directing it himself, which he has no experience doing, no one would bite. Finally, it was picked up by Castle Rock and Warner Bros., probably because of the success of the Bourne movies. Nevermind that they are completely different genres. George Clooney stars as the title character, supported by Tom Wilkinson (In the Bedroom), Tilda Swinton (The Beach, The Deep End), and acclaimed director, producer, and occasional actor Sydney Pollack.
Synopsis: We are introduced in the opening credits to Arthur Evans (Wilkinson), senior counsel for the law firm representing U North, a major agricultural corporation accused of using toxic pesticides. Evans, a manic depressive, delivers a Jerry Maguire-esque speech about an epiphany he has had in learning the truth, and we see a bunch of lawyers in crisis mode as the story is about to break. At the same time, the firm's "fixer" Michael Clayton (Clooney) is playing underground poker and U North spokeswoman Karen Crowder (Swinton) is practicing sound bites for an interview. We're then inexplicably taken back a few days in time to learn more about each character. Clayton's work is thankless and he is worn down from dealing with the firm's problems. He has family issues and a failed restaurant business. He genuinely cares about his colleague Evans, but he is concerned about what the fallout will be from Evans' mental breakdown. Eventually the story picks up as U North decides to take some predictably extreme measures to keep the story under wraps, and Clayton decides to do the "right thing" for once.
I Loved:
+ Nothing.
I Liked:
+ The kitchen scene where Michael Clayton deals with the spastic executive who has just committed a hit-and-run.
I Disliked:
- The hired hoodlums - clichéd unmarked van, clichéd black skullcaps, clichéd nondescript face, etc.
- The weak dialogue - specifically Michael Clayton's desperate voice message for Arthur, and Michael Clayton's awkward speech to his son in the car.
- The unnecessary lesson on the woes of trying to own a restaurant in New York City.
I Hated:
- The painfully predictable, obnoxiously obvious ending - not the cheap ending they show at the beginning for no reason whatsoever, but the pathetic real ending outside the ballroom.
- The disgusting speech we have to hear from Arthur Evans not once, but twice - it just sounded gross to me, and it was probably a lot better in Tony Gilroy's mind that it came to be on film.
Grade:
Writing - 6
Acting - 9
Production - 9
Emotional Impact - 6
Music - 5
Significance - 3
Total: 38/50= 76% = C
Last Word: I guess I just expected more from Michael Clayton. I thought there would be more suspense and characters I would actually care about. Maybe even an interesting take home message. Instead I see the end of the movie in the first five minutes and I find myself annoyed with almost everyone on the screen, plus all can I think is that I saw the same plot in A Civil Action. The whole thing was like a bad episode of "Law & Order," which I have actually never seen but imagine is like this. By the way, does any actor wear a white shirt and black jacket for as many characters as George Clooney? "No, I've got wardrobe, thanks, just give me some witty lines so I can look smarter than all of the other characters." OK, so I wasn't as annoyed with Clooney as I thought I would be - he does fine. The real problems with Michael Clayton are in the story. They're minor details, but they add up to a mess. For example, stop with the time shifting trend in Hollywood. It would have been a lot more shocking to have zero knowledge of the car bomb until it goes off at the end when he's petting the horses. Just BOOM! Out of nowhere. Instead, we're waiting for it the whole time. No reason to show that at the beginning, or the overdrawn GPS confusion with the bad guys. And why did he have to throw his wallet and watch into the car? Also, get the son and the restaurant business out of the story entirely (and dramatically reduce the teenage girl's role), and don't use a really tired plot (evil corporation conceals dangerous product) and even more cliched ending. I think Tony Gilroy should avoid writing legal thrillers and stick with action, where at least there's an excuse for bad writing.
Background: I didn't see the last movie made about Jesse James, American Outlaws (starring Colin Farrell as James), but I think it's safe to say that the legend of James has faded quite significantly from American pop culture. My limited knowledge of his life is how I'm measuring it, though, so that might not count for much. In any case, James is back on the scene in a big way thanks to Brad Pitt's Plan B Entertainment, which adapted the acclaimed 1983 novel that shares its ridiculously long name. The film, which was set to be released well over a year ago but delayed due to editing issues, stars Pitt as Jesse James, Casey Affleck (Ben's younger brother) as Robert Ford, and a host of supporting actors as the rest of the James gang, notably Sam Rockwell (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind). It was directed by inexperienced kiwi Andrew Dominik and filmed primarily in Alberta, Canada. Oh, and Nick Cave has a cameo as the saloon singer at the end. Weird. Synopsis: We meet the James gang in 1881, on the eve of their final train robbery in Blue Cut, MO. Having lost most of their original crew to the elements (prison, death), Jesse (Pitt) and Frank (Sam Shepard) James hire a ragtag group of outlaws for the job, including Charley Ford (Rockwell) and his younger brother Robert (Affleck), who grew up idolizing Jesse. Robert's creepy affection earns him acceptance and friendship from Jesse, but eventually Robert gets in the way of Jesse's return to normalcy and is sent home. Months go by and the disbanded gang goes through periods of jealousy, mistrust, betrayal, and even murder. Jesse, who is increasingly paranoid that there is a plot to turn him in for reward money, reconnects with the Ford brothers essentially to keep an eye on them. In the meantime, Robert has arranged a deal with the Governor of Missouri (James Carville!) to kill Jesse, a sensible decision since Jesse appears ready to take out both Ford brothers at any time. As evident by the title, Robert succeeds, but eventually regrets his action after he is subject to initial waves of admiration, then humiliation, and finally outright hate.
I Loved:
+ Casey Affleck's tour-de-force performance, amplified by the expectations I had beforehand - most of his screen credits recently have been in the American Pie and Ocean's trilogies.
+ The cinematography - sweeping vista views, great framing and use of blurred-edge focus, freeze-frame, slow motion, color, etc.
I Liked:
+ The narration - it was the quickest way to give us important background information about the characters.
+ The ensemble supporting cast, each excellent in their part.
I Disliked:
- That the movie felt as long as it was - if you weren't expecting it you might become restless. Basically, it dragged a bit.
- The occasional chimey, winsome xylophones in the background - these felt out of place.
I Hated:
- When Brad Pitt totally came out of character with his trademark obnoxious laugh.
- The usual gunshots to the head.
Grade:
Writing - 10
Acting - 10
Production - 9
Emotional Impact - 10
Music - 5
Significance - 3
Total: 47/50= 94% = A
Last Word: Like I said, I didn't know much about Jesse James before seeing this, other than that he was a celebrated outlaw and lives on as the only reason to visit Northfield, MN, where is he curiously revered. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford strikes an excellent balance in making the viewer feel sympathy for and conviction of the title characters. Casey Affleck just went nuts with this role. Apparently Shia LaBeouf was lined up to play Robert Ford but was considered too young. LaBeouf is a legitimate rising star, but this is Affleck's breakout role as a potential leading man, although I didn't see his well-received turn in Lonesome Jim. Pitt goes through the motions of his usual character: cocky, smirky, reserved, weepy, lonely, unpredictably crazy, etc. He plays James as a mixture of his roles in Syriana, Ocean's..., and Fight Club, but somehow it works. He did well casting himself, though somebody like Christian Bale probably could have added more depth to Jesse. The Assassination is not a traditional Western, but if that's your thing you'll probably enjoy it. However it ends up being categorized, it's an intriguing and well told story, even though it runs almost as long as its title.
Each month (starting this month), I'm going to select one movie from the backlogs that I don't feel ever received its due credit, and I'm going to call it the Underrated Movie of the Month (MOTM). Feel free to comment if you've seen them and have anything to share; these won't necessarily be classics or even considered good by most people, but I remember them fondly. Also, I probably won't have actually seen the movies since they were in theaters, so I'm mostly going on memory and a little research to remember why I thought they were so good.
The first Underrated MOTM is Der Krieger und die Kaiserin (known as The Princess and the Warrior in the U.S.), starring Franka Potente and Benno Fuermann, and directed by Tom Tykwer. It came out in the summer of 2001 and was quickly forgotten, mostly because people expected it to be another Lola Rennt (Run Lola Run), which came out in 1998 and made stars of both Potente and Tykwer (who were actually dating for years until they broke up in 2002 - I always find it strange how these film industry relationships work). When it was realized that Princess was in fact not Run Lola Run 2, it was immediately dismissed as plodding, slow, dragging, too long, boring, etc.
Do you remember Run Lola Run? It's like a Nike commercial/music video on crack set to a Prodigy song on repeat. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved it - but how do you follow that up? Tykwer made an excellent film in Princess, but it was "laborious" and "languorous" just because you didn't have a seizure while watching it. I just read one critic's piece about Princess on RT - "Crawl, Lola, Crawl." Really? Guess what, it wasn't meant to be a sequel!
OK, so you understand why The Princess and the Warrior wasn't better received. Well it's too bad, because I think it's an intense, suspenseful, gripping movie. VERY briefly: Sissi (Potente) plays a psychiatric ward nurse who gets mixed up in the life of Bodo (Fuermann), a distraught, aimless widower and would-be bank robber. Tywker heavily uses fate and coincidence to bring the two together in very dramatic ways, yet you never really see what's coming. If you're willing, you might even explore the deeper themes of loss, regret, love and hope. But if you really want to go there, you might as well watch Driving Miss Daisy. See The Princess and the Warrior for a taut, surreal story with interesting characters. If you have the attention span of an 8th grader, you should be just fine. Otherwise crack a Red Bull or eight and watch Run Lola Run again.
Tykwer has of course continued writing and directing since Princess, most recently with last year's Perfume: The Story of a Murderer. I haven't seen anything since Princess, but I am looking forward to his next film, The International, due out next year and starring Clive Owen as an Interpol agent.
By the way, bet you didn't know Tykwer is pronounced "tick-ver."
Somebody asked me the other day why I've given positive reviews to almost every movie so far on Getafilm. I had to think about it. Do I normally think so many movies are good? No way. Were the summer movies so disappointing that everything seems so much better now? Well, yes, but that doesn't seem like an explanation.
I answered, "I guess I just don't go to bad movies." Is that true? Have I become so perfectly selective that I don't see anything bad? That can't be. First of all, it's all relative, and maybe some people have hated what I've loved. Secondly, I've seen some really bad movies this year, none worse than The Invasion. Lastly, just because I've given mostly A's and B's doesn't mean that all of those movies are amazing - they're just above average and good, but not necessarily excellent (A+) or even Oscar-worthy. So far, only Into the Wild and The King of Kong have received "Best of 2007" labels, joining Once and The Namesake (I'm not going to post reviews of movies I saw prior to when I started this in September).
To summarize: I typically avoid bad movies, so I'm not going to be handing out a lot of D's and F's unless I totally get burned by something. And, a B isn't necessarily a glowing grade - look for the A's and A+'s.
Of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't see bad movies. Please, if anyone can post reviews of License to Wed or Mr. Woodcock, go right ahead - no excuses necessary. I think they would be funny.
Background: Initially set for release in September of 2006, Across the Universe has been for the last year in the middle of a fierce battle between director Julie Taymor (Frida and the Broadway adaptation of “The Lion King”) and Revolution Studios executive Joe Roth. In some instances, directors have virtually no control of their film after it’s delivered to the studio, whose producers often make edits as they run the film through test screenings. Sometimes, the released version of the film is so much different than the “director’s cut” that the director asks their name to be removed from the film. (Tony Kaye apparently sued New Line Cinema for $275 million after they would not allow him to take his name off of American History X.) In the case of Across the Universe, the released cut is apparently closer to Taymor’s original, and the controversy has apparently faded, but not been forgotten. One other note about the film (which stars an incredible number of people who look familiar to you but you can't remember from what)
is that almost all of the singing was recorded live and not post-dubbed, which is amazing to think about it as you're watching the scenes.
Synopsis: Jude is a dock worker from Liverpool; Max(well) and Lucy are teen siblings from Jersey; Prudence is a loner from Dayton, Ohio; JoJo is a guitar player from Detroit; and Sadie is a singer from the East Village. Their lives intersect throughout the 1960's as family, college, love, war and hippiedom shape their future. From the first frame to the last, the songs of the Beatles are sung by the characters, sometimes together, sometimes alone, and always in earnest. While Max is at war, the rest of the group struggle through relationships, drugs, fame, a political revolution, and surreal, trippy mindscapes. It's hard to say how many years pass from the beginning to the end, and even though the characters do not age at all, by the end everyone is somehow older, wiser, and in love with each other again.
I Loved:
+ Jim Sturgess channeling Ewan McGregor.
+ The art direction - it may be have been too much or too little at times, but the quality was altogether excellent. Excellent.
+ "Let It Be"; "Come Together"; "Dear Prudence"; "A Day in the Life"; "I Want You"; "Hey Jude"
I Liked:
+ "All You Need is Love"; "Girl"; "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"; "Happiness Is a Warm Gun"; "With a Little Help From My Friends"
+ The last minute, when Jude and Lucy make eye contact - one of the most believable love connections I think I've ever seen on screen.
+ The cameo by Bono, primarily because I would never otherwise get to hear him sing "I Am the Walrus" unless we were hanging out in a karaoke bar somewhere, and that's probably not going to happen.
I Disliked:
- "Strawberry Fields"; "Revolution"
- The cheap look of some of the special effects (i.e., helicopters in Vietnam).
- That the Beatles song lyrics were significantly better written than most of the dialogue in between.
I Hated:
- Not knowing what Julie Taymor really wanted to show and what we actually see - this might be worth a director's cut viewing.
Grade:
Writing - 8
Acting - 8
Production - 10
Emotional Impact - 10
Music - 5!
Significance - 3
Total: 44/50= 88% = B+
Last Word: I told my friend Matt when we walked out that I don't remember a movie I've gone so back and forth with in my mind. At its best, Across the Universe is like an incredible dream with an amazing soundtrack. At its worst, it's irritating and over-the-top. Think scenes from Rent, Moulin Rouge!, and Forrest Gump all jumbled into a movie. As much as I really liked the effort, the writing and acting could have, at times, been better. Still, I find myself wanting to see it again soon, which is unusual. If you don't know many Beatles songs, or are one who thinks their influence is overrated, you probably won't enjoy it. If you are a Beatles fan (and are open-minded about song reinterpretations), this will probably be one of your favorite movies of all time. I don't even know if it's a movie. It's an extended music video and a musical and an interpretive dance of some of the most popular songs of all time. Not having grown up with any exposure to the Beatles, I was really surprised at the number of songs I knew, plus I could think of a number that were missing (sorely, I might add - Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby, In My Life, We Can Work It Out, Lady Madonna, Live and Let Die, Can't Buy Me Love, I'm Looking Through You, Here Comes The Sun, Ob La Di, Ob La Da, and on, and on, and on!). I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I liked Across the Universe. I think that's because the good parts were really, really good. And I admire Julie Taymor's ambition with it. At the very least she's extended the Beatles legacy for another generation, and made some new movie stars while doing it.
