Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight) is a genius. His name ought to be mentioned alongside some of the better filmmakers of this generation. Inception, his latest offering, only strengthens his already impressive resume. Undoubtedly you've seen the mysterious trailer with the foreboding score and amazing special effects. When I walked out of the theater I had a slight headache and a big smile. Nolan's intricate script tested the limits of my cognitive abilities, but it was a great ride.
To all of my cynics out there: don't be fooled by early superficial similarities to Shutter Island. Yes, it's Leonardo DiCaprio having some psychological problems and being tormented by a past love. Inception is much deeper than that. The movie explores a world where corporate espionage meets Sigmund Freud. Ok that was a cheesy comparison, but the movie delves into the psychological ramifications of tampering with dreams. Dreams are where we find ourselves vulnerable and powerless to our subconscious. We are defenseless while dreaming, yet very susceptible to the power of suggestion. DiCaprio stars as Cobb, ringleader of a team of dream invaders commissioned by a wealthy Japanese businessman named Saito. Cobb and company are adept at extracting secrets from people's dreams. They do this by attaching themselves to a device while sleeping. Saito is impressed with their skills but wants to take it a step further. Rather than extract information; he wants to implant it. This is called inception. A business competitor is on his deathbed, and the man's son stands to inherit his empire. Saito wants the heir apparent to dissolve his father's company after acquiring it. As compensation, he will call in a favor that will allow Cobb to return home to America. He has been exiled after his wife's suicide, which the authorities believe to have been a murder committed at Cobb's hands. Implanting a suggestion is more difficult. Subtlety is key, as the person must believe that the idea is entirely their own. Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins) portrays Fischer, heir to the "throne" of Saito's rival. He and Dad have a tumultuous relationship, and it will be difficult for Cobb to use the power of suggestion. It should be mentioned that when a dream is invaded, the sleeping host's subconscious seeks to protect it by dispatching people kill to the intruder. Of course this is all a dream, so if you die in the dream, you simply wake up. No harm, no foul right? Not exactly. Cobb will have to pull out all the stops if the inception is going to be successful. He will have to use a dream within a dream. Within a dream. Did you catch that? That's right, come even further down the rabbit hole with me; let's stretch our imagination to the farthest recesses of our mind. This is why I left the theater with pulsating temples. I'll run that back for you. Have you ever dreamt that you were dreaming? That's a dream within a dream. Now imagine that you are dreaming that you are dreaming that you are dreaming. That's 3 levels: a dream within a dream, within another dream. Whew!
I really don't want to say another word about the movie for fear of completely spoiling it. The casting choices were just as perfect as the script. DiCaprio hasn't had a misstep since...well, never. Suffice to say that we expect excellence from him, especially when he continues to pair with the most brilliant directors who give him the richest material. I also enjoyed J. Gordon-Levitt's (500 Days of Summer) performance, as his character was the more cautious voice of reason in contrast to Cobb's reckless impulsivity. Remember, Cobb has more to gain from Fischer's inception than anyone else. Rounding out the cast is Ellen Page (Whip It), as "the architect." She is tasked with designing the landscape of the dreamer's world. She's been a delight in every movie I've seen her in, and this was no exception. As Cobb's conscience she tries to protect the rest of the team and help him forgive himself about his dead wife, who invades every dream as a symbol of his subconscious.
Every now and then a can't-miss movie arrives that is so provocative and intriguing that it bears not only repeat viewing, but intense discussion as well. Inception was such a movie, stunning in its visual execution, layered in its complexity, and superbly acted by the players. Have I gushed enough? Inception was Incredible.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Law Abiding Citizen
Revenge is a dish best served cold, but I don’t think Gerard Butler (Gamer, The Ugly Truth) got the memo. You see, he likes to serve it up boiling hot. In Law Abiding Citizen he portrays Clyde Shelton, a man who is victimized twice. First by the brutes who savagely murder his family right before his eyes, and then again by a misguided justice system, represented by an ambivalent district attorney. Jamie Foxx (The Kingdom, The Soloist) plays district attorney Nick Rice, a prosecutor more concerned with his winning percentage than attaining real justice for Shelton.
Shelton watched helplessly as his family fell victim to a gruesome home invasion, and was nearly killed himself. He’s pleased when the district attorney tells him that one of the perpetrators will get the death penalty, but that relief is short-lived. The other perpetrator who delivered the actual death blows will only serve a few years in prison because he cut a deal. Rice informs Shelton that this is better than going to trial, where acquittal is always a possibility. He actually made the deal without even consulting Shelton beforehand. Feeling ignored and helpless, the wheels are set in motion for Shelton to avenge his family’s murder and his own shabby treatment. He bides his time and then brings the pain in a way that is both horrific and creative. Think Joker in The Dark Knight mixed with Jigsaw from the Saw movies. I’ve told you all that and still haven’t told you anything you didn’t gather from the trailer, so don’t worry. The suspense lies not in what Shelton does, but in how he does it. He allows himself to be apprehended and imprisoned, but still manages to wreak havoc on those with the most tangential connection to the atrocity carried out on his family.
Jamie Foxx is serviceable in this role, but I can’t say he was impressive. I don’t think the role required much, and he did show flashes of charisma, but Butler was a more compelling figure. I also don’t view this movie as a Jamie Foxx vehicle, rather it seems more like this was just a movie that he was in, if that makes any sense. He received top billing and has the hardware to back it up, so I want to be riveted by him, and that was not the case. Nevertheless, Law Abiding Citizen is a movie most will enjoy. It taps into the frustration we have with an ineffective criminal justice system and the vigilante that lies within all of us. Make no mistake though, Shelton is no hero. We all can understand avenging the death of a child, and Foxx’s character even commends him privately for his actions, at first. Things go awry when Shelton begins to target those less directly associated with his family’s murder and begins to kill innocent people to bring down the larger bureaucracy. This made for an intriguing anti-hero dynamic, as it’s unclear for whom the viewer should cheer. Shelton avenges his family’s death, but is still committing cold-blooded murder so you can only root for him up to a point. Rice is supposed to be the “good guy” lawman, but he clearly dropped the ball with Shelton’s case, so you can’t exactly cheer for him either. Director F. Gary Gray (The Negotiator, Set it Off) makes a nice return to the silver screen and is an underrated filmmaker. He has proven adept at sustaining suspense throughout a movie without overdoing the cheap tricks like Michael Bay. A well-placed explosion is great, but the primary focus should be on the story, and Gray steadily advanced the plot. All in all, Law Abiding Citizen is worth the $10, and I give it my stamp of approval.
This article first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/10/law-abiding-citizen/ and was reprinted with permission.
Shelton watched helplessly as his family fell victim to a gruesome home invasion, and was nearly killed himself. He’s pleased when the district attorney tells him that one of the perpetrators will get the death penalty, but that relief is short-lived. The other perpetrator who delivered the actual death blows will only serve a few years in prison because he cut a deal. Rice informs Shelton that this is better than going to trial, where acquittal is always a possibility. He actually made the deal without even consulting Shelton beforehand. Feeling ignored and helpless, the wheels are set in motion for Shelton to avenge his family’s murder and his own shabby treatment. He bides his time and then brings the pain in a way that is both horrific and creative. Think Joker in The Dark Knight mixed with Jigsaw from the Saw movies. I’ve told you all that and still haven’t told you anything you didn’t gather from the trailer, so don’t worry. The suspense lies not in what Shelton does, but in how he does it. He allows himself to be apprehended and imprisoned, but still manages to wreak havoc on those with the most tangential connection to the atrocity carried out on his family.
Jamie Foxx is serviceable in this role, but I can’t say he was impressive. I don’t think the role required much, and he did show flashes of charisma, but Butler was a more compelling figure. I also don’t view this movie as a Jamie Foxx vehicle, rather it seems more like this was just a movie that he was in, if that makes any sense. He received top billing and has the hardware to back it up, so I want to be riveted by him, and that was not the case. Nevertheless, Law Abiding Citizen is a movie most will enjoy. It taps into the frustration we have with an ineffective criminal justice system and the vigilante that lies within all of us. Make no mistake though, Shelton is no hero. We all can understand avenging the death of a child, and Foxx’s character even commends him privately for his actions, at first. Things go awry when Shelton begins to target those less directly associated with his family’s murder and begins to kill innocent people to bring down the larger bureaucracy. This made for an intriguing anti-hero dynamic, as it’s unclear for whom the viewer should cheer. Shelton avenges his family’s death, but is still committing cold-blooded murder so you can only root for him up to a point. Rice is supposed to be the “good guy” lawman, but he clearly dropped the ball with Shelton’s case, so you can’t exactly cheer for him either. Director F. Gary Gray (The Negotiator, Set it Off) makes a nice return to the silver screen and is an underrated filmmaker. He has proven adept at sustaining suspense throughout a movie without overdoing the cheap tricks like Michael Bay. A well-placed explosion is great, but the primary focus should be on the story, and Gray steadily advanced the plot. All in all, Law Abiding Citizen is worth the $10, and I give it my stamp of approval.
This article first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/10/law-abiding-citizen/ and was reprinted with permission.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Extract
I saw Extract on the same day I saw Gamer, so that means I was 0 for 2. Extract was the better of the two, but still left a bitter taste in my mouth. Hyped as being brought to us by the creators of Office Space, Extract tricked me with the old bait n’ switch. I thought it would be hilarious, especially when I saw Jason Bateman cough out that huge bong rip in the trailer. The movie had its moments, but overall it didn’t amount to much more than a few chuckles.
The setting is an extract factory owned by Bateman’s character Joel, a regular hard-working guy who has all the trappings of the American Dream but is stuck in a dull, sexless marriage. When a scheming new temp with a checkered past named Cindy (Mila Kunis) begins working at the plant, Joel’s eye begins to wander. His stoner buddy Dean (Ben Affleck) encourages him to make the most of this potential new opportunity. Joel’s a good guy, so Dean devises a plan to get his wife Suzie to cheat first, thereby giving Joel a “free pass.” The scheme is pretty funny, but its execution becomes a little silly. Meanwhile, Joel’s attempt to seal the deal with Cindy never quite comes to fruition, at least not the way he intended. Most of the action takes place at the extract plant, which employs an array of funny characters, including a gossiping busy-body and an incompetent rocker. Creator Mike Judge (King of the Hill) is adept at playing the mundane workplace atmosphere for giggles, but the movie loses its way by making Joel such a bland character. He’s a pretty weak guy who behaves inexplicably. When he finds out his wife has cheated on him he’s angry but he never displays the rage, shock, or disbelief her infidelity warrants. I just didn’t get it. The movie’s plot centers on whether or not Joel will sell the plant, but most of the movie deals with the interpersonal relationships between him and his wife, Dean, and his employees at the plant. Mila Kunis is appealing as the object of everyone’s desire, but she behaves almost as inexplicably as Joel. A con-artist, she begins working at the plant to weasel her way into the life of Step, an employee who was injured in a hilarious freak accident on the job and stands to profit handsomely. With dollar signs in her eyes, she “accidentally” bumps into Step at the grocery store and begins her efforts to become his girlfriend and set up a big score through a lawsuit. Step would rather settle amicably out of court, but Cindy encourages him to milk the accident for all it’s worth. The potential lawsuit threatens to derail Joel’s plans to sell the plant, unless he can get to the bottom of Step’s recent change of heart.
Affleck was funny as Joel’s douchebag sidekick, but Extract’s occasional laughs aren’t enough for me to endorse it. It seems like writers think it’s okay to sacrifice plot and good storytelling just because the movie is a comedy. Joel needed more of a backbone, and a lot of his actions didn’t make sense. Not bad for a few laughs, but Extract never quite reaches its full potential. I’d wait for Netflix.
The setting is an extract factory owned by Bateman’s character Joel, a regular hard-working guy who has all the trappings of the American Dream but is stuck in a dull, sexless marriage. When a scheming new temp with a checkered past named Cindy (Mila Kunis) begins working at the plant, Joel’s eye begins to wander. His stoner buddy Dean (Ben Affleck) encourages him to make the most of this potential new opportunity. Joel’s a good guy, so Dean devises a plan to get his wife Suzie to cheat first, thereby giving Joel a “free pass.” The scheme is pretty funny, but its execution becomes a little silly. Meanwhile, Joel’s attempt to seal the deal with Cindy never quite comes to fruition, at least not the way he intended. Most of the action takes place at the extract plant, which employs an array of funny characters, including a gossiping busy-body and an incompetent rocker. Creator Mike Judge (King of the Hill) is adept at playing the mundane workplace atmosphere for giggles, but the movie loses its way by making Joel such a bland character. He’s a pretty weak guy who behaves inexplicably. When he finds out his wife has cheated on him he’s angry but he never displays the rage, shock, or disbelief her infidelity warrants. I just didn’t get it. The movie’s plot centers on whether or not Joel will sell the plant, but most of the movie deals with the interpersonal relationships between him and his wife, Dean, and his employees at the plant. Mila Kunis is appealing as the object of everyone’s desire, but she behaves almost as inexplicably as Joel. A con-artist, she begins working at the plant to weasel her way into the life of Step, an employee who was injured in a hilarious freak accident on the job and stands to profit handsomely. With dollar signs in her eyes, she “accidentally” bumps into Step at the grocery store and begins her efforts to become his girlfriend and set up a big score through a lawsuit. Step would rather settle amicably out of court, but Cindy encourages him to milk the accident for all it’s worth. The potential lawsuit threatens to derail Joel’s plans to sell the plant, unless he can get to the bottom of Step’s recent change of heart.
Affleck was funny as Joel’s douchebag sidekick, but Extract’s occasional laughs aren’t enough for me to endorse it. It seems like writers think it’s okay to sacrifice plot and good storytelling just because the movie is a comedy. Joel needed more of a backbone, and a lot of his actions didn’t make sense. Not bad for a few laughs, but Extract never quite reaches its full potential. I’d wait for Netflix.
Gamer
I would like my $8.50 and 95 minutes back. Despite its intriguing premise and provocative plot, Gamer fell short of expectations. The potential existed for a thought-provoking exploration of the darker side of human nature; instead I witnessed a hedonistic exercise in depravity.
Gamer takes place in the not-so-distant future, in a world where consumers can take gaming to the next level. Are you familiar with The Sims, a game that allows you to manipulate characters’ lives and create your own society? Well, imagine if that were real. Imagine if you were playing a video game whose characters represented actual human beings. Sounds pretty cool, right? Not so much. Once the movie delved deeper into its premise it exposed an underbelly of humanity that I’d rather not see. Gerard Butler (300, The Ugly Truth) stars as Kable, a prisoner who is forced to compete in a real-life video game called “Slayers.” He is being controlled by a teen named Simon, a rich kid with every expensive toy imaginable at his fingertips. The object of Slayers is to shoot your way of each battle zone and to survive 30 such battles so that you can be released from prison. Obviously no one would do this shit willingly, but the prisoners don’t have much choice. They have been implanted with a microchip of some sort called a nanex, which ensures their compliance. The creator of Slayers, and another Sims-like game called “Society,” is a nefarious Bill Gates-type named Ken Castle, played by Michael Hall of Dexter. Castle is ridiculously rich, profiting from the public’s desire to manipulate real human lives. His game Society allows you to make real people have sex, fight, use drugs – you name it. You get paid for participating in the game as a character, and you have to pay to play. Kable has become a cult hero, a global superstar, because he is only three battles away from being the first character to survive Slayers. He has won 27 battles. Most prisoners don’t win more than 10. Simon, his player, has also gained a high level of notoriety. He is the one controlling Kable, after all. Things go awry when an organized human resistance rises up against Castle, who has larger designs on taking over the minds of regular human beings instead of just the prisoners in his game. Ludacris is the leader of the resistance, an organization called Humanz. Anyway, they hack into the Slayers game and allow Simon and Kable to communicate directly. They also tell Kable that Castle has a secret to keep and will never allow Kable to survive the game the old-fashioned way; he’ll have to escape. First he has to be released from Simon’s control. Kable persuades Simon to release him and begins his escape. Back in the real world he has a wife and daughter waiting for him. First he has to get past another prisoner inserted in the game to kill him. *sigh*
The details are non-sensical and the plot becomes more and more ridiculous. I know that most movies require suspension of belief, but Gamer became over the top. Now that I know it was written and directed by the duo that brought us Crank, I understand the high level of absurdity. Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor obviously like the idea of people behaving wildly violently and sexually without consequences. They don’t portray it thoughtfully or intelligently, they prefer it gratuitous and pointless. Violence for violence’s sake. I personally don’t enjoy that, which is why Gamer was just not my type of movie. A movie like Kill Bill was certainly violent, but it was done smartly. There’s a right way and wrong way to do it. Quite simply, Gamer was all wrong. I wanted to press the re-set button on this game, and I couldn’t get out of the theater fast enough. Gerard Butler ably portrayed Kable, but I found the material to be questionable. Gamer was a disgusting movie that offered nothing of value. The material was ripe for social and psychological commentary, but Neveldine and Taylor obviously had no such designs.
This article first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/09/gamer/ and was reprinted with permission.
Gamer takes place in the not-so-distant future, in a world where consumers can take gaming to the next level. Are you familiar with The Sims, a game that allows you to manipulate characters’ lives and create your own society? Well, imagine if that were real. Imagine if you were playing a video game whose characters represented actual human beings. Sounds pretty cool, right? Not so much. Once the movie delved deeper into its premise it exposed an underbelly of humanity that I’d rather not see. Gerard Butler (300, The Ugly Truth) stars as Kable, a prisoner who is forced to compete in a real-life video game called “Slayers.” He is being controlled by a teen named Simon, a rich kid with every expensive toy imaginable at his fingertips. The object of Slayers is to shoot your way of each battle zone and to survive 30 such battles so that you can be released from prison. Obviously no one would do this shit willingly, but the prisoners don’t have much choice. They have been implanted with a microchip of some sort called a nanex, which ensures their compliance. The creator of Slayers, and another Sims-like game called “Society,” is a nefarious Bill Gates-type named Ken Castle, played by Michael Hall of Dexter. Castle is ridiculously rich, profiting from the public’s desire to manipulate real human lives. His game Society allows you to make real people have sex, fight, use drugs – you name it. You get paid for participating in the game as a character, and you have to pay to play. Kable has become a cult hero, a global superstar, because he is only three battles away from being the first character to survive Slayers. He has won 27 battles. Most prisoners don’t win more than 10. Simon, his player, has also gained a high level of notoriety. He is the one controlling Kable, after all. Things go awry when an organized human resistance rises up against Castle, who has larger designs on taking over the minds of regular human beings instead of just the prisoners in his game. Ludacris is the leader of the resistance, an organization called Humanz. Anyway, they hack into the Slayers game and allow Simon and Kable to communicate directly. They also tell Kable that Castle has a secret to keep and will never allow Kable to survive the game the old-fashioned way; he’ll have to escape. First he has to be released from Simon’s control. Kable persuades Simon to release him and begins his escape. Back in the real world he has a wife and daughter waiting for him. First he has to get past another prisoner inserted in the game to kill him. *sigh*
The details are non-sensical and the plot becomes more and more ridiculous. I know that most movies require suspension of belief, but Gamer became over the top. Now that I know it was written and directed by the duo that brought us Crank, I understand the high level of absurdity. Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor obviously like the idea of people behaving wildly violently and sexually without consequences. They don’t portray it thoughtfully or intelligently, they prefer it gratuitous and pointless. Violence for violence’s sake. I personally don’t enjoy that, which is why Gamer was just not my type of movie. A movie like Kill Bill was certainly violent, but it was done smartly. There’s a right way and wrong way to do it. Quite simply, Gamer was all wrong. I wanted to press the re-set button on this game, and I couldn’t get out of the theater fast enough. Gerard Butler ably portrayed Kable, but I found the material to be questionable. Gamer was a disgusting movie that offered nothing of value. The material was ripe for social and psychological commentary, but Neveldine and Taylor obviously had no such designs.
This article first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/09/gamer/ and was reprinted with permission.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Inglourious Basterds
Yo, I don’t toss around the ‘G’ word often, but Quentin Tarantino might be a genius. The dude is an awesome filmmaker. When I watch one of his movies I appreciate its undeniable coolness but also its subtle brilliance and attention to detail. Inglourious Basterds was a marvelous showcase of all the little touches that make Tarantino’s films memorable, including the intensive dialogue, unabashed female adoration, and even the inevitable hint of racism.
Set against war-torn Paris during Hitler’s reign, Basterds is the story of a young girl’s survival and ultimate vengeance. It also chronicles the exploits of a guerilla military outfit, the Basterds. Helmed by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), the men plow their way through Nazis like a lawnmower through grass. They hack, peel and bludgeon every Nazi they encounter, and they all pledge one hundred Nazi scalps to the Lieutenant. And yeah, these dudes literally peel the scalps off. *shudder* The parallel storyline involves a young girl named Shoshana and the amoral Nazi Colonel that executed her family. The execution is the movie’s gripping first sequence and it was amazing. I love the way Tarantino controls the pacing and the way his characters interact with one another. There is an extended scene where two characters are simply having a quiet conversation over a glass of milk. Sounds harmless right? No, and that is because an invisible air of dread wafted into the scene and settled like dust. You knew something bad was about to happen, you just didn’t know how it would play out. I was on the edge of my seat, hanging on their every word. That’s because Tarantino can turn the mundane into the mesmerizing. Shoshana’s family was executed before her eyes, and she was the sole survivor. She flees the scene of their carnage, her face a mask of terror. At this moment she and Colonel Lander AKA the “Jew Hunter” become natural adversaries, an animal and its prey. Fast forward four years later and their paths cross again.
There were so many great scenes in this movie, scenes that made my heart stop. You’re lucky if you get one of those in a movie, and Inglourious Basterds was chock full. Tarantino managed to inject humor in the oddest situations and made it work. He made a Nazi movie funny, yet Inglourious Basterds cannot be classified as a comedy. It defies categorization, so don’t even try, just sit back and enjoy it. I can’t recount the plot without getting bogged-down with the intricacy of the storyline, but suffice to say that this is a movie you don’t want to miss unless you are impossibly squeamish. It got a little gory at times, especially when one of the Basterds practices baseball with a Nazi’s head. But if you can get past that you’re in for the best movie of the summer. Brad Pitt was excellent as the merciless Raine, and you can tell he had a ball with this role. It’s like I almost expected him to break the fourth wall at any moment, turn to the camera and say, “is this fucking cool or what?” Yes Brad, yes it is.
From the word go until the closing credits, Inglourious Basterds is riveting. Suspenseful, heart-wrenching, funny, and brilliant, it is right up there with Tarantino’s best and solidifies his place in the pantheon of great American filmmakers. Get up on it.
Set against war-torn Paris during Hitler’s reign, Basterds is the story of a young girl’s survival and ultimate vengeance. It also chronicles the exploits of a guerilla military outfit, the Basterds. Helmed by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), the men plow their way through Nazis like a lawnmower through grass. They hack, peel and bludgeon every Nazi they encounter, and they all pledge one hundred Nazi scalps to the Lieutenant. And yeah, these dudes literally peel the scalps off. *shudder* The parallel storyline involves a young girl named Shoshana and the amoral Nazi Colonel that executed her family. The execution is the movie’s gripping first sequence and it was amazing. I love the way Tarantino controls the pacing and the way his characters interact with one another. There is an extended scene where two characters are simply having a quiet conversation over a glass of milk. Sounds harmless right? No, and that is because an invisible air of dread wafted into the scene and settled like dust. You knew something bad was about to happen, you just didn’t know how it would play out. I was on the edge of my seat, hanging on their every word. That’s because Tarantino can turn the mundane into the mesmerizing. Shoshana’s family was executed before her eyes, and she was the sole survivor. She flees the scene of their carnage, her face a mask of terror. At this moment she and Colonel Lander AKA the “Jew Hunter” become natural adversaries, an animal and its prey. Fast forward four years later and their paths cross again.
There were so many great scenes in this movie, scenes that made my heart stop. You’re lucky if you get one of those in a movie, and Inglourious Basterds was chock full. Tarantino managed to inject humor in the oddest situations and made it work. He made a Nazi movie funny, yet Inglourious Basterds cannot be classified as a comedy. It defies categorization, so don’t even try, just sit back and enjoy it. I can’t recount the plot without getting bogged-down with the intricacy of the storyline, but suffice to say that this is a movie you don’t want to miss unless you are impossibly squeamish. It got a little gory at times, especially when one of the Basterds practices baseball with a Nazi’s head. But if you can get past that you’re in for the best movie of the summer. Brad Pitt was excellent as the merciless Raine, and you can tell he had a ball with this role. It’s like I almost expected him to break the fourth wall at any moment, turn to the camera and say, “is this fucking cool or what?” Yes Brad, yes it is.
From the word go until the closing credits, Inglourious Basterds is riveting. Suspenseful, heart-wrenching, funny, and brilliant, it is right up there with Tarantino’s best and solidifies his place in the pantheon of great American filmmakers. Get up on it.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
G.I. Joe
Ok so I heard the buzz about G.I. Joe before I watched it, and opinions seemed to be mixed. This baffles me, because I thought the movie was pretty effin’ dope. Good visuals, lots of action and special effects, and it wasn’t too corny. That’s more than I can say for Transformers 2. I could even follow the plot, which I appreciated. I hate when these types of movies take themselves too seriously with the convoluted high brow storyline. Just blow shit up.
Starring Channing Tatum (Stop-Loss) as Duke and Marlon Wayans (Dance Flick) as Ripcord, the story begins with our soldiers escorting high level weaponry to its destination. The two are not members of the Joes yet, but they are military personnel. The weapons contain agents called nanocytes, little cell-like critters that were first introduced to fight cancer. They can attack metal and level a city within several minutes. They were manufactured by M.A.R.S., a private arms company helmed by McCullen, a European magnate, the last in a long line of military spies. They are ambushed en route, severely overmatched and outnumbered. Taking heavy fire, they are unable to protect the weapons from the would-be thieves, an outfit comprised of highly- skilled soldiers. Enter the Baroness, a leather-clad dominatrix-looking chick with a mean kick. She and Duke have a past, and he refers to her by name. Her lingering loyalty gives her pause, and she spares his life. Meanwhile the G.I. Joes have arrived to intercept the thieves (COBRA). They retrieve the weapons and the stage is set for Duke and Ripcord to join the most elite, covert operation comprised of the best and brightest soldiers from each branch of the military. General Hawk commands the Joes, and is impressed with Duke and Ripcord. After surviving the rigors of training, they are officially “Joes,” and their first task is to protect the weapons and avenge their fallen comrades before COBRA can steal the weapons back. In the mix is McCullen, creator of the weapons but also in league with COBRA, unbeknownst to the Joes.
As the story moves along we are introduced to various figures from the cartoon series, and I always get a kick out of the real-life depiction of an animated character. They even threw in the corny one-liners from the show like “knowing is half the battle.” It kinda worked but I had to roll my eyes when I heard it. Anyway, I have to say that from a visual standpoint, G.I. Joe was a treat. I got that same feeling I had when I saw the first X-Men or the first Spiderman: that I was witnessing something pretty damn cool. The movie didn’t make the mistake of taking itself too seriously. Nothing based on a cartoon should ever be held up as a paragon of cinematic storytelling, but it was very good movie, and if you go into it with reasonable expectations I don’t think you’ll leave disappointed. This is the second movie based on an 80’s cartoon, and I think it was certainly as good as Transformers, and even better than the sequel. There was a delicate balance between plot and action, and everything was expertly explained, whether through flashback or exposition. Particularly compelling was the back-story between Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes. They trained side-by-side as adoptive brothers until a jealous, evil act permanently tore them apart. Oh yeah, and good guys wear black and bad guys wear white in this movie. Gotta love that. Regarding the performances, as I said there was some corny dialogue but for the most part the movie was sharp throughout. Channing Tatum is a one-note actor, but again – he’s playing a cartoon character. How seriously can I take him? The movie boasts a pretty decent cast that includes Dennis Quaid as Hawk and Sienna Miller as the Baroness. They actually allowed Miller to fill out her leather pantsuit rather than adopt the waiflike appearance she’s sported in past movies, another nice touch. I get tired of looking at someone the size of Angelina Jolie and being expected to believe that she can kick someone’s ass. Both the Baroness and Scarlett looked like real women rather than toothpicks, which I appreciated. Cool toys? Check. Ass-kickin’? Check. I can’t wait for the sequel.
This article first appeard at http://poptimal.com/2009/08/g-i-joe/ and was reprinted with permission.
Starring Channing Tatum (Stop-Loss) as Duke and Marlon Wayans (Dance Flick) as Ripcord, the story begins with our soldiers escorting high level weaponry to its destination. The two are not members of the Joes yet, but they are military personnel. The weapons contain agents called nanocytes, little cell-like critters that were first introduced to fight cancer. They can attack metal and level a city within several minutes. They were manufactured by M.A.R.S., a private arms company helmed by McCullen, a European magnate, the last in a long line of military spies. They are ambushed en route, severely overmatched and outnumbered. Taking heavy fire, they are unable to protect the weapons from the would-be thieves, an outfit comprised of highly- skilled soldiers. Enter the Baroness, a leather-clad dominatrix-looking chick with a mean kick. She and Duke have a past, and he refers to her by name. Her lingering loyalty gives her pause, and she spares his life. Meanwhile the G.I. Joes have arrived to intercept the thieves (COBRA). They retrieve the weapons and the stage is set for Duke and Ripcord to join the most elite, covert operation comprised of the best and brightest soldiers from each branch of the military. General Hawk commands the Joes, and is impressed with Duke and Ripcord. After surviving the rigors of training, they are officially “Joes,” and their first task is to protect the weapons and avenge their fallen comrades before COBRA can steal the weapons back. In the mix is McCullen, creator of the weapons but also in league with COBRA, unbeknownst to the Joes.
As the story moves along we are introduced to various figures from the cartoon series, and I always get a kick out of the real-life depiction of an animated character. They even threw in the corny one-liners from the show like “knowing is half the battle.” It kinda worked but I had to roll my eyes when I heard it. Anyway, I have to say that from a visual standpoint, G.I. Joe was a treat. I got that same feeling I had when I saw the first X-Men or the first Spiderman: that I was witnessing something pretty damn cool. The movie didn’t make the mistake of taking itself too seriously. Nothing based on a cartoon should ever be held up as a paragon of cinematic storytelling, but it was very good movie, and if you go into it with reasonable expectations I don’t think you’ll leave disappointed. This is the second movie based on an 80’s cartoon, and I think it was certainly as good as Transformers, and even better than the sequel. There was a delicate balance between plot and action, and everything was expertly explained, whether through flashback or exposition. Particularly compelling was the back-story between Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes. They trained side-by-side as adoptive brothers until a jealous, evil act permanently tore them apart. Oh yeah, and good guys wear black and bad guys wear white in this movie. Gotta love that. Regarding the performances, as I said there was some corny dialogue but for the most part the movie was sharp throughout. Channing Tatum is a one-note actor, but again – he’s playing a cartoon character. How seriously can I take him? The movie boasts a pretty decent cast that includes Dennis Quaid as Hawk and Sienna Miller as the Baroness. They actually allowed Miller to fill out her leather pantsuit rather than adopt the waiflike appearance she’s sported in past movies, another nice touch. I get tired of looking at someone the size of Angelina Jolie and being expected to believe that she can kick someone’s ass. Both the Baroness and Scarlett looked like real women rather than toothpicks, which I appreciated. Cool toys? Check. Ass-kickin’? Check. I can’t wait for the sequel.
This article first appeard at http://poptimal.com/2009/08/g-i-joe/ and was reprinted with permission.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Taking of Pelham 123
Denzel Washington rejoins director Tony Scott (Man on Fire, Deja Vu) in The Taking of Pelham 123, the movie adaptation of a novel I vaguely remember reading as a kid. Scott likes to blow stuff up, and neither Washington nor co-star John Travolta is a stranger to the summer action flick. Sounds like a formulaic recipe for success.
Washington plays Walter Garber, a hard-working “everyman” employed by New York City’s public transportation system. His job is to oversee the subway line from the control center, which contains maps and electronic grids of the underground system. His day seems like any other, until he crosses paths with John Travolta’s character, a loose cannon who calls himself Ryder. Ryder gets the bright idea to hijack a subway car and hold its passengers hostage until the city agrees to pay him 10 million dollars. He is communicating with Garber at the control center and gives him an hour to come up with the money, or he will begin killing hostages for every minute the money is late. And dude is not playing. The unique thing about the movie was that it didn’t fall into the Hollywood trap of following the “happy ending” rules. I’m not revealing whether or not the movie ends happily, just that conventional methods are not followed here. Innocent people die, a marked departure from traditional summertime popcorn movie formula. Scott effectively captures the atmosphere of the city, with lots of panoramic shots overlooking Manhattan. The writers kept the action and dialogue between the two leads, and didn’t focus the storyline on any passengers too heavily, which effectively dumbed the movie down, in my opinion. I enjoy a good action thriller as much as the next person and I think the best ones manage to entertain while still throwing in a twist or two. That didn’t happen here. There was no intriguing reason for Ryder’s decision to hijack the train. Nope, just good old-fashioned greed. That’s fine, but it would have been interesting if there were more gray area or plot twists regarding corruption or secondary unexpected implication of another character.
Working with what we have, the movie was fairly decent and entertaining. No movie with Denzel Washington is ever actually bad, and this one was better than his last pairing with Tony Scott, Déjà vu. He effectively conveys Garber’s reluctant heroism, and he and Travolta have a couple of good scenes together, which is no small feat since they don’t actually come face-to-face until well into the movie. For me personally, Travolta is beginning to creep into Nicolas Cage spaz territory. He is almost becoming an Al Pacino parody of himself. The gesticulation, the spazzing out, it’s becoming comical. He says MF a lot too, which he seems to enjoy. Alas, I digress. There’s nothing to dislike about The Taking of Pelham 123, and thus I give it my tepid endorsement. The script could have been a little smarter, but it was entertaining and straightforward, never trying to be more than it was: a summertime action thriller for the masses.
This review first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/06/the-taking-of-pelham-123/ and was reprinted with permission.
Washington plays Walter Garber, a hard-working “everyman” employed by New York City’s public transportation system. His job is to oversee the subway line from the control center, which contains maps and electronic grids of the underground system. His day seems like any other, until he crosses paths with John Travolta’s character, a loose cannon who calls himself Ryder. Ryder gets the bright idea to hijack a subway car and hold its passengers hostage until the city agrees to pay him 10 million dollars. He is communicating with Garber at the control center and gives him an hour to come up with the money, or he will begin killing hostages for every minute the money is late. And dude is not playing. The unique thing about the movie was that it didn’t fall into the Hollywood trap of following the “happy ending” rules. I’m not revealing whether or not the movie ends happily, just that conventional methods are not followed here. Innocent people die, a marked departure from traditional summertime popcorn movie formula. Scott effectively captures the atmosphere of the city, with lots of panoramic shots overlooking Manhattan. The writers kept the action and dialogue between the two leads, and didn’t focus the storyline on any passengers too heavily, which effectively dumbed the movie down, in my opinion. I enjoy a good action thriller as much as the next person and I think the best ones manage to entertain while still throwing in a twist or two. That didn’t happen here. There was no intriguing reason for Ryder’s decision to hijack the train. Nope, just good old-fashioned greed. That’s fine, but it would have been interesting if there were more gray area or plot twists regarding corruption or secondary unexpected implication of another character.
Working with what we have, the movie was fairly decent and entertaining. No movie with Denzel Washington is ever actually bad, and this one was better than his last pairing with Tony Scott, Déjà vu. He effectively conveys Garber’s reluctant heroism, and he and Travolta have a couple of good scenes together, which is no small feat since they don’t actually come face-to-face until well into the movie. For me personally, Travolta is beginning to creep into Nicolas Cage spaz territory. He is almost becoming an Al Pacino parody of himself. The gesticulation, the spazzing out, it’s becoming comical. He says MF a lot too, which he seems to enjoy. Alas, I digress. There’s nothing to dislike about The Taking of Pelham 123, and thus I give it my tepid endorsement. The script could have been a little smarter, but it was entertaining and straightforward, never trying to be more than it was: a summertime action thriller for the masses.
This review first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/06/the-taking-of-pelham-123/ and was reprinted with permission.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Obsessed
This was an interesting movie to review. On one hand it didn’t break any new ground, but on the other hand it was immensely entertaining, if the audience in my theater was any indication. Idris Elba (Rock n Rolla) and Beyonce Knowles (Cadillac Records) star in Obsessed, a cross between Fatal Attraction and Disclosure. The fact that I can readily reference those two movies is an indication that Obsessed is a rip-off of more substantive films of the same genre. Whereas Fatal Attraction established the standard for the genre, Obsessed will wind up being another forgettable addition. If there was an award for eye candy, Idris Elba would win quite easily. Unfortunately, I think any other accolades will prove elusive, at least for this role.
Elba plays Derek, a handsome type-A executive with a lovely wife named Sharon and an adorable infant son. The pair has just purchased a new home and seems to be very happy. Their blissful existence is short-lived, as a new temp at Derek’s company makes her presence felt. Lisa (Ali Larter) is assigned to fill in for Derek’s assistant, and begins to drop hints that she’d like more than a professional relationship with him. She’s attractive and aggressive, but Derek remains committed to his wife and rebuffs her advances repeatedly. The broad is really crazy, it’s like she’s delusional, or hard of hearing. She starts with subtle, inappropriate hints and eventually escalates to downright sexual assault, even drugging Derek at one point. She corners him in a bathroom stall and practically forces him to physically restrain her. Things come to a head when the police get involved after an incident. I don’t want to give away too much, suffice to say that by this point Derek and Sharon are living in fear. Here’s my problem with Obsessed. It was not a smart movie. It was formulaic and derivative. There was never an explanation offered for Lisa’s crazy behavior. There was no basis for it, considering that she and Derek never actually slept together. Not that I wanted them to – but I found it hard to believe that it would go as far as it did since they never “sealed the deal.” Derek was the picture of class and fidelity, but we see that some questionable decisions lead to trouble for he and Sharon. The movie ends predictably and happily, as I suspected. The performances were fine, but I don’t believe that either actor was challenged much by the material. Been there, done that – and it’s been done better. Obsessed was an average movie that had its entertaining moments, but it hardly stands out as a cant-miss summer movie. Bring on Wolverine
This review also appears at www.poptimal.com and was reprinted with permission.
Elba plays Derek, a handsome type-A executive with a lovely wife named Sharon and an adorable infant son. The pair has just purchased a new home and seems to be very happy. Their blissful existence is short-lived, as a new temp at Derek’s company makes her presence felt. Lisa (Ali Larter) is assigned to fill in for Derek’s assistant, and begins to drop hints that she’d like more than a professional relationship with him. She’s attractive and aggressive, but Derek remains committed to his wife and rebuffs her advances repeatedly. The broad is really crazy, it’s like she’s delusional, or hard of hearing. She starts with subtle, inappropriate hints and eventually escalates to downright sexual assault, even drugging Derek at one point. She corners him in a bathroom stall and practically forces him to physically restrain her. Things come to a head when the police get involved after an incident. I don’t want to give away too much, suffice to say that by this point Derek and Sharon are living in fear. Here’s my problem with Obsessed. It was not a smart movie. It was formulaic and derivative. There was never an explanation offered for Lisa’s crazy behavior. There was no basis for it, considering that she and Derek never actually slept together. Not that I wanted them to – but I found it hard to believe that it would go as far as it did since they never “sealed the deal.” Derek was the picture of class and fidelity, but we see that some questionable decisions lead to trouble for he and Sharon. The movie ends predictably and happily, as I suspected. The performances were fine, but I don’t believe that either actor was challenged much by the material. Been there, done that – and it’s been done better. Obsessed was an average movie that had its entertaining moments, but it hardly stands out as a cant-miss summer movie. Bring on Wolverine
This review also appears at www.poptimal.com and was reprinted with permission.
State of Play
I was mildly excited about State of Play, as it looked like the type of smart political thriller I typically enjoy. I thought it would be in the same vein of the classic Three Days of the Condor or at least as good as 2007’s Lions for Lambs. While it was a fairly decent movie, it was not as good as either of those I just mentioned.
Russell Crowe (American Gangster) stars as an investigative reporter who is looking into the death of a congressman’s mistress. Ben Affleck (Hollywoodland) gives a turn as the congressman, Stephen Collins. Helen Mirren (Shadowboxer) plays Crowe’s editor at the newspaper, and Rachel McAdams (Red Eye) is a fellow reporter. My problem with the movie was that it went out of its way to present one situation when the truth ended up being with another scenario that was obvious all along. I know that sounds vague, but the gist is that the movie seemed disingenuous and anti-climactic. Despite boasting an above-average cast, State of Play was not the smart thriller I’d hoped. Russell Crowe was fine, as was Ben Affleck, but it just wasn’t enough. Obviously the congressman will be implicated initially when news breaks that he was having an affair with the young woman who was killed. If you are going to eventually expose him, then don’t go out of your way to make it seem like he is innocent. That feels like a bait and switch to me. State of Play is a solid pay-per-view or Netflix choice, but if you’re looking for the next great political thriller, I’d suggest you keep it moving.
Russell Crowe (American Gangster) stars as an investigative reporter who is looking into the death of a congressman’s mistress. Ben Affleck (Hollywoodland) gives a turn as the congressman, Stephen Collins. Helen Mirren (Shadowboxer) plays Crowe’s editor at the newspaper, and Rachel McAdams (Red Eye) is a fellow reporter. My problem with the movie was that it went out of its way to present one situation when the truth ended up being with another scenario that was obvious all along. I know that sounds vague, but the gist is that the movie seemed disingenuous and anti-climactic. Despite boasting an above-average cast, State of Play was not the smart thriller I’d hoped. Russell Crowe was fine, as was Ben Affleck, but it just wasn’t enough. Obviously the congressman will be implicated initially when news breaks that he was having an affair with the young woman who was killed. If you are going to eventually expose him, then don’t go out of your way to make it seem like he is innocent. That feels like a bait and switch to me. State of Play is a solid pay-per-view or Netflix choice, but if you’re looking for the next great political thriller, I’d suggest you keep it moving.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Knowing
I broke my Nicolas Cage rule to check out Knowing last week. My Nicolas Cage rule is pretty simple. I basically don’t pay to see movies that feature him heavily. I find him to be rather annoying and rarely worth the ticket price. It’s a personal thing. His quirks and mannerisms just get under my skin. Fortunately, I found him to be tolerable in Knowing, a movie that both intrigued and disturbed me.
Its premise was an interesting one. In a small Massachusetts town in the 1950s, an elementary school class buries a time capsule. 50 years later the capsule is uncovered, its contents distributed to a new generation. Among the items is a mysterious piece of paper with several series of numbers. Nicolas Cage plays John Koestler, a widowed college professor. It is John’s son Caleb who ends up with the numerical code. John decodes the numbers, and discovers its chilling meaning. The code represents an accurate catalogue of every global disaster over the last century. All of the events have happened in the past, save for two that are supposed to happen in the future. The code features the date and number of fatalities associated with each event. John is unsure about a certain portion of the code and contacts the adult daughter of the code’s author, a woman about his age with a daughter close in age to Caleb. How convenient. The woman is unhelpful, but John discovers the remaining numbers’ meaning on his own when he unwittingly witnesses the next disaster. While on his way to visit the woman he witnesses/experiences a plane crash from the ground, fulfilling the code’s prophecy. He realizes that the remaining numbers provide the events’ location. In the midst of all this, Caleb is being visited by random creepy, pale, trench coat-clad people who whisper to him. Coincidentally, the “whisper people” also visit the daughter of Nicolas Cage’s new lady friend. In a truly frightening scene, one of the whisper people reveals a chilling scene to Caleb. He shows Caleb a world being destroyed by the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Trees and animals burn beneath an orange sky, with no human beings in sight.
John tries to reveal the last portion of the code, which was unfinished. He wants to prevent the last tragedy, which as it turns out, is going to wipe out the rest of the planet. The whisper people are actually trying to help Caleb rather than harm him. He and the girl have been chosen to be part of the group that will re-populate the Earth after its initial destruction. This is where the movie got weird and abstract, and a little corny. I don’t mind happy endings, but it just got strange to watch the whisper people morph into aliens and transport the kids up into space. I apologize for the spoilers, but this was a strange movie. The premise was eerily intriguing, and there were some awesome special effects, but I can’t give Knowing much more than a tepid endorsement. The Nic Cage annoyance gauge remained pretty low – which was good – but the movie was just silly enough at the end to dampen my enthusiasm. It was worth seeing but is definitely not a “must see.”
Its premise was an interesting one. In a small Massachusetts town in the 1950s, an elementary school class buries a time capsule. 50 years later the capsule is uncovered, its contents distributed to a new generation. Among the items is a mysterious piece of paper with several series of numbers. Nicolas Cage plays John Koestler, a widowed college professor. It is John’s son Caleb who ends up with the numerical code. John decodes the numbers, and discovers its chilling meaning. The code represents an accurate catalogue of every global disaster over the last century. All of the events have happened in the past, save for two that are supposed to happen in the future. The code features the date and number of fatalities associated with each event. John is unsure about a certain portion of the code and contacts the adult daughter of the code’s author, a woman about his age with a daughter close in age to Caleb. How convenient. The woman is unhelpful, but John discovers the remaining numbers’ meaning on his own when he unwittingly witnesses the next disaster. While on his way to visit the woman he witnesses/experiences a plane crash from the ground, fulfilling the code’s prophecy. He realizes that the remaining numbers provide the events’ location. In the midst of all this, Caleb is being visited by random creepy, pale, trench coat-clad people who whisper to him. Coincidentally, the “whisper people” also visit the daughter of Nicolas Cage’s new lady friend. In a truly frightening scene, one of the whisper people reveals a chilling scene to Caleb. He shows Caleb a world being destroyed by the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Trees and animals burn beneath an orange sky, with no human beings in sight.
John tries to reveal the last portion of the code, which was unfinished. He wants to prevent the last tragedy, which as it turns out, is going to wipe out the rest of the planet. The whisper people are actually trying to help Caleb rather than harm him. He and the girl have been chosen to be part of the group that will re-populate the Earth after its initial destruction. This is where the movie got weird and abstract, and a little corny. I don’t mind happy endings, but it just got strange to watch the whisper people morph into aliens and transport the kids up into space. I apologize for the spoilers, but this was a strange movie. The premise was eerily intriguing, and there were some awesome special effects, but I can’t give Knowing much more than a tepid endorsement. The Nic Cage annoyance gauge remained pretty low – which was good – but the movie was just silly enough at the end to dampen my enthusiasm. It was worth seeing but is definitely not a “must see.”
Monday, January 26, 2009
Notorious
Sometimes it takes a certain type of viewer to appreciate a certain type of film. We all have our own personal tastes and biases which color the way we perceive things and movies are no exception. Having said that, I enjoyed Notorious more than I thought I would, but that’s probably because I’ve been listening to hip hop since I was in the first grade and the Notorious B.I.G. aka Biggie Smalls aka Frank White was my favorite rapper.
The movie opens with young Christopher Wallace reciting some lyrics with a buddy in the schoolyard. The late rapper’s real life son plays him in the movie, and does a wonderful job capturing his father’s burgeoning love for hip hop. Angela Bassett (Meet the Browns) portrays his mother, Voletta Wallace. She and Christopher have a loving relationship, and share a tender moment when she consoles him about his father’s apathetic approach to parenthood. As Big enters adolescence he yearns for the nicer things in life, and earns a reputation as a fearsome neighborhood emcee. Intelligent but bored with school, he starts hustling. When his mother discovers his illegal activity she gives him the heave ho. Rhyming on the corner one day, he encounters one Kim Jones, who would go on to become the infamous Lil’ Kim. I’ve heard that she was none too pleased with her depiction in the film, and I can’t blame her. She comes across horribly - like a clingy, desperate, and raunchy woman. Her lone redeeming quality (aside from being a gifted lyricist) was her undying loyalty to Big. Unfortunately that loyalty also made her a little pathetic. Faith, in sharp contrast, was depicted as more of the type of woman you wouldn’t mind taking home to meet your mother.
This is a movie for hip hop fans. If you can’t remember rocking to “Juicy” back in the day, or “One More Chance,” you might not appreciate the movie as much as I did. The movie was a revelation in that it showed a side of Christopher Wallace heretofore hidden. I had no idea he was such a caring individual. In his own words he was “black and ugly as ever,” but he never lacked female companionship. The movie illustrated how it was possible for women to fall in love with him, something I never quite understood before. He was funny and charming, both with Kim and Faith. Another aspect of the movie I appreciated was its chronological depiction of his musical career, including the inspiration for his music. I loved one particular scene showing his initial reaction to Puffy’s suggestion that he sample the 1980’s classic “Juicyfruit.” Puff had to convince him to use the beat, and the song went on to become a classic. Little tidbits like that are insightful, and only a hip hop fan can appreciate a detail like that, in my opinion. It also captured Big’s frustration and disappointment with his deteriorating friendship with Tupac, which led to both of their untimely demise.
Notorious is a must-see for all the hip hop heads out there. You can add it to the catalogue along with Belly, Krush Groove, etc. The casting was fantastic, especially when you consider that Jamal Woolard (Big) had no formal acting lessons before this movie. Derek Luke (Catch a Fire) effectively captured Puffy’s hunger and ambition, though his dancing was comical at times. Come to think of it, Puffy’s dancing is comical too, so that actually works. My only criticism of the movie was that some of the dialogue was too expository, and thus a bit contrived. Other than that, there wasn’t much room for improvement. The movie goes a long way in cementing the incredible legacy of one of the best to ever hold a microphone.
This review first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/01/notorious/ and was reprinted with permission.
The movie opens with young Christopher Wallace reciting some lyrics with a buddy in the schoolyard. The late rapper’s real life son plays him in the movie, and does a wonderful job capturing his father’s burgeoning love for hip hop. Angela Bassett (Meet the Browns) portrays his mother, Voletta Wallace. She and Christopher have a loving relationship, and share a tender moment when she consoles him about his father’s apathetic approach to parenthood. As Big enters adolescence he yearns for the nicer things in life, and earns a reputation as a fearsome neighborhood emcee. Intelligent but bored with school, he starts hustling. When his mother discovers his illegal activity she gives him the heave ho. Rhyming on the corner one day, he encounters one Kim Jones, who would go on to become the infamous Lil’ Kim. I’ve heard that she was none too pleased with her depiction in the film, and I can’t blame her. She comes across horribly - like a clingy, desperate, and raunchy woman. Her lone redeeming quality (aside from being a gifted lyricist) was her undying loyalty to Big. Unfortunately that loyalty also made her a little pathetic. Faith, in sharp contrast, was depicted as more of the type of woman you wouldn’t mind taking home to meet your mother.
This is a movie for hip hop fans. If you can’t remember rocking to “Juicy” back in the day, or “One More Chance,” you might not appreciate the movie as much as I did. The movie was a revelation in that it showed a side of Christopher Wallace heretofore hidden. I had no idea he was such a caring individual. In his own words he was “black and ugly as ever,” but he never lacked female companionship. The movie illustrated how it was possible for women to fall in love with him, something I never quite understood before. He was funny and charming, both with Kim and Faith. Another aspect of the movie I appreciated was its chronological depiction of his musical career, including the inspiration for his music. I loved one particular scene showing his initial reaction to Puffy’s suggestion that he sample the 1980’s classic “Juicyfruit.” Puff had to convince him to use the beat, and the song went on to become a classic. Little tidbits like that are insightful, and only a hip hop fan can appreciate a detail like that, in my opinion. It also captured Big’s frustration and disappointment with his deteriorating friendship with Tupac, which led to both of their untimely demise.
Notorious is a must-see for all the hip hop heads out there. You can add it to the catalogue along with Belly, Krush Groove, etc. The casting was fantastic, especially when you consider that Jamal Woolard (Big) had no formal acting lessons before this movie. Derek Luke (Catch a Fire) effectively captured Puffy’s hunger and ambition, though his dancing was comical at times. Come to think of it, Puffy’s dancing is comical too, so that actually works. My only criticism of the movie was that some of the dialogue was too expository, and thus a bit contrived. Other than that, there wasn’t much room for improvement. The movie goes a long way in cementing the incredible legacy of one of the best to ever hold a microphone.
This review first appeared at http://poptimal.com/2009/01/notorious/ and was reprinted with permission.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Valkyrie
Excuse my language, but this is not some shit that I would normally see. My love affair with Tom Cruise (The Last Samurai) ended after he went crazy about three years ago, so he’s not a good box office draw, at least not for me. But I was in the company of a handsome gentleman, and this was what he wanted to see – so I went with the flow.
Valkyrie is the story of a failed attempt to overthrow Hitler, and is factually-based. So, on a positive note, I can say that I actually learned something from the movie, and that’s a good thing. What wasn’t good was the overall vibe of the movie. Despite boasting an inherently exciting premise, something about Valkyrie felt lackluster and uninspiring. Cruise portrays Colonel von Stauffenberg, a rouge soldier in cahoots with other Nazis to oust Hitler for the greater good of Deutschland, and so as not to be remembered on the wrong side of history as an enabler of the most monstrous figure of the 20th century. Cool, I’m with that. Even sounds exciting, right? It should have been, but it wasn’t. Writer Christopher McQuarrie and director Bryan Singer are responsible for one of the all-time great movies (The Usual Suspects), but I think they struck out with this one. Cruise’s Stauffenberg seems stoic and resolute, but not especially heroic in that movie-star sort of way you’d expect. I felt my eyelids get heavy on more than one occasion and had to fight to keep them open at one point. I have a pretty good attention span too, so this is a reflection of the movie rather than any narcoleptic tendencies on my part. Valkyrie is as boring as it looks, so I suggest you skip it unless you’re some weird history buff. My handsome companion was also underwhelmed. Booo Valkyrie!! LOL
Valkyrie is the story of a failed attempt to overthrow Hitler, and is factually-based. So, on a positive note, I can say that I actually learned something from the movie, and that’s a good thing. What wasn’t good was the overall vibe of the movie. Despite boasting an inherently exciting premise, something about Valkyrie felt lackluster and uninspiring. Cruise portrays Colonel von Stauffenberg, a rouge soldier in cahoots with other Nazis to oust Hitler for the greater good of Deutschland, and so as not to be remembered on the wrong side of history as an enabler of the most monstrous figure of the 20th century. Cool, I’m with that. Even sounds exciting, right? It should have been, but it wasn’t. Writer Christopher McQuarrie and director Bryan Singer are responsible for one of the all-time great movies (The Usual Suspects), but I think they struck out with this one. Cruise’s Stauffenberg seems stoic and resolute, but not especially heroic in that movie-star sort of way you’d expect. I felt my eyelids get heavy on more than one occasion and had to fight to keep them open at one point. I have a pretty good attention span too, so this is a reflection of the movie rather than any narcoleptic tendencies on my part. Valkyrie is as boring as it looks, so I suggest you skip it unless you’re some weird history buff. My handsome companion was also underwhelmed. Booo Valkyrie!! LOL
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
There is mad buzz surrounding this film, with Brad Pitt (Babel) being nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Actor, and the movie getting serious Best Picture consideration. I have to agree with the other critics that this is all much ado about SOMETHING, because I thought that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was an absolutely enchanting film from start to finish. Bolstered by a high-concept story, the movie also features truly great special effects, as the titular character ages in reverse. If you’ve been under a rock and are unfamiliar with the unique premise, let me fill you in. Benjamin Button, as an infant, displays all the signs of a man at the twilight of his life. He is wrinkled, afflicted by cataracts and osteoporosis. Curious indeed. Benjamin’s mother died in childbirth, and his father is unequipped to deal with the aftermath of raising an obviously special child. He rips the baby from a midwife’s clutches and runs through the New Orleans streets, hurtling to and fro. He abandons the infant on a doorstep, and it is this home that will prove to be a wonderful haven for Benjamin the rest of his life. Discovered by Queenie, a domestic and innkeeper of sorts, Benjamin is embraced and loved as if she birthed him herself. He grows younger as he gets older, viewing the world through the eyes of a child while the world perceives him as an elderly man. I found this story to be simply fascinating and touching as Benjamin is impacted by the world around him. His physical deformity renders him much more emotionally attuned than a normal child, and he and Queenie, who is Black, share many tender moments. Taraji P. Henson (Hustle & Flow) as Queenie has easily surpassed anything she’s done up to this point, and I hope this role provides her with more opportunities. Pitt is reunited with Cate Blanchett (they were both in Babel), and they have very good chemistry as they portray two star-crossed lovers. The easiest thing for me to say is that the movie just made me feel good. It was heartwarming, funny, sweet, and simply fascinating. It may seem cool to age in reverse, but it’s actually tragic to watch your loved ones precede you in death, to grow younger while everyone else grows older – and for it to be assumed that you have knowledge and experience that you actually lack. Benjamin is forgiving and appreciates the beauty in life and in people, allowing his father to make amends for the cruelest betrayal by willingly developing a relationship with him. I can see this movie taking home a whole slew of accolades, including ones for the script, performances, make-up – you name it. It will all be well-deserved. Director David Fincher (Seven) has outdone himself, and the pairing of he and Pitt almost rivals the nice rapport Scorsese has developed with Leonardo DiCaprio, though obviously Fincher and Pitt are less prolific. If you can’t tell, I liked it LOL. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a must-see movie.
Slumdog Millionaire
Alright, now that 2008 is over, I can say with certainty that Slumdog Millionaire was damn near the best thing I saw last year. I guess I’ll have to put it behind The Dark Knight, but it’s a close second. It reminded me of the classic City of God in its portrayal of impoverished youth running wild. I don’t want to reduce it to that superficial comparison though. It was a love story, a drama, and coming-of-age tale rolled together.
The movie begins against the backdrop of the game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Young Jamal is poised to win the top prize and has aroused the judges’ suspicion. He has to explain how he became so knowledgeable, since it’s very difficult to actually advance that far in the game (duh). What follows is a series of flashbacks to his youth, and the movie unfolds as he is asked each successive question and recounts the life experience that yielded the particular knowledge. He and his brother Salim are forced to fend for themselves after their mother is murdered in a raid on their small village, or whatever you call it. The film is set in Mumbai, but the boys live in a destitute little enclave teeming with other “slumdogs.” When their mother is killed the boys begin a life of begging, stealing, hustling, and surviving by the skin of their teeth. They come across another street urchin named Latika, and the three become fast friends. At various times throughout his life Jamal becomes separated from her, but she’s never far from his thoughts. When he and Salim escape the hands of a predator who exploits orphaned children by forcing them to beg in the streets, Jamal is heartbroken that Latika was unable to flee with them. Salim is dismissive, preferring not to compete for his brother’s attention and affection. The actors portraying Salim and Jamal were a revelation. They were adorable, and excellent actors to boot.
The movie was enthralling, masterfully written and executed – from the title to the cast and story. I enjoyed the filmmaking style, which really made you feel as if you were on Jamal and Salim’s journey with them. As a viewer, I was particularly invested in Jamal’s outcome. He and Salim’s paths diverged as Salim, more reckless and daring – falls in with a local kingpin, but it is his heroism and abandon that saves his brother’s life. I’ll leave it at that, an obvious ringing endorsement. This joint is like an instant classic, a real gem.
The movie begins against the backdrop of the game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Young Jamal is poised to win the top prize and has aroused the judges’ suspicion. He has to explain how he became so knowledgeable, since it’s very difficult to actually advance that far in the game (duh). What follows is a series of flashbacks to his youth, and the movie unfolds as he is asked each successive question and recounts the life experience that yielded the particular knowledge. He and his brother Salim are forced to fend for themselves after their mother is murdered in a raid on their small village, or whatever you call it. The film is set in Mumbai, but the boys live in a destitute little enclave teeming with other “slumdogs.” When their mother is killed the boys begin a life of begging, stealing, hustling, and surviving by the skin of their teeth. They come across another street urchin named Latika, and the three become fast friends. At various times throughout his life Jamal becomes separated from her, but she’s never far from his thoughts. When he and Salim escape the hands of a predator who exploits orphaned children by forcing them to beg in the streets, Jamal is heartbroken that Latika was unable to flee with them. Salim is dismissive, preferring not to compete for his brother’s attention and affection. The actors portraying Salim and Jamal were a revelation. They were adorable, and excellent actors to boot.
The movie was enthralling, masterfully written and executed – from the title to the cast and story. I enjoyed the filmmaking style, which really made you feel as if you were on Jamal and Salim’s journey with them. As a viewer, I was particularly invested in Jamal’s outcome. He and Salim’s paths diverged as Salim, more reckless and daring – falls in with a local kingpin, but it is his heroism and abandon that saves his brother’s life. I’ll leave it at that, an obvious ringing endorsement. This joint is like an instant classic, a real gem.
Seven Pounds
*Sigh* It’s happened again. I’ve been bamboozled into wasting my money on another sneaky tear-jerk movie. I don’t do sad, sappy movies, and Seven Pounds was a somber, heavy film that won’t see you crack a smile.
Starring Will Smith (Hancock) as a benevolent man on a mission, Seven Pounds tells the story of Ben Thomas, an IRS agent who decides to drastically change the lives of seven strangers with the ultimate sacrifice. For the first 30 minutes or so it’s pretty tough to figure out just what the hell the movie is about and what is going on. Eventually we learn that Ben lost his fiancé in a tragic accident that also claimed the lives of six other people. Hence, the significance of the number seven, which is repeated a few times throughout the movie. I don’t want to give away the plot, but suffice to say it was an intriguing, well-acted film that will make you look at your own life and whether or not you’re a good person, but it was too much of a downer for my taste though. When it was over my face was ashy from all the crying! No thanks. Will is nice to look at it, and Rosario Dawson turned in the best performance from her I’ve ever seen – but Seven Pounds is just not my type of movie. From talking to others, I’m not alone in my opinion. All in all, skip this one. Total buzzkill.
Starring Will Smith (Hancock) as a benevolent man on a mission, Seven Pounds tells the story of Ben Thomas, an IRS agent who decides to drastically change the lives of seven strangers with the ultimate sacrifice. For the first 30 minutes or so it’s pretty tough to figure out just what the hell the movie is about and what is going on. Eventually we learn that Ben lost his fiancé in a tragic accident that also claimed the lives of six other people. Hence, the significance of the number seven, which is repeated a few times throughout the movie. I don’t want to give away the plot, but suffice to say it was an intriguing, well-acted film that will make you look at your own life and whether or not you’re a good person, but it was too much of a downer for my taste though. When it was over my face was ashy from all the crying! No thanks. Will is nice to look at it, and Rosario Dawson turned in the best performance from her I’ve ever seen – but Seven Pounds is just not my type of movie. From talking to others, I’m not alone in my opinion. All in all, skip this one. Total buzzkill.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Cadillac Records
A bad movie trailer can do one of two things: 1) deter you from the film b/c it doesn't look good; or 2) intrigue you enough to plunk down $10 bucks to check it out. Fortunately for me, the trailer and subsequent commercials for Cadillac Records did the latter. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a movie starring Beyonce. She wonderfully captures Etta James, one of several iconic recording artists signed to Chess (Cadillac) Records, but she doesn't even make her appearance until at least an hour into the movie. Instead, the movie chronicles the rise and fall of the second most legendary, prolific record label of the 50s and 60s. I assume that Motown deserves the top spot. Nevertheless, Chess Records featured the likes of Muddy Waters and Chuck Berry, and was at the foreground of rock n roll. Founded by Polish immigrant Leonard Chess, the record label's first prominently successful recording artist was Muddy Waters, masterfully portrayed in the film by Jeffrey Wright (most recently of Quantum of Solace). Len (Adrien Brody, Hollywoodland) and Muddy meet in Chicago, after Muddy migrates up from the sharecropping fields of Mississippi. Soon after arriving in the big city he encounters his future wife Geneva (Gabrielle Union), after setting up shop playing the guitar on a street corner beneath her small apartment. Geneva, like most women – is instantly enamored with Muddy's soulful voice and guitar. Shortly thereafter he meets a young man named Walter, a skillful harmonica player who provides the perfect accompaniment to Muddy's electric guitar. Muddy, Geneva, and "Little" Walter become a surrogate family, with Len serving as a benevolent godfather of sorts. He provides the backing and obtains radio airplay, while Muddy and Walter keep churning out the hits and sold-out performances. Eventually Len expands the Chess roster to include Howlin' Wolf, Etta, and the legendary Chuck Berry. Chess records was informally known as Cadillac Records because Len purchased all of his artists Cadillacs as reward for their chart-topping songs. He is portrayed as genuine and caring, but one wonders if there wasn't a hint of exploitation as well. He didn't let his artists see the books when they inquired about their royalties, even Chuck Berry. Regardless, there seemed to be a real friendship and partnership between he and Muddy, and he certainly tried to keep his artists on the straight and narrow, though a few of them fell on hard times. Little Walter in particular, had a problem with authority and had frequent brushes with the law and local Chicago hoodlums. His life tragically ended at the age of 37, and actor Columbus Short (This Christmas) did an excellent job of capturing his reckless talent. He was brash and cocky, and eventually the mouth that so skillfully played the harmonica also contributed to his demise, along with alcohol and heroin. Muddy's biggest vice was a penchant for women NOT named Geneva, but he managed to avoid substance abuse, at least according to the movie. This leads me to the most troubled, layered role in the movie – Etta James. I'm beginning to think Beyonce might actually have some acting chops after all. Unlike Deena in Dreamgirls, Etta James is not a pretty character. She is rough, salty, and coarse. Plagued by deeply-rooted feelings of worthlessness and inadequacy, Etta seems to be surrounded by an impenetrable wall that belies her vulnerability until she opens her mouth and releases that soulful, beautiful voice. When Beyonce performs Etta's songs "All I Could Do Was Cry" and "I'd Rather Go Blind," she is in rare form. It is truly something to behold. These moments when music and drama merge are the reasons why art is such a beautiful and powerful medium, the reason why it can take you to another place. She was Etta, stripped bare. Another moving scene featured Etta's failed reunion with famed pool player Minnesota Fats, her alleged father. She explains to Len that her "mother was a whore," and she has just been rejected by her father. She feels worthless, and it's no wonder that she later turns to heroin to numb her pain.
I can't say enough about this movie, which seems to have fared poorly at the box office on its opening weekend. That's unfortunate, because it was a movie filled with flawless performances, from top to bottom. I don't know if it's poor marketing on behalf of the studio or what – but people are missing out. Don't be one of them.
This article first appeared at Poptimal and can be found at http://poptimal.com/2008/12/cadillac-records/. It was reprinted with permission.
I can't say enough about this movie, which seems to have fared poorly at the box office on its opening weekend. That's unfortunate, because it was a movie filled with flawless performances, from top to bottom. I don't know if it's poor marketing on behalf of the studio or what – but people are missing out. Don't be one of them.
This article first appeared at Poptimal and can be found at http://poptimal.com/2008/12/cadillac-records/. It was reprinted with permission.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Quantum of Solace
So, yeah – I fancy myself more than just a casual 007 fan. I haven’t seen all of ‘em, but I’ve seen all of the ones with Sean Connery, and I know a little about the franchise. Daniel Craig, in spite of his blond hair and blue eyes, has grown on me, and I looked forward to the latest installment in one of the most venerable franchises in American cinematic history.
I’ll keep it brief and say that Quantum of Solace didn’t do much for the franchise. It was beautifully filmed, featuring exotic locales and accents to match, but I found the storyline to be dry and thin at various places. This was disappointing considering the script was partially written by acclaimed scribe Paul Haggis (Crash, Million Dollar Baby). This latest chapter finds our favorite MI-6 agent dealing with the loss of Vesper at the conclusion of Casino Royale. He promises M that he won’t seek revenge, but remains confused about the circumstances surrounding her death. He finds a kindred spirit in Camille, a young woman entangled in high-stakes espionage, seeking revenge for her family’s death. 007 plots are always somewhat nebulous, and Quantum of Solace is no exception. Vaguely it is revealed that a secret organization wishes to gain control of the water supply in the mid-east, and Bond is charged with uncovering the identity of those individuals involved in the transaction. What? Yeah, whatever. I can barely recite the plot to you. I appreciated little things throughout, such as the rugged, much less corny portrayal offered by Daniel Craig. Despite not looking the part of a more traditional Bond, Craig manages to convey an effortless sophistication even when bruised and battered. He has the right swag, and I appreciate his embodiment of the character. Judi Dench is always a pleasure, and the movie had a smart, sleek feel – it was just empty in spots. There was an homage to Goldfinger, when one of Bond’s female allies is drowned in oil, her sprawled and naked body covered in the black liquid just as Goldfinger’s victim was covered in gold over 20 years ago. This was pretty obvious, and it didn’t go unnoticed by all the Bond buffs out there, I’m sure. Nice touch.
While not a “must-see” by any stretch, Quantum of Solace makes for a passable day at the movies. If you’re a fan of the franchise you probably should see it off GP, though be forewarned that you will be underwhelmed with certain aspects of the movie.
I’ll keep it brief and say that Quantum of Solace didn’t do much for the franchise. It was beautifully filmed, featuring exotic locales and accents to match, but I found the storyline to be dry and thin at various places. This was disappointing considering the script was partially written by acclaimed scribe Paul Haggis (Crash, Million Dollar Baby). This latest chapter finds our favorite MI-6 agent dealing with the loss of Vesper at the conclusion of Casino Royale. He promises M that he won’t seek revenge, but remains confused about the circumstances surrounding her death. He finds a kindred spirit in Camille, a young woman entangled in high-stakes espionage, seeking revenge for her family’s death. 007 plots are always somewhat nebulous, and Quantum of Solace is no exception. Vaguely it is revealed that a secret organization wishes to gain control of the water supply in the mid-east, and Bond is charged with uncovering the identity of those individuals involved in the transaction. What? Yeah, whatever. I can barely recite the plot to you. I appreciated little things throughout, such as the rugged, much less corny portrayal offered by Daniel Craig. Despite not looking the part of a more traditional Bond, Craig manages to convey an effortless sophistication even when bruised and battered. He has the right swag, and I appreciate his embodiment of the character. Judi Dench is always a pleasure, and the movie had a smart, sleek feel – it was just empty in spots. There was an homage to Goldfinger, when one of Bond’s female allies is drowned in oil, her sprawled and naked body covered in the black liquid just as Goldfinger’s victim was covered in gold over 20 years ago. This was pretty obvious, and it didn’t go unnoticed by all the Bond buffs out there, I’m sure. Nice touch.
While not a “must-see” by any stretch, Quantum of Solace makes for a passable day at the movies. If you’re a fan of the franchise you probably should see it off GP, though be forewarned that you will be underwhelmed with certain aspects of the movie.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
RocknRolla
Is it better to be really good at one type of thing, or marginally good at a lot of different things? I’m trying to describe director Guy Ritchie’s movie-making style. He’s sorta like the cinematic version of a one-hit-wonder, having the most success with a certain type of movie. Ritchie excels at the frenetic ensemble crime drama, but has faltered when he’s ventured beyond his comfort zone in the recent past. In RocknRolla Ritchie returns to what he knows best, and that’s just fine with me. Versatility be damned.
His latest effort is in the same vein of Lock, Stock and Two Smokin’ Barrels and Snatch, both of which featured a hodgepodge crew pulling off a heist/caper of some sort. RocknRolla’s cast includes Gerard Butler (300) and Idris Elba (The Wire, American Gangster), who star as One Two and Mumbles, respectively. The pair owes money to a London businessman/gangster named Lenny Cole, played with relish by Tom Wilkinson (Michael Clayton). Lenny has an architecture deal pending with a Russian immigrant, and when the Russian’s money is stolen, the deal is in jeopardy. Unbeknownst to Lenny, Mumbles and One Two are unwittingly responsible for the theft. They were tipped off by the Russian’s accountant, and lifted the money in order to repay Lenny and settle their debt. In other words, they are paying Lenny with his own money. Meanwhile, the Russian is getting suspicious, and everything is inter-connected. The plot details aren’t important, as the movie has a life of its own, spinning from one scene to the next before you can catch your breath. Movies that rely heavily on inter-connected storylines sometimes require a suspension of belief as the characters’ lives overlap, but RocknRolla’s plot is plausible in that all of the characters operate in the same underworld, even if only tangentially. The movie had one silly sequence involving some very persistent hit men, but other than that everything was largely believable. Gerard Butler showed comedic flair, which was an impressive departure from his role in 300. I also enjoyed watching Idris Elba speak in his natural accent. He was so good as Stringer Bell on The Wire that you might forget he’s not American. I’m partial to British gangster movies, so I viewed RocknRolla through the prism of my own preference, but I thought it was good. If you liked Ritchie’s earlier work, you won’t be disappointed. I guess if it’s not broke don’t fix it. Fast paced, funny, and just plain cool, RocknRolla is one to see.
This article first appeared at Poptimal and can be found at http://poptimal.com/index.php?s=rock. It was reprinted with permission.
His latest effort is in the same vein of Lock, Stock and Two Smokin’ Barrels and Snatch, both of which featured a hodgepodge crew pulling off a heist/caper of some sort. RocknRolla’s cast includes Gerard Butler (300) and Idris Elba (The Wire, American Gangster), who star as One Two and Mumbles, respectively. The pair owes money to a London businessman/gangster named Lenny Cole, played with relish by Tom Wilkinson (Michael Clayton). Lenny has an architecture deal pending with a Russian immigrant, and when the Russian’s money is stolen, the deal is in jeopardy. Unbeknownst to Lenny, Mumbles and One Two are unwittingly responsible for the theft. They were tipped off by the Russian’s accountant, and lifted the money in order to repay Lenny and settle their debt. In other words, they are paying Lenny with his own money. Meanwhile, the Russian is getting suspicious, and everything is inter-connected. The plot details aren’t important, as the movie has a life of its own, spinning from one scene to the next before you can catch your breath. Movies that rely heavily on inter-connected storylines sometimes require a suspension of belief as the characters’ lives overlap, but RocknRolla’s plot is plausible in that all of the characters operate in the same underworld, even if only tangentially. The movie had one silly sequence involving some very persistent hit men, but other than that everything was largely believable. Gerard Butler showed comedic flair, which was an impressive departure from his role in 300. I also enjoyed watching Idris Elba speak in his natural accent. He was so good as Stringer Bell on The Wire that you might forget he’s not American. I’m partial to British gangster movies, so I viewed RocknRolla through the prism of my own preference, but I thought it was good. If you liked Ritchie’s earlier work, you won’t be disappointed. I guess if it’s not broke don’t fix it. Fast paced, funny, and just plain cool, RocknRolla is one to see.
This article first appeared at Poptimal and can be found at http://poptimal.com/index.php?s=rock. It was reprinted with permission.
I.O.U.S.A.
Some topics are just over my head, and I feel no shame in admitting that fact. The nuances of economics often leave me befuddled, and I'm happy if I can just get a broad understanding of the issue. Having said that, I.O.U.S.A. was an informative, very important documentary that was actually relatively easy for me to understand. For those of you with no designs on the Wharton School of Business, I think you'll be able to understand it as well. The film offers an in-depth examination of America's crippling debt, highlighting the financial crisis as one of the most important issues of our lifetime, the handling of which will shape the futures of our children. Economics is not a sexy topic, so despite the film's gravity it probably will not be viewed by the average person looking to enjoy an afternoon at the movies. The film begins with a brief overview of the history of our national debt. Our founding fathers placed an emphasis on eradicating debt and were successfully able to pay down our significant debt in the wake of the Revolutionary War. World Wars I and II increased our debt, but we again were able to pay it down significantly through the purchase of war bonds and other methods. The 1980's bought inflation, and our national debt increased. Under the Clinton administration, the national debt decreased significantly and we actually had a surplus when he left office – no small feat by any stretch of the imagination. As a matter of fact, the surplus was the first we had in over 30 years. Ahh, but that was then and this is now. Our national debt is somewhere around 10 trillion dollars, an astronomical figure that will not change unless we make significant changes here at home. The film outlined the biggest drains on the U.S. economy, the largest of which is the money being eaten up by Social Security and Medicare. It also discussed our dependence on foreign nations, and it's not simply those nations in the Middle East, as you might think. Apparently China practically owns the U.S. We heavily rely on the importation of their goods, while very few other nations are clamoring for any of our products. Even if we stopped spending money on the war in Iraq, fixed Social Security, and eliminated earmarks, we'd STILL be in the hole. I started to feel pretty depressed as I sat through this movie. I appreciate the severity of our current financial situation, but it would have been useful if the movie offered a more detailed look at what everyday folks like you and me can do to help the economy. After 78 minutes of informative but very bleak data, the movie spent the few remaining minutes offering a glimmer of hope. The only problem is that it wasn't enough. You wanna know what we can do to help diminish the national debt? Save money. Don't buy what you can't afford. After sitting through a sophisticated financial tutorial, that's the conclusion the film boils down to? I was a little disappointed. The movie also mentioned that leadership was important, which is very relevant considering that election day is upon us. I just would have liked a more sophisticated discussion of how we can fix the problem. Overall, I.O.U.S.A. was an important film, but the nature of the topic makes for a rather dry night at the movies. It was interesting, but painted a somber picture. I guess the truth hurts.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Secret Life of Bees
WARNING: This review has more spoilers than usual, so don't read any further if you don't want a detailed plot description of the movie!!
Every now and then I have the privilege of seeing a movie that is special, a movie that touches and connects in ways that most movies do not. I thought The Secret Life of Bees was a beautiful film, one of the best I’ve seen all year.
Adapted from the book of the same name, The Secret Life of Bees features a gifted ensemble cast including Dakota Fanning (Man on Fire), Queen Latifah (Mad Money), Sophie Okonedo (Hotel Rwanda), and Alicia Keys (Smokin’ Aces). Fanning is Lily, a melancholy, sensitive teenager burdened with the guilt of having accidentally killed her own mother at the age of four. She lives with T-Ray, her physically and emotionally abusive father. He is devoid of all love and affection, and punishes Lily for perceived misbehavior by forcing her to kneel in grits on the kitchen floor until her knees are raw. Lily escapes her sorrow by sneaking out to the peach orchard behind her house and looking up at the stars, talking quietly to her mother in heaven. Her only friend is Rosaleen, her housekeeper and nanny. On her fourteenth birthday the two travel into town together, only to be harassed by some racist locals. The year is 1964, and the Civil Rights Act has just been signed into law. This doesn’t sit well with some Whites, and Rosaleen refuses to swallow her pride when provoked, ending up in the hospital and facing jail time for a violent incident. When T-Ray finally gives Lily all she can stand, she makes a break for it, taking Rosaleen with her. They end up in Tiburon, SC – a town Lily’s mother visited at least once before. The odyssey proves to be one that will change the course of their lives forever.
At a local store Lily notices a jar of honey with a picture of a Black Virgin Mary. Intrigued, she learns that one August Boatwright (Queen Latifah) produces the honey. With Rosaleen in tow, they set out for August’s house. Nothing about the Boatwright home is ordinary, from its color (think Pepto Bismol) to its inhabitants. August resides with her sisters June (Keys) and May (Okonedo), tending to a large apiary which yields the honey that sustains them. The Boatwright sisters are refined and cultured, unlike any Black women Lily and Rosaleen have ever seen. When the two wayward souls show up on August’s doorstep she welcomes them with open arms, much to June’s chagrin. May has developmental issues, but is a kind soul. Soon Lily and Rosaleen settle into a routine, with Lily helping August tend the bees and Rosaleen assisting May in the kitchen. Lily finds the solace and love she craves, and all seems to be well for a brief time, but a White girl living with three Black women in 1960’s South Carolina will only go unnoticed for so long. Eventually T-Ray discovers Lily’s whereabouts and comes to the Boatwright property to retrieve his daughter. I won’t tell you how it ends; you’ll have to see for yourself.
The Secret Life of Bees was enchanting, from start to finish. It dealt with significant themes, including guilt, redemption, forgiveness, grief, and most importantly: love. Love is the thread that held the movie together. Lily believed that she was unlovable. The Boatwright sisters, as surrogate mothers – showed her that everything wants to be loved, and through their collective kindness and nurturance they lifted Lily’s burden and enlightened Rosaleen, all the while dealing with their own personal tragedies. The movie will undoubtedly appeal to women, but I hate when people put creativity in a box. It’s just a good film, period. I think everyone should see it. It was wonderfully directed, capturing the beauty of the Southern, rural landscape and the essence of each character. Dakota Fanning continues to add to a stellar career, already having accomplished more than many of her older counterparts. Kudos to all involved with such a lovely film.
This article first appeared on Poptimal and can be found at http://poptimal.com/2008/10/the-secret-life-of-bees/. The article was reprinted with permission.
Every now and then I have the privilege of seeing a movie that is special, a movie that touches and connects in ways that most movies do not. I thought The Secret Life of Bees was a beautiful film, one of the best I’ve seen all year.
Adapted from the book of the same name, The Secret Life of Bees features a gifted ensemble cast including Dakota Fanning (Man on Fire), Queen Latifah (Mad Money), Sophie Okonedo (Hotel Rwanda), and Alicia Keys (Smokin’ Aces). Fanning is Lily, a melancholy, sensitive teenager burdened with the guilt of having accidentally killed her own mother at the age of four. She lives with T-Ray, her physically and emotionally abusive father. He is devoid of all love and affection, and punishes Lily for perceived misbehavior by forcing her to kneel in grits on the kitchen floor until her knees are raw. Lily escapes her sorrow by sneaking out to the peach orchard behind her house and looking up at the stars, talking quietly to her mother in heaven. Her only friend is Rosaleen, her housekeeper and nanny. On her fourteenth birthday the two travel into town together, only to be harassed by some racist locals. The year is 1964, and the Civil Rights Act has just been signed into law. This doesn’t sit well with some Whites, and Rosaleen refuses to swallow her pride when provoked, ending up in the hospital and facing jail time for a violent incident. When T-Ray finally gives Lily all she can stand, she makes a break for it, taking Rosaleen with her. They end up in Tiburon, SC – a town Lily’s mother visited at least once before. The odyssey proves to be one that will change the course of their lives forever.
At a local store Lily notices a jar of honey with a picture of a Black Virgin Mary. Intrigued, she learns that one August Boatwright (Queen Latifah) produces the honey. With Rosaleen in tow, they set out for August’s house. Nothing about the Boatwright home is ordinary, from its color (think Pepto Bismol) to its inhabitants. August resides with her sisters June (Keys) and May (Okonedo), tending to a large apiary which yields the honey that sustains them. The Boatwright sisters are refined and cultured, unlike any Black women Lily and Rosaleen have ever seen. When the two wayward souls show up on August’s doorstep she welcomes them with open arms, much to June’s chagrin. May has developmental issues, but is a kind soul. Soon Lily and Rosaleen settle into a routine, with Lily helping August tend the bees and Rosaleen assisting May in the kitchen. Lily finds the solace and love she craves, and all seems to be well for a brief time, but a White girl living with three Black women in 1960’s South Carolina will only go unnoticed for so long. Eventually T-Ray discovers Lily’s whereabouts and comes to the Boatwright property to retrieve his daughter. I won’t tell you how it ends; you’ll have to see for yourself.
The Secret Life of Bees was enchanting, from start to finish. It dealt with significant themes, including guilt, redemption, forgiveness, grief, and most importantly: love. Love is the thread that held the movie together. Lily believed that she was unlovable. The Boatwright sisters, as surrogate mothers – showed her that everything wants to be loved, and through their collective kindness and nurturance they lifted Lily’s burden and enlightened Rosaleen, all the while dealing with their own personal tragedies. The movie will undoubtedly appeal to women, but I hate when people put creativity in a box. It’s just a good film, period. I think everyone should see it. It was wonderfully directed, capturing the beauty of the Southern, rural landscape and the essence of each character. Dakota Fanning continues to add to a stellar career, already having accomplished more than many of her older counterparts. Kudos to all involved with such a lovely film.
This article first appeared on Poptimal and can be found at http://poptimal.com/2008/10/the-secret-life-of-bees/. The article was reprinted with permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)