nolandalla-447-695930 Reviews

No (I) (2012)

Mesmerising Story Destroyed by Cheap Look

[3/10 · 20 April 2013]

"No" suffers from trying to be, and succeeding at, being far too realistic.

As preposterous as this criticism sounds, a promising political drama based on true events surrounding a 1988 election campaign in Chile abandons all the fundamentals of modern movie making. There's no soundtrack. There's no witty dialog. There are no special effects. The performances aren't particularly memorable. As a result, a potentially riveting political thriller drags badly in this poorly-scripted, abysmally-shot re-enactment which debuted last year in Chile. It's now finally making rounds in American movie theaters, its longevity based on being nominated earlier this year for an Oscar in the Best Foreign-Language film category.

"No" has the sophomoric look and feel of a film school project shot with a couple of Beta cams. That's because director Pablo Larrain curiously decided to shoot his entire movie with the same outdated videotape stock used by actual television news crews during the 1980's, when this film takes place. He presumably did this to add the look of realism. Borrowing a visual device that worked masterfully when Steven Spielberg employed World War II-era Bell and Howell movie cameras to film the famous Normandy Beach scenes in Saving Private Ryan (1998), the same technique might have proved a powerful cinematic accompaniment had it been used selectively. Instead, the entire movie is shot in a grainy film texture which not only becomes annoying, but quite distracting after the first few scenes when we realize this is the way the entire will be. It becomes like trying to watch a movie through a dirty window pane.

This is unfortunate because "No" had great potential. The movie is all about the 1988 political referendum on the brutal dictatorship of Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet. One of the most despised political leaders in Latin American history, Pinochet ruled the South American nation of Chile with an iron fist between 1973 and 1988. However, his dictatorship faced growing international pressure to hold free elections, and so a national referendum was called in 1988 to vote on the question if Pinochet should be allowed to stay in power.

The premise sounds rather simple. But after the military junta's 15 years of disappearances, torture, intimidation, and media control, those Chileans brave enough to work on the "No" campaign took enormous risks, both professionally and personally. What if they worked against Pinochet and then lost the election? What would then be their fate? Would they ever work again? Would they eventually be arrested? Could they end up as political prisoners? "No," which gets its name from the actual anti-Pinochet campaign, recounts the atmosphere of fear those brave enough to oppose the dictator had to endure during the 27-day campaign. Given the overwhelming odds stacked against them, no one -- not even the movement's most committed followers -- gave the "No" campaign a chance.

But if that was the case, we wouldn't be watching a movie about these events some 25 years later.

That's where the star of "No" comes in. Mexican actor Gael Garcia Bernal plays a young hotshot advertising wizard hired by the anti-Pinochet ("No") movement to orchestrate its media campaign. The very real issue of how to run a national campaign amidst this culture of fear gets compounded by a deep divide within the camp between those who want to use this rare opportunity to showcase Pinochet's horrific human rights abuses versus the younger pragmatists who view the selling of a candidate about the same as marketing beer or tires.

Given the extraordinary circumstances of this unique moment in history and all the subplots of running an underdog campaign fraught with danger, one can immediately see similarities to some of movie history's best political thrillers -- including The Candidate (1972), All the President's Men (1976), Primary Colors (1998), and most recently -- Argo (2012). Had "No" employed a top-notch screenwriter and shot the movie in a more conventional manor (on standard film, for starters), it might have taken its place among the pantheon of great political dramas. Instead, a fascinating story gets lost in the abyss of a poorly contrived and under-budgeted mess.

One final note: Without revealing any spoilers, "No" is probably a must see for political junkies if for no other reason than to watch this unlikely campaign unfold, and at times completely unravel before ultimately becoming a serious challenge to one of the most notorious political and military regimes in Latin American history. This is a fabulous story with some truly mesmerizing moments of triumph. However, the film fails to convey these remarkable real-life events in a manner worthy of those brave heroes who actually set out to achieve the impossible.

The Gatekeepers (2012)

Thought-Provoking and Surprisingly Unbiased

[7/10 · 6 April 2013]

Bring up the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and reactions typically vary from indifference to fanaticism -- with little territory in between. Indeed, the chasm of constructive dialog is currently so narrow, that merely reducing tension in this long-troubled region would be considered a historic success.  That's how low the bar has been set.  Stopping all violence is probably next to impossible.  Achieving an everlasting peace between Jews and Arabs seems like a starry-eyed fantasy. Six reprehensible decades of hate have produced way too much blood, far too many deaths, too many cries for revenge, too many walls and checkpoints, too many suicide bombers, too many senseless attacks on innocents, too much pain, and far too few heroes willing to put an end to all the madness and misery. Amidst this backdrop of bleakness, there's a flicker of light.  A documentary has come out which stands as the most unbiased overview of this terrible conflict in recent memory. The film seeks to accomplish what may be impossible -- establishing a consensus that the best way to achieve peace is adapting a two-state solution, which means creating an independent Palestinian nation.  This declaration comes not necessarily from Palestinians, but from very knowledgeable Israelis, which makes the case for a two-state solution all the more convincing.  The exclamation point on this manifesto comes when taking into account the backgrounds and allegiances of these Israelis now trumpeting the loudest for a Palestinian homeland -- who feature prominently in the film.  "The Gatekeepers," released in late 2012 but is just now making its way to theaters in several American cities.  This groundbreaking Israeli film, nominated for a "Best Documentary" Oscar, is a serious-minded look at the history of violence in Israel and the occupied territories since the end of the 1967 Six-Day War.  It's an indisputable historical record of the conflict which unintentionally created what now seems to be irreparable divisions between nations, religions, and cultures. Indeed, if the West's troubles with international terrorism and our burdens in the Middle East have an epicenter, it's neither in Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan.  Long before 9-11 and its two-war aftermath, tempers reached the boiling point a very long time ago over the land once called Palestine. "The Gatekeepers" is almost entirely in Hebrew, with English-language subtitles.  That's because the six key personalities interviewed in the film are all Israelis.  Remarkably, all six of the "stars" of this film are the former heads of Shin Bet, Israel's domestic security agency.  To make things clearer, Shin Bet handles Israel's domestic conflicts, which includes the occupied territories -- comprised largely of Palestinians.  This is a dark (and at times, depressing) movie.  There's not much here to rejoice about.  The substance and style of the film is something you'd expect to see on The Military Channel.  Intelligence gathering, counter-terrorism measures, political considerations, and the day-to-day business of Shin Bet is portrayed here as never shown before.  Alas, other than these six heads of the agency, virtually all Shin Bet operatives remain anonymous. Grainy black and white images from actual targeted assassinations are shown.  One sees precisely how and why specific "terrorist" targets are chosen and the reasons certain enemies are eliminated.  We also see what happens when things go terribly wrong, which does occur with greater frequency than many may realize.  Regardless of one's personal opinion in the conflict, you can't help but be dazzled by the organization and capabilities of this extraordinary organization. But what truly makes "The Gatekeepers" a landmark achievement is the unmasking of former Shin Bet heads who all speak with remarkable candor about what they've done in the past and what they now believe about the best prospects for peace in the future.  The intelligence commandos agreed to be interviewed -- each one independently -- for the first time ever on camera.  What they say needs to be heard, and heralded. "The Gatekeepers" surpasses what's typically expected from this method of storytelling because it ends up challenging so many conventional assumptions.  For instance, I didn't expect to by sympathetic towards Shin Bet or it's former leaders.  I just assumed these intelligence/military operatives would share the dangerous hard-line fanaticism of Benjamin Netanyahu and his Right-Wing followers, who are willing to justify any action necessary for the defense of Israel no matter how much collateral damage is done.  But these assumptions aren't at all reflective of these men or what they now believe.  Indeed, the 90-minute film builds slowly towards that gradual transformation of opinion among all six agency heads -- each independently reaching an identical conclusion.  That each of these men -- of different ages and having served at different periods --  finally came to realize that the Palestinians might actually have a legitimate case for their fury wasn't just surprising, but shocking. This is ultimately why "The Gatekeepers" soars.  It defies expectations.  It reveals things aren't what they seem and most certainly aren't black and white.  They are increasingly gray.  Assuming you care about the future and what is perhaps the most important area of dispute in the world, this is a movie that you'll be thinking about long after you've departed the theater. Unfortunately, few people will get that chance. Few Americans care enough to go see a documentary about some war being fought in a faraway place.  Why try and learn about history and current events when instead you can pay $10 to shut off your mind and become a vegetable for 95 minutes? But this is a movie made for everyone else.  "The Gatekeepers" pulls no punches and gets few style points.  But it sure is thought-provoking.  One can only wish the right people will see it and take note of what these remarkable experts in their field are saying, and then listen.  It might be the only hope we have extinguish the fires of conflict while fanatics on both sides ceaselessly continue to pour gasoline on the flames.

www.nolandalla.com

Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God (2012)

Must See Documentary That Will Challenge Conventional Beliefs

[9/10 · 5 February 2013]

I've gradually come to see the Catholic Church for what it truly is -- an archaic, oppressive, lying institution that's hopelessly out of touch with 21st Century realities, which destroys millions of lives around the world and has done unspeakable evil throughout human history.

The excesses stem not just a few bad apples. The root cause is institutional corruption. In Catholicism, according to Canon Law, everything flows downward from the very top. This means the Vatican ultimately bears responsibility for crimes against humanity.

Strong words? Hardly. If anything, those words aren't strong enough.

The Roman Catholic Church remains wielded to the Dark Ages. And its not just because a bunch of men chose to walk around in black robes speaking a dead language that went out of existence 500 years ago while waving containers full of ash dust, or nuns suppressing their own individuality in observance of unconditional servitude.

Look at the facts: Catholic policies towards women are degrading. Catholic commandments on birth control creates imminent poverty for millions who starve and die in developing countries. Catholic beliefs toward basic human rights are often are cowardly and self-serving. Catholic teachings on sex are Neanderthal. Catholic practices on economic and social issues are reprehensible. And Catholic teachings on so-called "morality" are duplicitous.

All this aside, the Catholic Church's policies and practices in the tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of sexual abuse scandals around the world involving priests is downright disgusting. Many heads need to roll -- starting with just about every Pope dating all the way back to the 4th Century. Indeed, the Vatican has been a collaborator in innumerable crimes and cover ups since the fall of the Byzantines.

The Catholic Church is an empire of corruption. This has nothing to do with matters of faith or a belief in God. It has everything to do with making the appropriate choices as to which institutions in our society deserve our reverence and trust.

The Catholic Church and the Vatican deserve neither.

That said, no one wants to read or hear about priests and sex scandals.

It's a hideous subject. It's certainly not entertainment. There's no satisfaction to be gained from subjecting oneself to the indescribable evils committed by members of the clergy. Contemplating these horrible acts against innocent children which have gone on for so long in so many places is painful to look at.

But look we must. And re-think everything we believe about Catholicism, we should.

HBO has just debuted a new documentary on this subject. The title is Mea Maxima Cula: Silence in the House of God. I had heard about this powerful film by award-winning director Ale Gibney, which runs about 90 minutes. Late last night, when I saw this program was coming up as the next feature show on HBO, I considered tuning in.

Then again, why would I have any desire to watch such a thing? I thought to myself -- why would I want to subject myself to something like this? Who in the world would willingly stop and watch people doing such repulsive things to children? So, I did what most probably do. I turned the channel.

But curiosity got the best of me. I found myself flipping back to Mea Maxima Culpa and watching bits and pieces of the documentary. As I watched, I began to realize this wasn't only a film about controversial subject. It was a story about politics and power. It was also a story about extraordinary courage -- those who initially stepped forward and told of what happened. I came to realize this was a masterful documentary that becomes increasingly more intense as the viewer gets absorbed into the story.

Essentially, Mea Maxima Cula focuses on several deaf adults who are now in their 60s and 70s. Back during he 1950's as children, they were sexually abused by priests in Milwaukee. Unfortunately, as we would gradually learn there were many more Milwaukees -- hundreds, if not thousands of Milwaukees around the world.

While the Vatican continues to lie, engages in cover ups, and postures itself as being above all the crimes committed at the parish level, this film indisputably links Rome with just about all the filth done by its faithful servants. Church hierarchy was far more than just an enabler. They have been confederates in these conspiracies for the past 1,700 years (watch the documentary -- the evidence is clear).

The Inquisition. The war on enlightenment. The Crusades. Pacts with fascism. Sex crimes and cover ups. Why isn't the Catholic Church being tried for crimes against humanity? I urge you to not miss this program.

A Final Thought: The word "hero" gets overused.

Worse, its often misapplied to athletes and celebrities in our culture who frankly do nothing to deserve such adulation.

Thank goodness there are real heroes in this world. Some of them appear in this film, as the brave men who were courageous enough to step forward and tell what happened.

Imagine the humiliation of revealing one of the worst things imaginable -- committing sex acts on children. Imagine what it took for these brave people who risked finger-pointing, hushed whispers, and public ridicule for the sake of justice? Why is this important? Why should you care? Maybe you won't.

But if hundreds of years of history, institutionalized corruption from top to the bottom, and a continuing conspiracy of denial from the Vatican doesn't sway you towards contempt for the Catholic Church, then nothing will.

Thank goodness there were men brave enough to step out of the shadows and one very dedicated filmmaker willing to shine a lens and a light into the darkest corners of the church's soul.

www.nolandalla.com

Quartet (2012)

Hoffman's Beautiful and Subtle Masterpiece

[7/10 · 3 February 2013]

It took only 75 years for Dustin Hoffman to direct his first movie.

That he chose a film project way outside of Hollywood comprised of an entirely foreign cast (for an American actor and director) comes as a further surprise.

But the biggest shock of all is how his new movie, Quartet works so well. Beautifully filmed, musically enhanced, and topped by stellar performances all around from actors perfectly cast in each of their roles, Hoffman's long-awaited directorial debut reveals that he picked up some excellent pointers over his last 45 years in the business from mentors like Mike Nichols, John Schlesinger, Alan J. Pakula, Sydney Pollack, and others who mastered the craft of cinema from the opposite side of the camera.

Quartet tells the story of a group of retired classically-trained musicians living together in a palatial retirement home in England. All of the seniors were once world-class performers of classical music and opera. Most still play. If all this sounds terribly dull and depressing, think again.

Quartet mainly works because it treats its subjects with great respect and yet also manages to confront issues that elderly people must face about their impending mortality -- with absolute credibility. These old people who move slowly aren't to be pitied. They're retired, but they still enjoy a zest for life -- which for each of them means continuing to play and perform the music they love.

A number of stories swirl around simultaneously -- comprised mostly of personality conflicts and even romance. Indeed, this film offers a portrait of all our futures which is both realistic, as well as optimistic. Like a similar movie made last year called The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, every action and word of dialog is believable.

This movie's real charms are its subtleties. The way simple scenes flow together, the natural beauty of the estate, complimented by just the right classical vignette. There are no car crashes, special effects, long senseless monologues, or shocking endings. It's a slice of real life.

Perhaps the most satisfying moment of the film comes after the final scene, during the credits. The added bonus material won't be revealed here. But be sure and don't leave the movie theater early, or you'll miss arguably the most poignant moment of the film.

Unfortunately, this movie won't do particularly well at the box office. Young people, who comprise the majority of modern-day movie goers, aren't much interested in older actors with British accents or stories about what happens inside a retirement home. And that's a crying shame because it's ultimately their loss.

But for more mature movie fans, and particularly those who incessantly complain that Hollywood doesn't make films the way they used to, here's a film tailor made for more senior sensibilities. Those who stay home and ignore a film like this film do absolutely nothing to support their own cinematic wants and desires. And that's the biggest shame of all.

Promised Land (2012)

Better Than Expected

[6/10 · 2 February 2013]

Following two colossally disappointing movie-going experiences (The Master and Silver Linings Playbook), I decided to play it very safe.

I chose a movie that couldn't possibly offend or disappoint in any way. In fact, the bar was set pretty low on a film that looks very much like a studio-hyped quickie that opens up strong the first few weekends, gets yanked from theaters after a month, and then does straight to the obscurity of a DVD release. No doubt, this one will be out on Showtime by summer.

Promised Land is actually a better film than I expected. It's sort of Matt Damon playing the role of Erin Brockovich — only in this case our hero works for a big bad corporation. Damon is cast as an advance man and rising business executive for huge energy conglomerate seeking to enter a small Pennsylvania town, pay off the local farmers to use their land, and then reap the rewards in natural gas production. His job is to get as many locals to sign contracts which allows the energy company to come in and start drilling.

Damon begins the film as a true believer in what he's doing. He does a fine job in the undemanding role as corporate lackey. But the always-stellar Frances McDormand manages to steal every scene she's in, as Damon's hardworking assistant. Indeed, McDormand simply brings authenticity and credibility to everything she does — an instantly elevates the material. And here's yet another shining example.

The trouble begins when Damon faces resistance on two fronts. Hal Holbrook, cast in the role he typically plays as the town's elder all-knowing wise man, knows the risks of tuning the farm land over to an energy company. He manages to create quite a stir. But the real obstacle is a young and charismatic environmentalist who appears on the scene and out-works, out-hustles, and out-charms both Damon and McDormand.

This film does an excellent job of showing both sides of a valid argument in the timeless philosophical rivalry between two forces of nature — tradition and progress. For those expecting another Erin Brockovich, where the line between good and evil is black and white, they'll ponder lots of gray in this movie. Even I found myself drawn in by Damon's convincing arguments (on behalf of the energy company), at times.

Promised Land is not exactly unpredictable. We all know what's ahead, especially for Damon who must face not only questions about what he's doing, but confront even larger issues of about the propriety of his chosen profession. It's a question many should ask themselves in our society.

What gives this film some added substance is how Damon ultimately arrives at his final decision. The ending won't be revealed here. But there is a wonderfully unexpected turn of events towards the end of the story which is reminiscent of the cruel final twist that marked all the Alfred Hitchcock Presents classics. In other words, even cynical me never saw it coming — and neither will you.

There's nothing about Promised Land that's particularly original or memorable. That said, it's a pretty good movie which delivered enough for me to give it my recommendation.

Sometimes, simply telling an old-fashioned morality tale in a straightforward way is the best way to reach the Promised Land.

The Master (2012)

Pointless, Confusing, Rubbish

[1/10 · 21 January 2013]

In the early days, during the creation of what would eventually became known as modern Scientology, founder L. Ron Hubbard summoned his followers off to a retreat. There, he reportedly delivered lectures which lasted a mind-boggling 70 hours. The science-fiction writer-turned-guru sheltered his growing band of worshipers. By design, they were isolated from reality. Completely removed from their outside bearings, they were left alone to their own vulnerabilities and striped of the ability to reason as Hubbard preached and pontificated to the point where his voice finally gave out. When the guru could speak no more, the revival was declared done and his flock of followers were set free. One must wonder what kind of desperate individual would willingly expose themselves to such delusions? Who would voluntarily sit through such a carnival of madness? Then again, anyone who managed to sit through the entirety of the recent film called The Master now has some idea of what those early followers must have experienced. Indeed, The Master is an abomination. One of the worst major motion pictures of the year, this is a thoroughly painful cinematic experience with absolutely no entertainment nor educational value. Worse, it's a monumental bore. How could the Paul Thomas Anderson, the same acclaimed director who gave us the utterly brilliant Magnolia and the nearly as good There Will Be Blood have created such a meandering misadventure that turns out to be such a dreadfully dull film from start to finish? Based loosely on Scientology's earliest days and the wacko charlatan (Hubbard) who lured thousands of devotees into what the movie terms "The Cause," the artistic blank canvass seemed perfect for what could and should have been an intriguing and inquisitive examination of one of the most interesting yet least understood subjects of our time. Religion often makes for an interesting subject, particularly as a topic of examination. No matter what one thinks of Scientology and those who chose to follow it, the very true story of how a struggling novelist was able to create a bold new 20th Century religion and worldwide movement that came to attract some of society's most famous people merits a serious movie treatment. And so it was. One of the most creative directors of our time took the challenge upon himself and made what came to be The Master. Three of Hollywood's best actors were penned for lead roles -- including Joachim Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Amy Adams. The production crew even went to the extreme of using a rare film type, so as to give the movie the authentic retro look of post-World War II America. Alas, all the pieces seemed to be perfectly in place for a masterful Master. The trouble begins with the confusing script and pointless dialog throughout. How do a screenwriter and director manage to team up and utterly fail to illicit even one single emotional response from the audience? No laughter. No tears. No sadness. No joy. No reaction whatsoever, other than increasing volumes of grumbling the longer the film went. Scene by scene, the creeping sense of boredom finally morphed into outrage. Seriously -- how does a film about controversial subject matter largely based on fact, led by one of Hollywood's top directors and three of the best actors working today manage to bore everyone in the audience? Let's start with monumental problem number one -- there's not a single character in this film worth caring about. Joachim Phoenix plays a mentally-disturbed loser drifting aimlessly from job to job. Completely unsympathetic, he eventually latches on to "The Cause" by accident and is taken under the wing of the movement's founder and guru philosopher, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Never mind that Phoenix is intellectually incapable of becoming a true believer. He's far too selfish to care about anything other than his next boozing session or sexual conquest. But he does manage to stay with "The Cause" for quite some time, beholden for sustenance to Hoffman and his wife, played by Amy Adams. To their credit, all three actors succeed in being repulsive figures. Trouble is, even though they are sinister in different ways, they really aren't very interesting. The opening scene, a nonsensical flashback of sexual vulgarity sets the pace for the next two-plus hours. Be warned, this is an incessantly repugnant film, which seems to take joy in employing sexual acts and ceaseless profanity merely for its shock value. For instance, what other reason exists for Amy Adams to spend two full minutes relieving Phillip Seymour Hoffman into a bathroom sink? The scene is pointless and profane. If that's your idea of "entertainment," there are certainly more suitable films out there with better looking actors for that purpose. The film's biggest waste and ultimate failure rests in its unwillingness to examine the subject which it's purportedly about. Specifically, what is it that attracts seemingly decent people to follow this cult? What are the responsibilities of the movement's members (they are shown standing around doing nothing during the entire movie)? What's the basic philosophy of "The Cause?" How is the movement funded? Not only are answers not given, the questions aren't even asked. That a film director with the pedigree of Mr. Anderson would abdicate this unique opportunity to show more of this religion and try to determine the reasons for its appeal is baffling. Here's my gut reaction: I would have walked out of this movie midway through had I not invested considerable time in trying so desperately to care, attempting to connect to what I was watching, so desperate to grasp some sliver of understanding about a subject of which I know little. Instead, I came out of the theater more angry and confused than when I entered. Most of the two dozen other film goers seemed to agree, as all I heard was grumbling as the exit doors were plowed open and we were released from Anderson's pointless labyrinth of lunacy. This is a horrible film.

Lincoln (2012)

Noble Effort, Masterful Performance, but Flawed History

[6/10 · 6 December 2012]

Portraying historical figures on film is a challenge. Such is particularly the case for beloved American icons with well-established identities.

The filmmaker's challenge rests not so much in recreating history. Typically, plenty of credible narratives exist which provide multiple accounts of the icon's role in history. What's toughest is striking the right balance between realism and art, melding history with entertainment, and doing what would seem impossible -- satisfying academics, film critics, and the ticket-buying, movie-going public. This is where Lincoln ultimately soars on at least one account, but fails in others.

One has to admire the filmmakers -- including Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner -- for not sentimentalizing the material. The creators appear to understand the gravity of the subject matter here, that what's portrayed on film and seen by millions over the next decades essentially becomes THE interpretation of history.

Which brings is to Lincoln -- the man, the President and the actor who portrays him, notably Daniel Day-Lewis.  This is an extraordinary performance by perhaps the best film actor working today. I've long marveled at Day-Lewis' broad range of characters, from the villain in "Gangs of New York" to an equally mesmerizing figure in "There Will be Blood." To think Day-Lewis, who holds duel Irish and English citizenship, could manage to pull off absolute perfection in the role of perhaps America's most revered historical figure is an astonishing testament to the craft of film acting.

Every grueling detail of Lincoln's mannerisms -- his voice, his tone, his walk, and the disposition of his very presence -- are as exactly as one would hope and expect, which is not to say that any of this is predictable. After all, how exactly does one pull off the voice of a man who's voice was never recorded? How does an actor combine the expressionism of a largely self-educated Kentucky-born plainsman who becomes President, making him sound hokey but also wise? Day-Lewis' role will be favorably compared to Helen Mirren ("The Queen"), Meryl Streep ("The Iron Lady"), and Colin Firth ("The King's Speech"). But I think this was better, or at least more worthy of praise since a new benchmark has been hit here with the portrayal of iconic historical figures.

Still, Day-Lewis' marvelous performance isn't quite enough to make what is a good movie into a film classic. Some of the supporting roles, widely praised by most critics, aren't nearly as convincing in my judgment. James Spader is perfectly cast as the unscrupulous lobbyist. But I still couldn't forget for an instant that I was watching James Spader portray some guy that lived 150 years ago. I was reminded of Jude Law playing Watson in the "Sherlock Holmes'" series. Then, there's Tommy Lee Jones, who somehow managed to keep his West Texas accent in this mid-19th Century period piece, despite the fact the Senator he's portraying is from Pennsylvania. I enjoy Jones' work and his character, Thaddeus Stevens is actually more admirable in many ways than the title character Lincoln himself. But Jones, displaying the same heavy-handed bombast in every character he's played since "The Fugitive," struck me as another out of tune chord in the Lincoln piano. Then, there's poor Sally Field, regretfully cast in the critical role of Mary Todd Lincoln. Aside from the fact she's at least twenty years older than the real Mrs. Lincoln, her character is an affront to actual history. For instance, there's no record or way Mrs. Lincoln attended the debates in the House of Representatives. But Sally Field gets her "To Kill a Mockingbird" dramatic moments, lending spousal encouragement from the front row balcony.

A few final thoughts: Those who go and see "Lincoln" (and I should note that this film should be seen) will probably be surprised as I was at how casual political Washington was in those times. Lincoln has virtually no personal security. The inside of the White House looks as cluttered with dust and worthless junk as my first D.C. apartment off of 17th Street. The imagery makes for one of the film's most interesting viewing pleasures -- seeing what day to day life was like in the chambers of power during the most critical phase of this nation's history.

Speaking of that history, Lincoln's final grade as a film will be reduced for what I consider a travesty. The blame rests alone with producer and director Spielberg. In one of the final scenes, when the climactic roll call vote is played out in Congress, each and every member of the House of Representatives must take a stand. Each man is required to take a position on the right or wrong side of history. Yet many of the names you will hear in the film have been changed.

That's right.

In the film's pre-release publicity tour, Spielberg explained his decision. He acknowledged that he changed the actual names of many Congressmen who voted against the 13th Amendment. His justification for doing this was (he said) not to embarrass the living descendants of these men.

Such gross misrepresentation of fact needs no counterargument. Those who were dead wrong, and who made the painful struggle for racial equality for all citizens more difficult should be exposed and known to all -- especially in a work which is presumably to be the most widely-seen recreation of this period of our history. It's mind-boggling that many of these names you will not hear in this movie, men who basically went on record against equality, have their names emblazoned on street signs and public buildings all over the country. Make no mistake. These are despicable people who abdicated all human decency when it mattered most.

I'd like to know those names. History and justice demands it. But instead, Spielberg chooses to whitewash it. And that's not just wrong. It's practically a historical cover up. One should hope and demand better from Spielberg.

Extended Review at: www.nolandalla.com

Life of Pi (2012)

A Beautiful But Flawed Film

[7/10 · 28 November 2012]

Life of Pi is a difficult movie to review.

Certain to be one of the year's most widely-discussed films, in part because it's open to multiple interpretations, this is a bold cinematic achievement by Oscar-winning director Ang Lee.

Yet, it's also fundamentally flawed, its most puzzling script gaps camouflaged by extraordinary special effects and first-rate performances by the actors who portray the lead character at different stages of his life. Indeed, the varied imagery and wide range of emotional demands upon the actors are so compelling that one might actually overlook the glaring contradiction within the film's most intriguing question — which deals with the storyteller's relationship with God. The film is such a powerful visual spectacle that the audience deserves an equally consistent storyline — and ultimately just as satisfying a payoff — which compliments the arduous endurance test of sitting through what feels like an overly-long 2 hour and 20 minute epic journey across the world's biggest ocean.

First, the basics. "Pi" is an Indian boy who enjoys an almost idyllic childhood. His early years are spent in a tropical seaside paradise located on the coast of the Indian Ocean. Pi's family owns and operates a zoo with several exotic animals.

When Pi becomes a teenager, his father decides to disband the zoo and move the entire family abroad. This leads to a life-changing adventure. To its credit, the story challenges many conventional assumptions about new immigrants. We assume immigrants are thrilled to be in a new homeland. But that's not always the case. After all, what child wants to be uprooted from a house near the beach, living happily among zoo animals — as is the case with Pi? I found this to be a powerful message — no doubt experienced by many very real immigrant children — which I had frankly never considered before. Sometimes, immigrants leave happy lives behind when forced to move elsewhere due to circumstances beyond their control.

The family and their prized zoo animals set off to Canada, which is to become their new home. Pi and his family board a cargo ship scheduled to cross the Pacific Ocean, with several wild animals from what had been the family zoo boarded in steerage.

A deadly typhoon changes everything. During the storm, Pi is thrown into an open lifeboat and is ultimately forced to survive on his own at sea. To make matters worse, but undoubtedly more interesting for the audience, some wild animals manage to find sanctuary inside the lifeboat with the terrified Pi. One of the animals that climbs aboard is a vicious Bengal tiger.

The story is entirely plausible up to this point. In the interest of avoiding spoilers for those who have not seen the movie, let's just say Pi and his beastly companion end up spending many months at sea together locked in a battle for supremacy and survival. As one can imagine, the demands which would be extraordinary were Pi sailing solo are magnified tenfold by the presence of a wild beast that views everything on the boat as his next tasty meal.

One thing which can be revealed is that Pi somehow manages to survive the ordeal. The story is told in flashbacks by an older and wiser Pi, ostensibly living somewhere in Canada in the present day. These segments introduce the film's most puzzling assertion.

The movie includes strong religious overtones throughout. Pi's early years are spent searching for God and the right religion to join. This is a pervasive theme throughout all stages of the film — setting up the central character's most poignant moment of self-discovery. This takes place when the adult Pi, now in his early 40s, reveals to the listener that the perilous sea voyage enabled him to better know and understand God. The reflection is largely positive.

Alas, Pi spends considerable time praising God as his savior at sea. After all, the necessities for survival were ultimately provided to him.

And therein lies the glaring contradiction. Pi reveres the same God who essentially murdered his entire family, needlessly sent dozens of innocent animals off to a torturous and terrifying death, and transformed him into an orphan in a strange land — not to mention having to endure a terrorizing ordeal on the high seas for 227 days. If God is to be praised for providing precious food and water at opportune moments while exposed at sea for months on end, shouldn't the same divinity also bear the blame for causing so much death and misery in the first place? "Gee God — thanks for the tuna and rainwater. I guess that's payback for drowning my giraffe, two elephants, plus my mom and dad." Moreover, the beautiful imagery becomes something of a distraction. Several short interludes interrupt Pi's struggle at sea, which show off a kaleidoscope of splendor. Unfortunately, these scenes in no way serve to advance the story nor answer any of the fundamental questions and judgments which Pi is entitled to make following his experience.

Life of Pi is not a film for children. It's being promoted as an action-adventure with a boy as the star, and various animals as the supporting cast. But these are not Disney animals. They are wild beasts capable of killing in an instant. There are several scenes of savagery, which left may children screaming and crying in the showing I attended. For those expecting to see Beauty and the Beast at sea, think again.

In summation, this is a spectacular cinematic achievement, which will undoubtedly be rewarded at Oscar time. Deservedly so.

Everyone will take away something different away from this movie. My interpretation is that life — even when filled with the prospect of danger and death — can be mesmerizing, even beautiful. However, as a spiritual awakening, this is a movie which cannot be rescued. That message remains aimlessly adrift at sea.

www.nolandalla.com

Flight (I) (2012)

Washington Carries this Film

[7/10 · 3 November 2012]

Imagine real-life hero pilot "Sulley" Sullenberger with a severe drug and alcohol problem and doing a few lines prior to taking controls in the cockpit, yet still managing to land his packed airplane with absolute precision on the Hudson River. Would he still be a hero? That's the dilemma of the new film, "Flight," which just hit theaters this week. This is a difficult movie to sit through. Yet it's tough to decide which is more gut-wrenching -- watching a doomed airliner packed full of passengers buckled down in a nosedive headed for near-certain death, or the central character played by Denzel Washington, whose personal life is just as out of control. While Washington's character nicknamed "Whip" manages to miraculously maneuver the aircraft towards a crash landing that undoubtedly saves lives, the captain comes under increasing scrutiny once the post-crash investigation begins. Conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the investigation begins to reveal some troubling revelations about Whip and his conduct. Every second of the pilot and crew's lives are scrutinized, which uncovers some ugly secrets about how Whip spends most of his free time. Most of the time his best friends are named Jim Beam and Jack Daniels, with a few lines of cocaine to add a little spice. The hero-addict dichotomy is a marvelous dramatic device which helps to sustain a longer-than-average 2.5 hour movie. The audience faces a real conflict here. We don't know whether to cheer for Whip to beat the rap and move on with his life (after all, he heroically saved lives), or be exposed as the fraud he is so the healing and recovery process can begin. Indeed, this film is not so much about the plane crash and aftermath as it is about addiction and realizing that one has a serious problem. While the crash scene is one of the most intense such moments ever recreated on film, the film's highest moments of drama actually occurs in hotel rooms and in front of refrigerators when Whip faces his toughest choice -- whether to drink or not. Most of the time, the bottle wins the war of the inner spirit, just as it tragically so often does with real life alcoholics. If there's any doubt about Denzel Washington being one of the finest actors of our generation, this should finally settle the issue. His is a resume filled with high moments -- his Academy Award winning over-the-top portrayal of a corrupt cop in "Training Day" perhaps being his best work. But this performance is every bit as strong for entirely different reasons. Washington shows great range in this film, flip-flopping between the boozing jet-setting playboy (played to perfection) and the sad and lonely loser that deep inside he know he has become. It's Washington when he's most vulnerable that carries this film. Just the right expression at the right time, a teardrop in a rare moment when he lets his guard down, or displaying a phony facade of going through the motions while being stoned and high on the inside -- these are the virtues that only a few actors working today could so successfully give to an audience. No doubt, Washington's role here will be remembered when Best Actor nominations come out for this year's Oscars. Robert Zemickis' direction is also near-perfect. This is often a dark and depressing movie, a sort of "Leaving Las Vegas" with an airline pilot in the central sympathetic role. Yet we never get too low, even watching a man hellbent on self-destruction. Zemickis, perhaps best known for his direction of "Forrest Gump," handles the material with great care, managing an excellent supporting cast -- led by two superb roles by Bruce Greenwood and Don Cheadle -- who serve to change the mood just when the film seems to become too dark. There are some scenes and story lines that I found unnecessary. Whip finds a romantic interest along the way, a fellow addict. I had a hard time buying the notion that a 20-year career airline pilot would find much in common with a very plain-looking heroin addict one step up from doing back alley tricks as someone to find comfort with . The girl simply lacks any appeal. To her credit, at least she's headed in the right direction in her recovery while Whip guzzles one beer after another. But I found her not only to be implausible partner but totally unnecessary to the story -- adding at least 30 minutes to a film that probably should have capped out at two hours. The film builds to a fulfilling climax that won't be revealed here. Some ends are tied up nicely, while others remain frayed. Which is all fine -- that's how real life works. In short, this is good film made much better by the wide range of talent displayed by one of Hollywood's finest actors. Denzel Washington's performance alone is reason enough to see the film.

Argo (2012)

Good Thriller, but Should Have Been Better

[6/10 · 3 November 2012]

To those of us who remember going to bed each night serenaded by Ted Koppel's voice on ABC's "Nightline," the latest film by Ben Affleck will bring back vivid memories. Yet remarkably, even though we remember how the Iranian Hostage Crisis turned out, the personal stories and occasional acts of heroism behind the daily headlines remain mostly untold and little known.

"Argo" tells the griping story of a secret CIA-led mission to rescue six American hostages who managed to escape the doomed American Embassy on the day it was swarmed by an Iranian mob, which eventually led to a 444-day stalemate for those left behind, trapped in captivity. The six consular workers who managed to slip out a side door, just as the Embassy compound was being stormed, hid away for more than two months. They were housed at great risk inside the Canadian Ambassador's residence, in Tehran.

Unfortunately for the hostages, the time clock is ticking. The Canadian Ambassador receives word that his mission is to close, leaving the hidden Americans in a proverbial lifeboat, now suddenly taking on water. This sets into motion one of the oddest alliances ever for a clandestine operation, bringing together intelligence officials working alongside Hollywood insiders who must concoct a phony film as a cover story. The wacky idea is to pretend to make a movie in Iran, and smuggle out the American diplomats. This remarkable tale makes for pleasing caper, which draws in the audience due to being loosely based on actual events.

Maybe its having worked in Washington and having served in a couple of foreign embassies, but for me the part of the film that worked best was the dead-on portrayal of bureaucracy and communications to the overall process. This point cannot be overstated.

Most movies only focus on action and conflict. But the real challenges to would-be superheros are usually getting people to answer telephones and moving through the maze of lazy bureaucrats. Getting things done is simply not an easy thing, and this film does as good a job as any at showing the intricacies of the diplomatic and intelligence circles. Just as the 1976 classic "All the President's Men" showed the grind of digging up the truth within a news organization, in a similar sense, "Argo" perfectly captures the day-to-day back and forth tug of war between (sometimes contentious) forces within government.

I was also pleased the film did not attempt to gloss over the United States' appalling history of meddling in the internal affairs of Iran, the price for which we are still paying today. Not only did the U.S. assist in the overthrow of the Iranian prime minister back in 1953 (which happened, oddly enough just after he announced intent to nationalize Western oil companies). America also bolstered the Shah's brutal dictatorship with weapons and support for more than three decades, and then provided him sanctuary while Iranians demanded that he be returned to Iran in order to stand trial. One can probably make a case for these difficult diplomatic decisions which were made during the Cold War period. But the point is -- those decisions came at a heavy cost – and I credit the filmmakers for not casting the U.S.-Iran conflict in black and white as so many other films do, when the truth is often hued in shades of gray.

This is not to say "Argo" is without flaws. I'm not much of a fan of Ben Affleck's work. I saw little in this film that changes that opinion. He's directed a number of horrible movies. So,saying this is his "best work" isn't saying much. As an actor, I have even less regard for Affleck's spotty reel of rubbish. Every Affleck portrayal seems to be exactly the same, and his role here as a CIA operative is no different.

My final disappointment comes with one segment of the film which was a horribly missed opportunity. Although she appears in only a few scenes, the character portrayed by the Canadian Ambassador's housekeeper is absolutely pivotal to the overall success of the rescue mission. One peep from the housekeeper would have ended everything and probably resulted in executions. That a director with the experience-level of Affleck would not expound more on her role and the heart-wrenching dilemma she faces as a citizen of Iran without any means of escape is a terrible waste.

Without spoilers, the Iranian knows the six guests of the Canadian Ambassador are Americans. In one brief scene, she is questioned by a gun-totting investigator and she lies to protect them. Yet we are given absolutely no insight into her motives. That the hostages could (and will) escape and her lie will eventually be exposed puts her in serious danger. We later see a 20-second clip of this woman (which I will not give away) which shows what happens to her, which I found a poor attempt to neatly tie-up what must have been difficult decision for many Iranians who tended to be pro-Western and even friendly with Americans. Alas, this housekeeper was probably the most courageous person in the film, yet we fail to gain any insight into her character or motives.

Despite its flaws and some valid criticism about historical accuracy (the Canadians deserve more credit than they are given), this remains a film to see. This political thriller gives the audience a great ride and an emotionally-satisfying experience.

www.nolandalla.com

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)

Squeeling Like a Pig -- A Film About the Bad Guys from Deliverance

[3/10 · 13 August 2012]

The opening scene in "Beasts of the Southern Wild" begins with great promise. We're introduced to an enchanting seven-year-old girl, played to perfection by newcomer Quvenzhane Wallis. She takes us by the hand on a narrative adventure into her unseen world -- the murky backwaters of the Louisiana Bayou. As the starting credits rolled, I thought to myself that I was about to experience one of the best films of the year.

Instead, about an hour later, I was standing out in the lobby following a walkout.

So -- what happened? Critics have fallen all over themselves in reviews of this film. It's received almost universal praise – for cinematography, story, performances, and originality.

It's easy to see why the reviews have been so positive. Indeed, the film is original. It's emotional. It's a tremendous cinematic achievement, especially given its low budget (a paltry $1.8 million). Moreover, for a film with no known actors, the performances prove to be not only realistic, but perhaps too convincing for conventional acceptance.

So – why did I storm out of this film? I suppose that could be explained in two words – boredom and annoyance.

This film is a bore. It's a gumbo of Swamp People, Deliverance, and The Jerry Springer Show – only it's nearly two hours long. Question: Would you want to watch The Jerry Springer Show, with its three-toothed slobs screaming at each other, for two mind-numbing hours? Well, neither would I.

There's not a single character in this film with appeal. In the extraordinary annals of cinema, even thieves and gangsters can elicit sympathy from movie audiences when they are done right. But these horrors of humanity make the Ned Beatty rape scene in Deliverance into a Doris Day movie. The entire cast makes trailer trash seem like a royal family.

Alas, every character is a boozing, uneducated, bore. I'm all for drinking, event to excess, but that's all these people do. I have no idea where they they get the money to plow through countless bottles of beer and rock gut liquor at all hours of the day. But however they make a living, drinking money is never is short supply.

It's hardly a surprise then, that the poor little girl's father is an abusive alcoholic. When he's not plastered or passed out, he's pounding catfish in the head with his fist or getting aroused when an alligator gets shot (you have to see it to believe it). If he loves his daughter, he sure has a strange way of showing it -- unless parental supervision is revealed in taking another swig of moonshine.

The girl's mother is no longer around. Maybe she's deceased, or perhaps she somehow found her way out of the madness. One can only hope.

The rest of the cast, the bayou freak show, are a motley mix of trashy drunks who don't seem to have an intelligent or insightful thought between them.

This is the appalling environment that the little girl, nicknamed "Hush Puppy" grows up in.

To make matters worse – much worse – a hurricane is approaching.

I realize it's terribly unfair to judge people. Some are simply caught up in circumstances way beyond their control. They have no options. They have no means of escape. Life is but a vicious cycle of poverty abuse, and pain. There are plenty of films that capture this despair effectively and with great sympathy.

However, "Southern Wilds" is little more than a musical montage of child abuse, neglect, cruelty to animals, and an utter disdain for any sense of meaning outside of this twisted culture of madness.

Consider that there is not a book, a newspaper or a magazine in any scene. There is not a kind word spoken by anyone to anyone. There is not an intelligent conversation. In short, these people live like animals. They are a disgrace.

Although I did not stick around to see the second half of the film, one can pretty much conclude that Hush Puppy is trapped in this life. Sadly, she is undoubtedly capable of so much more. She's a bright child. She has a possible future ahead anywhere outside the bayou, but instead is likely chained to a lifetime of ignorance and poverty. Indeed, the horrible tragedy is that people like this do exist, not just in the bayou -- but everywhere.

Amidst the bleakness, the film does have some positives. It's beautifully filmed. Imagery and feel for the bayou is enhanced with just the right musical tone and creative accompaniment. There are frequent flashbacks and visual montages that serve to scaffold Hush Puppy's emotional and physical desolation. No doubt, this is an intelligently-made film.

Moreover, when one watches any film, it's nourishing to be taken out of a recurring comfort zone, at times. I think I'm willing to test myself more than most and confront issues which sometimes make me uncomfortable. Indeed, I favor movies that challenge me.

And so, I knew going in that this was not going to be a National Geographic feel-good postcard of life from the Louisiana Bayou. But what I watched was neither entertaining nor insightful. It was an annoying bore.

I am sure there are people in this world much like the cretins portrayed in "Beasts of the Southern Wild." I suppose they are entitled to live their lives as they wish. Just don't ask me to pay my money to see them or try and appreciate their heritage or culture.

Behaving like the dregs of humanity is not something to be proud of. It's something from which there should be an escape. Fortunately, I found my escape about halfway through this dreadfully depressing film.

RATING: WALKED OUT

The Intouchables (2011)

A Magnificent Film

[8/10 · 11 August 2012]

A French movie with English subtitles enters the finicky American movie market with two strikes against it.

It's French -- strike one.

It has subtitles -- strike two.

Which is a crying shame, because one of the year's most enjoyable and uplifting films has pretty much come and vanished from theaters, unable to garner much attention during another summer filled with mindless action adventure "thrillers" and sleep-inducing "comedies." The Intouchables is a marvelous film. Carried by two outstanding lead performances by Francois Cluzet (who bears an uncanny resemblance to Dustin Hoffman) and Omar Cy (who deserves an Oscar nomination for a movie-stealing performance), this film has wit, candor, humor, sadness, and ultimately great inspiration. The film's credibility is boosted by it being based on a true story.

Cluzet plays a quadriplegic, which means he is confined to a wheelchair unable to feel any sensation below his neck. If there's any upside, it's that he's also very wealthy, giving him considerable options that would not otherwise be available to a person of lesser means.

Cluzet is utterly bored with his life, not the least of which has anything to do with his physical impairment. One senses that even if he were not parked in a wheelchair, he would still need something more. A great deal more, in fact. What Cluzet needs is stimulation, excitement, and most of all – someone he can call a friend.

He finds all of this in the unlikeliest of places.

Omar Cy plays the part of unemployed street thug to absolute perfection. He's a Senegalese immigrant languishing in the slums of Paris burdened with typical urban family difficulties -- poverty, drug abuse, lack of hope and opportunity. One can imagine that there are many Omar Cy's living as second-class citizens throughout the modern world. In fact, the city here may be Paris. But it could just as easily be Sao Paulo or Chicago. He meets Cluzet in what can only be described as an unexpected encounter, and the two men begin to engage in an uneasy, but captivating friendship.

Everyone can see what's coming next. And that's perfectly okay. Initially indifferent to Cluzet's condition, Cy will ultimately come to care deeply for the man who is not just an employer, but a pathway out of pointlessness. The man in the chair becomes a muse and means of escape, an emotional and spiritual home for a foreigner who instantly resumes the role of "immigrant" once he steps back beyond the threshold of Cluzet's luxurious apartment and back onto the streets of Paris.

The two men desperately need each other, in completely different ways. Eventually, they engage on a bucket list of activities, bonding in the process, allowing the rest of us to go along for the ride. And what a joyous ride it is.

Critics have correctly pointed out this film gives a somewhat sanitized depiction of what being without the use of one's arms and legs must be like. While most of the film focuses on the role of caregiver, we are constantly reminded (or perhaps, I simply could not get it out of my mind) that not every quadriplegic receives such meticulous physical care nor emotional support. It helps to have money, no matter who you are.

But I was willing to overlook this and enjoy a film full of energy, comedy, and ultimately of happiness.

Admittedly, the conclusion of the film seems all too neat and tidy. But again, I am going to give the filmmakers a pass here for reasons you may understand only if you see the film, which enables audiences to come and appreciate how important people are to other people. After all, we are allowed to enjoy an uplifting film every once in a while. Never mind that it's all somewhat contrived.

One of my barometers in judging a film comes with a fundamental question. Namely, do I think about the film the next day, and perhaps the next.

I did. I must admit I was moved emotionally by this film. So was everyone else in the audience, from the reactions I saw. I laughed. I teared up. And, I rejoiced in the end.

Call me naive, but I wish all life ended just like it does in the movies. I know -- it doesn't.

But that won't stop me from dreaming and enjoying the fantasy.

To Rome with Love (2012)

Allen's Most Disappointing Film from Europe

[3/10 · 11 August 2012]

Woody Allen's seventh postcard from Europe lacks enough postage. It should be rubber-stamped "Return to Sender." This is undoubtedly the most disappointing of all his films set in Europe.

Following a lifetime spent channeling New York's neurotic side, creating some of the most memorable roles in modern film history (Annie Hall, Leonard Zelig, Danny Rose, and of course – Allen himself), the 76-year-old film legend abruptly departed his familiar Manhattan backdrop in 2004, taking his introspective wit across the Atlantic, initially to London, then Barcelona, followed by Paris, and now Rome.

His latest release To Rome with Love has all the ingredients of yet another tasty Allen stew. But in the end, all we sample is watered-down broth, poorly seasoned, with stale recollections of the spicy flavors that made Match Point, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, and Midnight in Paris so thoroughly original and enjoyable.

To be fair to Allen, he's coming off his biggest commercial success ever, which is a hard act to follow. Since his heyday as a writer-director-star during the 1970s, Allen's films haven't performed particularly well at the box office. But like summer stock theater, they tend to make just enough money to keep Allen atop the list of directors most actors long to work with. For that reason, Allen pretty much gets his pick of the litter as to who he casts in his films, and often writes characters perfectly suited to the typecasting.

Indeed for Allen, the blockbuster 2011 hit Midnight in Paris was tough to match – either critically or commercially. But not only does To Rome with Love fall far short, it doesn't even belong on the same continent.

The plot is very familiar territory for fans of Allen's films. Three stories are supposedly entwined, full of quirky characters, ultimately providing audiences with humor, greater understanding, and ultimately-- revelation. That was supposed to be recipe.

Trouble is, this time around none of the stories Allen has penned are particularly interesting or memorable. Predictably, Allen does manage to steal one segment, playing a bored American retiree who is accompanying his wife to Italy. They are scheduled to meet their daughter's soon-to-be husband, and family. As one can imagine, the interaction between Allen and the non-English speaking Italian family has its moments. The story blossoms when Allen unexpectedly discovers the Italian father can sing like Caruso. But the high point of this operatic mini-drama becomes too forced, testing the audience's patience to say nothing of straining credibility.

In the second story, Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network) plays an American student living in Rome along with his girlfriend. When the girlfriend invites "Monica" to pay a visit, played wonderfully by Ellen Page (Juno), Eisenberg becomes infatuated with the new house guest and the fireworks begin. The always reliable Alec Baldwin, perfectly cast as the debonair know-it-all, oddly provides a voice of reason during Eisenberg's degenerative courtship, hoping to stop his protégé from making a complete fool of himself.

The final story seems both camp and patronizing, cookie-cutting arguably the only Italian actor widely recognizable to American audiences (Roberto Benigni -- Life is Beautiful) as the warm roasting chestnut to provide some wildly-exaggerated depiction of the "average" Italian. This story gets old quick, and drags down what would otherwise be at least a mildly entertaining film.

Italy should be perfect canon fodder for Allen's innumerable idiosyncrasies. A nation of wildly-gesturing people full of passion about everything -- art, soccer, food, whatever -- seems the perfect foil for all of Allen's self-centered New Yorkers. Instead, the opportunity is wasted. The film might as well have been shot in Cleveland.

Without giving away too much, there's no payoff in the end. For audiences expecting to see the combustible explosion during the final climactic scene from Allen's vast cinematic laboratory, we are left wondering why any of this mattered.

And that's the trouble – it didn't.

In his masterful 47-year film career, Allen rarely delivers a product that seems so unfinished. It's as though Allen wrote a (somewhat decent) first draft, and then suddenly called in the cameras to start shooting. Allen knows very well that greatness comes through time and repetition.

Like fine wine, this one needed to age a bit. It was served far too early. And like so many bad Chiantis, the tannins were overwhelming to the point of being undrinkable.