Change Your Image
tsasa198
Reviews
The Nanny Diaries (2007)
Nanny Dearest
I know that my fervent anti-careerism is out of step with most right minded Americans, and this film plays into that sediment by believing that moving on up the socioeconomic ladder is all good all the time. So while I point out the philosophical differences I may have with this film I know that I am also, simultaneously, opening myself up to a boatload of nasty emails. That said, this film does fall into the ago old Hollywood trap where they think they can get you to loathe the rich man but love the pursuit of becoming the rich man without swimming in ideological quicksand. Of course Hollywood has no interest in avoiding this trap because sadly it is rather representative of where most Americans are. They truly believe that their choice in life is between being the Central Park Bag Lady and the Park Slope Lawyer. If only we, and Nanny, could get over our passion for the gaudiness of exposed wealth we could stop trying so hard to become ignorant, intolerant Donalds.
What we have is a fourth baked adaptation of a comedic novel that I really enjoyed back in the day. Written by Emma Mclaughlin and Nicole Kraus it was a straight up diatribe against the wealthy and the ways in which they mistake large mounds of cash for righteousness. Annie (changed from Nanny in the book since movie audiences are stupider than book readers) is played by Scarlet Johansson whose career is starting to show cracks, especially when she has the unenviable task of acting next to Paul Giamatti(as Mr. X) thus exposing her talent as the fraud that it is. After finishing college and setting her eyes upon a job as a CFO she encounters the real world and is forced to take a real job (gasp!) as a nanny for Mrs. X (Laura Linney). From there the "comedy" is derived from watching just how out of touch and monstrous Mrs. X is all the while swooning over her son Grayer because he is just so darn cute. The jokes are helter skelter and for the most part wickedly obvious. More than most bad movies this one feels like a series of vignettes with no feel flow to the overarching plot. Sure, I got it that Annie/Nanny was torn between her love of Grayer and her hatred of Mrs. X. And that Mrs. X would ultimately be shown to be a sympathetic character because in these Puritanical States of America being the victim of adultery justifies all (not that I was buying that package). But mostly it was just dumb humor, like "Oh look he dropped her drawers, that's HE-larious!!' There is also something of a romance between Annie and some dude she calls Harvard Hottie (Chris Evans, not impressing me at all since all he does is smirk instead of act).
I know that books are better than their cinematic counterparts (generally, "Mysterious Skin" is one big exception to that rule) but this film left me very unsatisfied. The warmth and fun of the book has apparently been crushed under the thumb of the Weinsteins. And in an attempt to appeal to an older, more elite audience they inserted some rather obnoxious things into the story. Like, what is with the mom who turns her back on her daughter just for taking a job that involves labor? That was nowhere to be found in the novel. And what about Annie's idea that going to grad school is somehow a way of turning your back on money? What else do we turn to in this country in hopes of breaking our caste system other than the nefarious university system? Plus it panders like mad to the parents in the audience. At the end Annie even refers to Grayer as an "amazing, amazing little person," even though we all know that he is just going to grow up and turn into his daddy. . . a cheating, money obsessed, absent father. **1/2
Batman (1989)
Vintage Bat
I'm no comic book geek, but to me Batman has always been a favorite fictional character of mine. Never stooping to Republican style crusades like the fight for truth, justice and the American way, he battles the real bad guys, those in our society who pretend to be something they are not (and no the irony is not lost on me). The ruthless CEO, the corrupt cop, the sleazy politician. In this, the original movie, corruption has overtaken Gotham. In fact in Gotham police and corruption go together like. . .Batman and Robin. . .or police corruption and the NYPD. Tim Burton, visual magician that he is delivers a decent adaptation that felt too sluggish for my own personal taste. I know that it is supposed to be dark and foreboding, and it is. But it is overlong, filled with padding, and indulges Jack who is all too happy to play Jack in face paint. The finale had all the depth of a fireworks display. Plus I have been spoiled, "Batman Begins" reigns supreme in my mind as the high and mighty dark knight of comic book movies, leaving this and every other superhero flick in its dust.
The film is more of an actors showcase than I am used to from Burton. At its center lies Michael Keaton as Batman/Bruce Wayne, and there is something so perfect about his portrayal of Wayne. In him I see everything we want to be. Not just rich and selfless and able to bed Kim Basinger (three things the vast majority of people are not), but things on a more personal level. He's smooth and confident and charming. I love the way he is both the center of the city and a total recluse. While my apartment is busy being littered with pizza boxes, he lives in a mansion which means that somehow he has earned the right to be thought of as a dignified loner. Now he is much less of a butt kicker than new breed Batman Christian Bale, so we have to stretch our imaginations a little further during the fight sequences because Keaton's muscles are only suit deep. As far as Jack Nicholson as the Joker goes, I had as much fun as anyone listening to his hysterical laughter and watching him dance across the screen. I just worry that Burton felt as though if he filled the movie with enough Nicholson bombast then the rest would all fall into place. Sure he gets a few laughs, but you don't see the Joker you see Jack Nicholson overpowering the role.
I know I'm weird for watching the second film before this one, but that is just how I roll. More than anything I missed the Penguin; he had such a vile presence that he elevated "Batman Returns." The set design is more restrained here. What felt cartoony in "Returns" here still feels over the top but not really Burton-ish. And while I ripped on "Returns" for having bad, corny lines I will admit I sort of missed them this go round. Of course I'll take humor wherever I can get it, but this being about a caped crusader I know what is on the menu. The plot, about the Joker's plot to poison the cities hygiene products with something that makes them smile like him and then die is sort of funny but nothing overly grand. Sorry but most comic book movies are kind of bad and I am adding this one to the pile. I have affection for it, but it was about one producers cut away from being a good movie. But who needs this one anyways, we have another Christopher Nolan Batman on the horizon. **3/4
Congorama (2006)
Does Not Justify Its Existence
"Congorama" a quirky drama from Quebec is of the genre where one story is told from different points of view so that you the viewer feel almost violated afterwards but the director gets to feel brilliant. Woody Allen did pretty well by it in "Melinda and Melinda," but he's Woody Allen and has nothing to prove. Here Philippe Falardeau, the director, has laid out his pieces so obviously that I watched the first segment, which focused on Michel (Olivier Gourmet who was so good in "The Son"), knowing exactly which scenes would come back to haunt me later on. Why else would he take time out of his talkative film to show Michel being run into an airport by a crazed stranger? Well of course because in about 20 minutes we are going to find out exactly who that man was and why he was dashing through an airport.
The story follows two characters who seemingly have no connection to one another, but who are both looking for their father for different reasons. First we meet Michel, a not too successful inventor who has a black wife, a black kid and doubts about his paternal status (especially because he is not black). He comes to find out that he was adopted and sets off to find his real dad. The trip is a disaster on pretty much every front and culminates in a nasty car crash caused by one very peaceful looking emu. From there we move back in time to find out about this Louie character who happens to be in the car with Michel at the time of the wreck. He too is out looking for daddy, though his motivations are much more economically driven. Throughout the film many ideas and pranced across the screen: colonization, electric cars, worlds fairs, etc. But none are ever dwelled upon. This is much more about the characters and the film technique than about anything political. And I don't blame Falardeau for this; Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu has danced his way all the way to the Academy Awards by juggling with time and serving up scenes that overwhelm the viewer with awesomeness, so why shouldn't this film be eye catching and appealing? I just wish that I didn't see it as nothing more than low rent "Babel." For much of the film I felt as though it was wrongfully up on my screen, squatting as it were, not doing anything to warrant my attention. "Do some tricks" I told it telepathically, and eventually it did, and some that even impressed me. Unfortunately too much was laid on too thick. What causes the central car accident (besides the emu of course)? Why a picture of St. Christopher, the patron saint of travel because it was being fiddled with at the time in question. Oh how ironic!! And there were just too many times these characters crossed paths for no good reason. Why did Michel have to sign the cast directly in the middle of the diamond that Louie had drawn and then left there willy nilly? The director has skills, no doubt about it; he just needs to write himself a better script next time around. I did see this at the New Directors Film Festival after all, and that said Falardeau definitely deserves a chance to continue on. This film is fun, but also lightweight and overstretched. A little stunt that won't stand the test of time. **3/4
El custodio (2006)
If Only Life Really Was This Boring
What bugs me more than anything about my job is how everybody I work with views their profession as two to three pay grades below them. They, unknowing or uncaring about the rest of the world who live with dirt floors and without hot showers, feel crushed under the weight of their own disappointment. Why they, special as they are, have to serve coffee is a grand mystery to them because clearly they deserve so much more. And it is that mentality there that drives "El Custodio," a film from Argentina about Ruben, a bodyguard to a politician and emotional ticking time bomb. He too feels entitled to more of life's riches and to have to play tail to a man who truly does live in the lap of luxury only serves to rub his nose in it. Ruben takes his job seriously and yet is a joke to all those around him. His passion for art is turned into a cheap party trick by his owner, and he has to play chauffeur to the politician's daughter while she services her boyfriend in plain view. In other words his job sucks.
This all has a very authentic feel to it. Work is either hard or boring (that is, after all, why they pay you) and here we certainly suffer the latter. However, as it usually is, if you tell a boring story you end up with a boring movie, and that is exactly what we have here. His mundane professional experience is our mundane viewing experience. It is not like the guy is protecting his boss from assassination attempts at the UN, more like carting him around town so that he can spend some quality time with his goomah. Michael Mann has made a career out of showing men at work, but he has yet to capture the true feeling of his audiences work day. Most of us aren't driving a homicidal Tom Cruise around LA in the middle of the night. Here we get realism and that comes with it. There is some subtle humor mixed in, mostly dealing with sex. But the tricks director Rodrigo Moreno plays on us are so mild and inconsequential that they are instantly forgettable.
As we learned many moons ago, when Hollywood does bodyguard movies they can't help but dose the whole thing in sap. We do tag along with Ruben as he takes his whole family out to dinner, and while they are supposed to be funny and/or eccentric they don't come off as any more crazy than your family or mine. Well except for the part where he brandishes a gun, but hey, maybe you're from down South. Romance arrives in the form of a prostitute but even that is handled with stone cold seriousness. Since this is not a Wolfgang Petersen/Clint Eastwood movie don't expect anything as over roasted as a slow mo shot Ruben taking a bullet for his master. Quite the opposite in fact. And even though the film does take a populist turn towards the end I can't forgive them for how much the first 2/3 of it felt like a chore. If you've ever worked in your life you'll feel for this guy, but you will also recognize that most of us swallow our pride every day when we wake up and go off to bake bread, drive cabs, or serve coffee. But apparently poor Ruben was incapable of that. **1/2
Les ambitieux (2006)
Don't Ignore This Film
"Ambitious" is a little gem of a movie that I seriously hopes gets distribution here in America. It is a breezy comedy about a love affair between people from different sides of the publishing tracks. A darkly human morality tale about our fatal attraction to lifestyles based on deception. And it is something of a screed against spoiled princesses everywhere who disdain real work and instead spend their lives judging others in an attempt to validate their empty souls. It works very well on all these levels which leads to a low calorie good time that leaves you feeling woozy yet pleasant, and completely guilt free (it's subtitled after all!).
The film starts off dealing with the ambitions of a young writer, Julien, who is obsessed with being published. His passion, however, is met with outright apathy when he finally gets a publisher, Judith, to read it. This being France, land of the easy lay, they are soon sleeping together in sin, and things only get crazier from there. Their adulterous affair causes some serious complications (don't they always) as the principles involved have to find ways to shake their significant others/booty calls. It has recently been reported that the brain responds to falling in love the same way it responds to cocaine, so I supposed Julien's irrational behavior during this portion of the film can be somewhat explained. She's a control freak career woman, but he is more than happy to follow her around, puppy dog style. As Julien works on his next book he has to hide the subject from his lover because it is based on her father's diary and he's not about to tell her that. So lying to the girlfriend about the mistress has led directly into lying to the mistress about the book for him. Once he does present her with the book she flips. I would say that he has every right to use her father's story for fodder, but Judith would disagree. However, to deny that his book is based on anything is akin to swimming in quicksand which he finds out the hard way.
Our former lover are soon at war over the book and the politics get nastier and nastier. It is unfortunate that the director feels the need to get all sappy on us at the end. The final scene, with its chase to the train station and its proclamations of love is the main black mark against this otherwise great film. While it does have a strong bohemian sensibility to it, Julien does not get off totally free. His ambitions do lead to him getting his book published and to him winning the girl, but director Catherine Corsini also shows that ambition swings both ways. His successes turn him into a national laughing stock who has to go into hiding just to save face. There is also the character Simon, the serious actor who is so set on making it that he is currently homeless. Late in the game there is a divine scene where he puts his skills to good use and plays a stalker set on raping Judith. It all sounds so mean spirited, and it is, but it is also hilarious. Besides, Judith has it coming, what goes around comes around. It is the best scene in a darn good film. ***1/2
Supernanny (2005)
Welcome to America
The reason that this show exists is really quite simple. You serve the masses the low brow entertainment of watching kids behave badly, and then you double their pleasure by playing into their need for authority as we have some crazy lady come in and reign the wicked little things in. It is Trash TV, plain and simple, so while I stared blankly at the TV for an hour and wasn't bored I also knew that I certainly wasn't being nourished. It also goes without saying that the profession of Supernanny is totally made up. Even more fantasy based is this notion that someone can just come in and fix years worth of parenting problems by making the parents participate in kindergarten like exercises ("Carry this backpack around, it symbolizes the weight Mom carries around everyday.") I also found it to be pretty darn odious that the kid was seen as blameless. In the episode I watched Supernanny must have uttered the phrase ADHD a thousand times in justifying the kids behavior. That is fine, but, to then take all the blame and place it at the feet of the dad, and to say that all this is his fault because after exerting himself all day he is going upstairs and decompressing for too long is the kind of bargain basement theorizing I would expect from a network reality TV show in the year 2007. Maybe Mom should be a working girl on the side, you know, to bring some extra cash in and help Dad out. Or maybe (and this is almost a guarantee) if Dad is not allowed to relax after work at home then he might move his R&R location to the local watering hole.
I also couldn't help but feel scorn for the people of this country who watch this week after week. "Freaks and Geeks": one season. "The Comeback": one season. "Supernanny": continuing to thrive well into its second season, as sad as it is this is what we like to watch. I would say that the most important lesson I learned here was never to have kids. Of course I swore off reproducing years ago, but this show made certain that I didn't get an unwelcome visit from my biological ticking clock in a couple years. If I had to pick a positive I guess I would say that at least my friend Supernanny preached a message of positive thinking. The elimination of parents who push negativity towards their children's homework will do wonders for the kids view of homework. In the end, this show kind of sucks. Just another example of fools who are more than happy to air their dirty laundry in the name of getting their ugly mugs on TV. It is sad and disturbing. It is the kind of slop Oprah used to roll around in before she went into bigger goals like encouraging America to read (God Bless Her) and swaying Presidential politics. Supernanny is egotistical, longwinded, and not too bright. . .and so is "Supernanny." I'll watch the show again if I get the promise that the episode involves the kids beating her at every turn, outsmarting her and her elementary tactics, to the point where she is forced to hang up her cape out of frustration.
Smokin' Aces (2006)
Come for the Chainsaw, Stay for the Chainsaw
I don't care how many critics hated this film (as of this writing it is sitting pretty at 27% on Rotten Tomatoes), I was not going to be deterred. If they were promising a frenzy of all star assassins racing to capture the bounty on the head of some slime ball played by Jeremy Piven then I was in. It also looked like they were willing to throw in some over the top Tarantino-ish flair and the coup de grace, a scene where somebody sits down on a running chainsaw. So I went and now I wished I had listened to that darned tomato meter. What I found was one of the messiest, self-indulgent plots in recent memory. I fully expected sensationalism, but I certainly didn't it expect it served up without the entertainment value. There are brief flashes of fun, but mostly it is just one big waste. A waste of talent, a waste of film, and a waste of time.
But really I don't mind the waste of director Joe Carnahan. Making "Narc" as good as it was was probably just a ploy to get to direct commercial garbage like this. I do, however, mind the waste of Jeremy Piven. It all starts off AOK with his character. Granted it is suspiciously similar to the one he plays on "Entourage," but that role made him who he is today so why not. We see him living a life that can only be described as a sleaze ball's deepest fantasy. A penthouse filled with naked hookers lying on the floor grasping at their bongs with drugs, money, and guns fill up the rest of the space. He then gets to deliver some very Ari-like lines, but then disappears into a role that asks him to walk around stoned, unaware of the world around him. Alicia Keys is also there (much to the delight of Bob Dylan), and even though she is probably the most likable character she really is nothing more than the sum of her parts. The nonsensical plot races itself to the finish, trying oh so hard to give a 13 year old boy anything he could possibly want. So considering that I thought all movies tried to pander to that demographic I am surprised this one has only done so so at the box office thus far. In the end, I can only recommend this film if your idea of a good time is sitting in a theater and hooting at anything that tickles your reptilian brain. Other than that there is no real reason to even consider watching this crap.
Sorry if this review feels a little flat, I just was left feeling incredibly uninspired by this film. The bright spot, for me, was the numb chuck wielding 7 year old and his cluelessly permissive grandma. I was left wondering what I would do if this maniacal little twerp was talking smack to me after I had just had my hand blown off and then left for dead in a lake. The film does get in some clever one liners but considering that it is trying to sell cool to the kids I would certainly hope so. It probably is all fun and games for Carnahan to take his victory lap by pretending to be Tarantino, but whatever happened to self control? The closest relative this movie has in the Tarantino library is "Reservoir Dogs" but that was actually a great film. It told funny jokes, paced itself, and earned its shock value. All shock value equals no shock value and is thus a waste of time. And I say all this as someone who wishes there was more violence in movies. **
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes! (1978)
Tomatoes Attack. . .The Opposite of Hilarity Ensues
The same night that I watched this I also watched "Scary Movie 4," making for one messed up double feature. Unfortunately for these killer tomatoes they could not stand up to the laugh riot that is the Scary Movie franchise. While I fought boredom here watching jokes that were silly and stupid, brutally dated and brutally bad, the more recent parody had me laughing out loud. How could I desire any more than that. Director John De Bello uses the basic premise that some sort of growth hormone has gone terribly wrong and turned the tomatoes into killers. But his main objective here is to slap around the disaster movie genre that was so big back in the day. The script reeks of stoner humor, and perhaps if you take illegal substances with your movie nights this could be your cup of tea. I, sober, was stuck watching a grown man go under cover as a tomato. And that one joke, that is never funny, where the discrepancy between the Japanese speaking actor and the voice over is also here. Some may giggle, I did not. They even had a Hitler joke that wasn't funny, and I thought all Hitler jokes were funny.
The narrative of this film is so splintered (for no good reason) that it is nearly impossible to explain. Tomatoes kill people, the government tries to stop it, bad jokes are told. Their aim may have been correct as their targets include the media, consumerism, and paranoia (three things that still control our lives today). Oddly enough the main selling point of this film, those gosh darn tomatoes, really don't make much of an appearance. And when they do, get this, they're played by real tomatoes. That washed up gimmick did nothing for me as I get very little out of watching a pack of tomatoes devour a body thanks to the magic of stop action camera tricks. There is also a fear of going for broke at work here that prevents this film from being truly funny. The gag of having somebody fall asleep in nearly every scene may please some audience members, but more than likely it will be seen as an invitation to join in the fun.
I might also add that there does seem to be some old fashioned human egotism at work here. Man eats tomato and that's dinner, tomato eats man and that is a worldwide catastrophe. But that is just the way the world works. In the film the produce becomes evil because of genetic modification, but in the real world our produce (see: Taco Bell) becomes evil thanks to neglect. And like those evil doin' green onions this film's shelf life expired a long time ago. There are a few good chuckles to be had. The last shot was really quite splendid, but it was nowhere near enough to save this moderate stink bomb. I'm pretty sure there is a good movie buried deep within this concept, but the script needed to be filtered through about a dozen rewrites to get there. And by "there" I mean to the level of "Scary Movie 4." **1/4
La nuit des traquées (1980)
Scientific Experimentation for the Greater Good
Early on in the movie a man named Robert (Vincent Gardere) picks up a stranger on the side of the road. Yes, she is blond and beautiful and I'm sure that helped her get a ride. And as it turns out our good Samaritan Robert has hit the jackpot as once her gets her home (he takes her there because she has no memory and doesn't know where she lives) he scores some of the quickest a** in the history of cinema. Oh, did I mention this is a French film? I guess I really didn't have to, as us Americans, prudes that we are, are far too restrained to ever open a film like that. And me, being in the camp that you can never have too many French films, nor can you have too much sex on screen, had a blast watching "The Night of the Hunted." It does take place in something of an alternate reality where everybody carries guns and nobody wears underwear (and who wouldn't want to live in this reality), but that works to its advantage. For better or for worse the sex does feel downright pornified and if there is a female character you will see her breasts.
But perhaps I've gotten ahead of myself. The plot, post-aforementioned sex scene, involves Elizabeth being brought back to a diabolical mental ward where she shares a living space with others who share her Memento-like syndrome. Her memory has deteriorated to the point where she often times forgets what happened just a few minutes prior. She wanders around the minimalist set that looks stolen from an Off Off Broadway production (and the music is no more elaborate) while men and women hit on her. The janitor, realizing the upside to this situation, sets off to turn their disadvantage into his own sexual advantage. That, of course, goes terribly wrong for him, and Elizabeth, realizing there is something terribly wrong with the entire world she is living in, sets off on a quest to escape. After enlisting the help of Robert, her and her friend Veronique dash through the halls of the mental hospital from hell.
The film is filled with sex and violence, but it is not there just to entice the masses. The doctor who presides over this pit of despair has sucked the life out of most of his patients/prisoners. Sex and violence becomes an outlet for these people, something that makes them feel alive. I will admit though, I was left scratching my head over what this film was trying to say. Near the end they began to lean heavily on Nazi imagery and I wonder if it wasn't trying to indict doctors and science in general through the Third Reich. Nazi's made fantastic scientific discoveries, but most would say that it came at the price of humanity. The doctor here was also aiming for a great discovery, but the byproduct of that was having to discard bodies into incinerators. This all sounds like a very unsentimental view of humanity, and it is, but it is very effective at searing its images into your brain. The film is weird, but not off putting. French filmmakers have always felt comfortable using surrealism and here is no exception. It may not be a masterpiece, but for fans of unique cinema it is a can't miss. ***1/4
His and Her Christmas (2005)
Christmas Spirit As Presented by Walgreens
The one thing you can count on with Lifetime movies is that they will feel like Lifetime movies. This one is no different as they team up with Walgreens ("Don't worry we can get everything we need at Walgreens.") to retell "You've got Mail," only it is kind of Christmasy. David Sutcliffe, who plays nearly an identical character on "Gilmore Girls," here plays Tom Lane a sexy suave career columnist who is far above the quaint community he lives in. His current reason for being is to bring culture to middle America, by golly, so his own TV show is in the works to do just that. Then, thanks to the magic of contrivance, he gets involved in a blood feud with a rival newspaper columnist. Liz (Dina Meyer) works at a paper that is sadly going out of business, but she is convinced that her and her gumption can save it. So she begins writing a pro-Christmas column for her paper (edgy, I know) and circulation skyrockets. Tom feels as though he has to respond because the survival of her newspaper spells the end of his TV show (I didn't buy it either). They fight, they squabble, they fall in love. We learn that corporations can never stand in the way of true love. In the end the CEO says down with profits and gives the beleaguered paper a reprieve. It is all very fantasyland-ish, and that is fine. Only when Liz implores you to get away from the TV and the video games and spend some quality time with your family I (and forgive the cliché) threw up a little. . .in my mouth.
The film wasn't good, but it wasn't half bad either. The Scrooge in me enjoyed Tom's anti-Christmas columns. Sorry, but it is not evil to point out that Christmas is a commercial holiday. It is just that there isn't an unpredictable bone in its body. Of course he's a playa and she's on her way to becoming a spinster and of course only they can save themselves from these terrible fates. Being a Lifetime movie it was none to kind to the idea of bachelorhood. Somehow these pro-marriage types seem to think that invoking the image of you growing old by yourself is their ultimate trump card, as though the world will actually still be here in 40 years. I did like that the film took the side of newspapers, something that I read every day. I'm just saying that the whole production was so blah that having it on your side really isn't a net gain. All the great Christmas movies out there ("Christmas Vacation," "Elf," "Bad Santa") realize that there is something a little perverse about our obsession over this one holiday. "His and Her Christmas" made no such realization. It serves up an idealized view of the holiday and our world in general. One where the vigorous defense of Christmas is enough to sell papers, and where the religious aspect of it is whitewashed out of the picture, and where the commercial side of it is only there so that employers can actually keep their employees (that's right kids, no Christmas equals no jobs). Fine. The film was entertaining at times, but mostly just tedious. One big, tedious Walgreens commercial. **3/4
The Marine (2006)
Big Ole Explosions
Watching "The Marine" is like watching the entire filmography of Steven Seagal reincarnated. Bad leaps to mind first, then cheesy, then dumb, and finally charming (though only kind of). This film marches into theaters without a hint of pretension. John Cena makes his feature film debut here probably trying to recreate the magic that led to The Rock becoming a movie star. The problem is that Cena doesn't have half the charisma of The Rock. Not that I especially like The Rock, just that by comparison Cena looks like stale white bread. He shows up here with a ripped body, which is about all you need to be cast as an action star today. The plot is very in depth so pay attention: John Triton (Cena) gets back from the marines and his wife (Kelly Carlson, using the skills she learned on "Nip/Tuck" to play plastic perfectly) is kidnapped by bad guys, so Triton chases them through the backwaters of South Carolina trying to rescue her. There is actually a lot to like here. The bad guys are delightfully hilarious as they bicker amongst themselves and occasionally kill one another. The car chase is grotesquely unrealistic, but just what you hope for in an action sequence as by the time it was over my mind was pulsing and hoping for more. I also liked the very obvious homage to the Terminator (which is funny, you see, because the bad guy here is played by Robert Patrick). But the production value on the film is something that I just can't get past. I have no idea how this film was so lucky as to avoid the straight to video fate of so many other action flicks. The music was, by far, the worst. It sounds like it was lifted from either Looney Tunes or a bad 70's crime show. I am also assuming that 90% of the budget of this film went towards blowing stuff up. So if you like seeing stuff blown up this is the film for you. And it's not just explosions, it is big, massive explosions, the likes of which we rarely see, and they all have John Cena diving out of them in the nick of time.
Since this is only the second film put out by WWE Films ("See No Evil" was the first) I am viewing it as the equivalent of early 80's wrestling under Vince McMahon. There are good guys and bad guys and no middle ground. Everything is very cartoony and juvenile. And it is aimed right at the dumbest members of our society. Over the years WWE programming has gotten more intelligent and more nuanced, so there is hope for this new film company. But for now we are stuck watching John Cena play a marine who is fond of pro wrestling moves (is that what they are teaching now) to save his wife. And it can pretend that it above racial prejudice by having the sole black character rant against it. But it can't escape the fact that that character is also a villain and that Triton's wife is Aryan looking while the female villain has nothing but dark features and dark hair. But hey, give the people what they want, right? **3/4
Afsaid (2006)
Offside. . .Winner
This film presents an interesting paradox that is never addressed. I assume that it is because this paradox does not just exist in "Offside" but throughout Iran. Where does the joy come from to celebrate for a country when this country is oppressing their fans? At the end of this film, as the girls are being driven to the police station simply for being female and going into a soccer game, they still break out into uproarious celebration over Iran going to the World Cup. Are they then cheering for their arrest? Or are sports and politics truly disconnected? This film by Jaraf Panahi is worthy of your time. It starts off in a similar vein to "Maria Full of Grace" as a young girl tries to sneak past security to get into a soccer game from which she, and all females, is banned. She is quickly exposed (no thanks to her panic attack) and locked up with other girls who tried the same thing. After that not a lot happens as this film has a serious problem with forward motion. The guards are played up (rightfully so) as buffoons and cronies. This leads to a few laughs that may be cheap but are certainly welcome. Panahi uses her locations perfectly as the cinematography was the best part of the movie. I don't know if it was actually filmed at the World Cup qualifying match, but it definitely looked like it. The same goes for the celebration in the streets after the game. Even if it is no "Fever Pitch" it does a great job of showing the communal joy that sports can bring.
"Offside" also, unintentionally, calls out our own feminists here in America. While they are running around trying to turn every compliment into a lawsuit and encouraging other women to go into the corporate world, the real world has real problems that they are ignoring. There is no excuse for not letting women into a sporting event based on sex, period. And if our feminists are too interested in using feminism as an excuse to build up huge bank accounts to notice then the shame is also on their heads. But there is another truism to be found here, and that is that the Iranians are wasting a lot of energy just to feed their paranoia of all things sexual. Think of the technological, ideological, and cinematic advances they could have made with this time and energy. Or they could have just spent it rooting for their team together because they all really want the same thing, for Iran to riddle Bahrain with goals. I've been very tough on America in the past, but at least females don't have to cover up their girlish features just to watch sports. Our greedy society realizes that a ticket sold to a female is worth just as much as one sold to a male. So early on as we watch money trump ideology out in the parking lot we have to view it as a step in the right direction. The film does a lot right and a lot wrong, but at the end you realize that you just watched a quality piece of film-making. I'm happy to report that I have finally seen the first film from Iran that I actually liked. ***1/4
The Journals of Knud Rasmussen (2006)
Everything That Was Bad About Atanarjuat And Then Some
For all of you "Atanarjuat" fans out there I have a challenge for you. It's called "The Journals of Knud Rasmussen," and it excels in all the ways "Atanarjuat" was only mediocre. Remember how you thought "Atanarjuat" was a little too flashy, a little too commercial, a little too Hollywood? Then I challenge you to watch this film and tell me it's a good one . . . because it isn't. For two hours it beat me into submission to the point that I was begging for the end credits. The scene in the theater was more interesting than what was happening on the screen. I watched as about 30 people walked out and the old ladies on both sides on me dozed off.
What was wrong you ask? Well not everything, but almost. There is a plot buried deep in the Canadian snow here and it involves the first Christians who encountered the Inuit's. But instead of exploring that basically unexplored piece of history the filmmakers are content to sit in igloos and frolic in the snow. At one point we watch as a man sits and tells his entire life story to the camera. It goes on for about 15 minutes straight and worse yet he neglects to say one interesting thing. This tactic would be inexcusable in a regular documentary, but in this one, which pretends to be fictional, it really is a screw up. It would have been much better served to just say that it is a documentary on modern Inuit life. By promising a story and then not delivering you only work to alienate your audience. There are a few things to like here. The images of the Inuit's trying to be religious zealots were creepy and stark. I also liked the point that this film makes that often times Christians have been able to convert people because of their empty stomachs as opposed to great rhetorical skills. It is also a well know fact, historically speaking, that the white man usually leaves a place a worse place than he found it. The victims of this imperialism rarely care because the white man usually arrives carrying food. It is interesting that this film takes place in such a far off location that both sides come off looking like suckers.
More than anything, when the credits rolled I was celebrating. Anytime a film provides less entertainment value than my bedroom window it is in big trouble. Past violators such as "What Time is it There" and "Gerry" were ridiculously slow, but this one takes the cake. I know that "Eight Below" was pure unadulterated Hollywood, but it was such a better film. "The Journals of Knud Rasmussen" wore me down, and not in a good way. I consider myself to be a fairly savvy film appreciator, but if this film had real redeeming values then I missed them. These directors have given the film community a gift by shining a light on the Inuit community, but now they need to make an entertaining film. For without a reason to watch people will just doze off or walk away. *1/4
Le fantôme de la liberté (1974)
If Only this Film Were Actually Funny. . .
The back of the DVD box says that this film demolishes bourgeois conventions, and since demolishing bourgeois conventions is one of my favorite pastimes I was more than ready to be won over. Unfortunately, that never happened because this film turned out to be a series of self-indulgent vignettes that were strung together for no rhyme or reason. Some of the points were right on the mark, others weren't. It's just that none were hilarious or profound. None were given the proper time to flourish. Since this film never had focus I can't say that it lost it, but I lost mine near the end. Eventually I was just staring at the screen thinking, "Oh look, there's a naked piano player," or "Why is that guy crawling around a tomb?" Director Luis Bunuel relies on the theatre of the absurd to make his points, and while that can work for a while I seriously doubt you can build an entire film on top of it. I also can't help but think that maybe fighting the nonsense of the bourgeois conventions with more nonsense might not be the best strategy. For as crazy as Woody Allen's "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask" was it was more grounded in reality and thus more successful. Both films used goofy skits to make social points but only Allen makes you care about his points. But what about Bunuel's points? The main one seems to be how ridiculous it is that we find it necessary to hide things that are perfectly natural. We are, for instance, the only animal in the kingdom that has sex in private. Is this what our advancement has bought us, shame? His ideas about our behavior towards food and bodily waste were also very good. To eat and urinate are both 100% natural, yet one is done with our friends and family and the other is done behind a locked door. Of course one smells good and one doesn't, but our treatments of these two activities are polar opposites and you have to wonder why. I also liked the point that the bourgeoisie thinks that they can label any old thing indecent if it fits their agenda (Remember when "Million Dollar Baby" was indecent?). And the way that religion intrudes on your life and then expects a pat on the back for doing so was right on the mark even if the skit was a dud.
The worst of the skits was probably the one where the cops couldn't find a missing girl who was right under their noses. It probably would have worked better had the cops not been actively talking to the girl the whole time as that was too much for me to handle. The point being made was probably that we don't pay enough attention to our children (fair enough), or maybe it was that cops are ineffectual (duh), but that skit embodied all that was wrong with this film. No restraint, no context, no humor. Oh well. **1/4
Hex (2004)
Review of US Season 1
"Hex," more than any other show I can remember, plays for keeps. If henceforth all TV shows were this brave then TV would easily pass film as the most important artistic medium today. The problem is that TV depends too much on maintaining the status quo. Of course this problem has gotten better in recent years (and I'll happily give the credit to HBO), but still producers are too afraid to alienate their audience. Thus if you look back at any given show you will notice that very little changes from one season premiere to the next. The Desperate Housewives still live close by and Vince Chase still has his Entourage. My point being that "Hex" is not afraid of change. New characters replace old ones and nothing ever stays the same. If this season were a film instead of a TV show you would be hard pressed to find the lines between the episodes. We have also been trained to never believe a characters death (I'm looking at you "Alias"), and because of that this show had the ability to legitimately rattle me, in a good way.
The story is quite Harry Potter-ish. A student at a boarding school gains supernatural powers and is thrust into a battle between good and evil. The main difference being that our hero here, Cassie, is not all good and much better looking. Strong characters are established from the get go. Besides Cassie we also have Thelma, her lesbian ghost roommate. Jemima Rooper who plays Thelma is the star as she represents the moral center of the show. She is good-hearted, but defiant, sex crazed but unable to do anything about it. If I were to have a complaint about the show it would be the shorthand they use to distinguish between good and evil. The theory of the shows seems to be that only evildoers enjoy bodily pleasures such as sex and smoking. This line of thought is very Puritanical and I found it annoying. By the time the monsters showed up on campus I really wasn't very excited to see them. I wanted more of the relationship between Cassie and Thelma. I know the otherworldly stuff is why people tune in to a show called "Hex," but in this case they didn't need it.
If I were to find one theme from this season it would be that it sucks to be a girl in modern society because you are exploited for your body. We ca probably all agree that this world we live in is filled with evil. But being a guy I really have no concept of what it is like to have everybody I meet only be interested in having sex with me and my child bearing ability. These two things are the only things Azazeal wanted from Cassie. And because Cassie gave in to him she had to pay the price. This show is no masterpiece but it is darn good. The comparisons to "Buffy" are obvious, but this show is twice as good as that one. "Buffy" was a slave to the episodic nature of TV, whereas "Hex" sheds that skin and creates an experience that is nearly cinematic.
Ah ma yau nan (2004)
Gay.Straight
"Leave Me Alone" is the most Americanized Asian film I have ever seen, and I am actually saying that in a positive way. This sharp, crisp, entertaining film from the Pang Brothers tells the story of two brothers who must switch identities after one is injured in a car crash and mistaken for his brother. They cannot admit that there has been a mistake, because to do that would be to admit to killing a pedestrian with a car driven by an unlicensed driver. They also cannot simply switch places because Kit, the joyriding brother, can't walk, for the time being (a huge contrivance, I know). This leads to the identity switch which is further sensationalized because the other brother, Man, is a homosexual.
The Pang Brothers use this opportunity to shun and dabble in homophobia to mostly positive returns. The question they seem to be asking is how different, really, are gay people from straight people. We all know the Christian right finds them to be sinners simply because of their sexual preference (meanwhile believing that their burning of Iraq will simply go unnoticed by God), but is it so simple? While I believe that people are born gay, I also believe that there are gay people out there who have conceived children. This becomes less contradictory if you figure that sex grows out of love and love can grow out of anywhere (see: Anna Nicole Smith). Perhaps in the end we're all just bi. Beyond the homosexual angle I enjoyed watching Man try to inhabit Kit's world. Many of Kit's relationships and surroundings have been destroyed by his habit of being a sociopath, and in walks man naively thinking that politeness is the way to go. He is, of course, loved for his style and cooking. But that politeness does eventually win the girlfriend's father over to his side. Even the girlfriend eventually admits that she likes Man better than Kit.
The film soon turns into a typical Hollywood blockbuster complete with a script that includes fish out water comedy and shoot 'em up action. This is the films major downfall, as although it is wildly entertaining at times (the car chase is the best action sequence I've ever seen from the Far East), you know you've seen it all before. But just when you start hating on it for this behavior the film goes and openly acknowledges it's roots with a delightful homage to "24." And what would any Asian film be without a heavy dose of the weird? There is a scene in which a herd of naked men rise out of hot tubs filled with green water to chase a man down the street that is perfectly beautifully surreal. We have seen all these tricks before: the man who is thrust into the public spotlight as a man that he knows nothing about ("Clean Slate"), the ridiculously awkward man playing action hero ("Alias"), etc. But at the end of the film you don't mind, you're just happy you didn't watch "The River" again.