The American President (1995)

The American President. Directed by Rob Reiner. Written by Aaron Sorkin. Produced by Barbara Maltby. Release Date: November 17, 1995. Country of Production: United States of America. Key Cast: Michael Douglas (President Andrew Shepherd), Annette Bening (Sydney Ellen Wade), Martin Sheen (A.J. Maclnerney), Michael J. Fox (Lewis Rothschild), Anna Deavere Smith (Robin McCall).

President Andrew Shepherd is confident that he will win the upcoming elections until he meets lobbyist Sydney Ellen Wade. This new relationship opens the father and widower up for character attacks from his Republican opponent, to which Shepherd refuses to acknowledge. Suddenly, President Shepherd's approval rating is down. Sydney also bears some of the burden as she receives constant critique from her employer. In the end, Shepherd makes the decision to address the slander and continue his relationship with Sydney Wade.

The main themes of the film are confusion over identity/individuality and the nation's response to personal/public loss/death (Shepherd as the sympathetic president). The main theme of The American President is the notion of the King's two bodies.

Formally, the film begins with several shots of “presidential objects” to set the tone of the film. These objects include eagles and portraits of past presidents, globes, a bust of Lincoln. All of these objects serve to get the audience in the mindset of a president film, but they also serve to have a “priming effect” to think of Michael Douglas in the presidential light.

This film was not shot in Washington D.C., but in Los Angeles. Several special effects (digital imaging) were used to layer over many backgrounds/sets to give the appearance of Washington. The Oval Office/White House was constructed from visits by the set designers to the White House. There are several long shots in the film which follow the president through these halls. These shots allow us to imagine the scope of the set, “The White House,” as well as feel like we are in fact, in this place. These images also satisfy our scopophilic impulses—we are viewing a very important man in an intimate way.

These first few shots also set up the audience for the King's two bodies theme, as the President is first shown doing very presidential things—discussing approval rating and the upcoming election. This is a view of the president that confirms many cynic's view of the men behind the office as being only greedy for more.

There are also direct political messages in the film, regarding gun laws and the environment. Aaron Sorkin has been quoted as saying of the film, “To me, guns have always been an issue with which I find difficulty seeing both sides. We simply won't make any dent in crime whatsoever without eliminating guns. The environment is something I was always happy other people were concerned with because I like clean air as much as anyone, but I just don't feel like doing anything about it. Rob is someone who feels like doing something about it.” In the film, the environmental issue is spearheaded by Sydney Wade, while President Shepherd's original campaign was very tough on hand gun laws, but as Sydney pointed out, the new crime bill that Shepherd was pushing was insignificant and pointless. So, in finding his way back to his love the lobbyist, the President also manages to realign himself with his actual moral concerns (the gun laws).

This film itself was shot during the Clinton years, and Rob Reiner visited the White House while filming the movie. The Clinton staff was very generous about letting Reiner in the building, and he followed the President around for two days, observing him. This is interesting to me because of the way Reiner has said in an interview that many of the scenes he shot were based on the way Clinton ran his office. The film itself might have been fresh in the public's mind when the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal broke. Although the circumstances were undeniably different from the Sydney Ellen Wade/President Shepherd relationship, it might have seemed relevant at the time to compare the two. The film focuses on the merging of the King's two bodies. Sorkin clearly believes that the man can not be separate from the office, the man can not be separated from the job. Yet all of these Clinton fans are seeing their president acting “shamefully” on the news, and can only recover by separating the man from the job. The recent “Clinton defense” holds that he was a good president and a sleazy guy. Yet The American President, and later, the West Wing, emphasizes that the good man makes the good president. In fact, nearly all reverential/glorified president movies of Hollywood operate under the same claim.

It is was interesting to see this film and compare it to the situation of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. On its own, it was kind of entertaining...very much a “Sorkin experience.”

Throwing Stars (2007) and The Silence Of The Lambs (1991) and Penelope (2006)

Throwing Stars (also known as: Who's Your Monkey?). Directed by Todd Breau. Written by Ryan Steckloff. Cinema Release Date: March 28, 2008. Country of Prduction: USA (Jacksonville, FL!). Key Cast: Scott Grimes (Mark), Jason London (Bobby), Scott Michael Campbell (Laith), David DeLuise (Hutto), Kevin Durand (Reed), Wayne Knight (Officer Brooks).

I remember reading all the buzz in the Florida Times Union about mysterious sightings of Wayne Knight around town.  The film community in Jacksonville has bee on the up and up lately, and so it's not too much of a surprise to see Kevin Spacey, John Travolta, or maybe even a candid Tom Arnold photograph surface like so many Bigfoot.  Unfortunately, I missed the premier of this gem at the Jacksonville Film Fest, but was able to catch it (guess where?!) OnDemand recently to parallel its cinematic release.  The fact that it's making a run in the theater warms my heart to know that somewhere out there, Jacksonville is the recognizable backdrop to a movie!

Not just any movie though, a dark, funny one!  Throwing Stars has a sharp script and a funny (if a little twisted) plot, but the real reward is the characters and the acting.  These four friends have a great rapport, that can only signify a strong off-screen relationship, which is a key component to a buddy/quasi-road movie.

Also, one of the companies involved in the production, TigerLily Media, is a local studio full of great people who do great work, so if you get the chance, show some support.  You won't regret it!

The Silence Of The Lambs. Directed by Jonathan Demme. Written by Thomas Harris. Release Date: February 14, 1991. Country of Production: USA. Key Cast: Jodie Foster (Clarice Starling), Anthony Hopkins (Dr. Hannibal Lecter), Scott Glenn (Jack Crawford), Anthony Heald (Dr. Frederick Chilton), Ted Levine (Jame 'Buffalo Bill' Gumb).

"Love your suit!"

If you've ever seen any movie that Sir Anthony Hopkins is in, then you know that no matter what it is, he can make it awesome.  He is a White Knight who always brings it as hard as he can.  Then combine his Oscar-winning performance, and put it opposite the stellar (and also Oscar-winning) Helen Hunt, and you've got yourself one helluva movie.

Not that Helen Hunt isn't totally awesome in this movie, but according to Wikipedia, Anthony Hopkins only spent a total of no more than 16 minutes on screen!  Watching it though, his lines are delivered so profoundly and hypnotically, and Lecter is such a creepy character that all of his scenes seem to take up an eternity!  Hopkins is a black hole of screen presence from which there is no escape, even when he is only a digital facsimile of himself (Beowulf, 2007).

Another little tidbit, courtesy of Wikipedia, is the LGBT backlash against this film upon its release.  Apparently, Buffalo Bill's character was another link in a long chain of negatively portrayed LGBT characters in Hollywood productions.  Although this response never escalated farther than verbal announcement, there appears to be some speculation that this sentiment was the impetus for director Jonathan Femme to embark on the feature Philadelphia in 2003.

 

Penelope. Directed by Mark Palansky. Written by Leslie Caveny. Release Date: February 29, 2008. Country of Production: USA. Key Cast: Christina Ricci (Penelope), James McAvoy (Max), Catherine O'Hara (Jessica Wilhern), Reese Witherspoon (Annie), Peter Dinklage (Lemon), Simon Woods (Edward Humphrey Vanderman III), Nick Frost (Max Campion).

"A fairytale like no other." - tag line

"You wish." -me

Christina Ricci has a pig nose.  James McAvoy does an American accent.  Nick Frost is in the movie for, like, 2 seconds.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)

Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Directed Nicholas Stoller. Written by Jason Segel. Release Date: 18 April 2008. Country of Production: United States. Key Cast: Jason Segel (Peter Bretter), Kristen Bell (Sarah Marshall), Mila Kunis (Rachel Jansen), Russell Brand (Aldous Snow).

Forgetting Sarah Marshall, in its trailer, appeared to me to be a completely miss-able kind of spin-off from the recent series of Seth Rogen and/or Evan Goldberg comedies. I think, indeed, many people saw the trailer, thought to themselves, "Is that the one dude from Knocked Up?" and then never saw it. Don't underestimate this movie.

I won't lie to you, I didn't die laughing. It had some strong moments, an overall humorous tone, and a mildly believable plot line that rarely distracted. It wasn't great, but it was really good. The reason I'm taking the time to write about this is that I feel the style of humor Jason Segel has implemented in his film needs to be supported. This is a very funny movie that derives the majority of its humor from clever dialogue and solid performances. The movie is only occasionally outrageous, and then usually to good effect.

With one exception, in my opinion. Apparently someone recently decided that since it was technically acceptable to display the penis in a rated R movie, absolutely everybody should. In this case the nudity was funny in the context of a relationship-ending fight, but it remains only an issue of shock-value that the audience actually sees Segel's penis. I don't get it. What is inherently funny about the male genitals? Does every man carry a joke in his pants? The general concept of nudity, again, can be funny in context, but I don't get the idea of the penis as the punchline.

Other than that, I simply want to give credit to Segel for attempting to move comedic film back toward a reliance on writing and believable performance and away from the current Will Ferrell-esque trend of resorting to complete inanity.

Mother + Father (2005)

EXHIBIT:    The Cinema Effect: Illusion, Reality, and the Moving Image. Part II: Realisms. At the Hirshhorn museum. Runs through Septemeber 7, 2008. Featuring artists Candice Breitz, Matthew Buckingham, Paul Chan, Ian Charlesworth, Phil Collins, Jermy Deller, Kota Ezawa, Omer Fast, Fancesco Vezzoli, and Arthur Zimijewski. 

I recently attended the Hirshhorn museum's current film exhibit, The Cinema Effect: Illusion, Reality, and the Moving Image, Part II: Realisms. The exhibit is split into two parts, featuring some 50 films. The first part focuses on Hollywood, pop culture, and global cinema. The second relates historical events and the genre of documentary. 

This exhibit was the best I've attended so far this summer. Each film runs 10 to 15 minutes long. Some people have trouble walking into the various rooms and sitting through each film, but it is definitely worth it. The Hollywood/pop culture section blew my mind. 

If you are not in the D.C. area, check out my favorite film online, Mother + Father, by Candice Breitz. It is a piece that takes place in two separate rooms, with six televisions in each. Breitz has taken scenes from iconic movies featuring mothers and fathers and recut them. Altogether, the clips form a strange sort of soliloquy. Watch both films in full!

Mother + Father

(Click on Work -> Video -> Mother + Father, and select one of the two videos. Make sure you put your mouse on the images to get the video to play.)

The Happening (2008)

The Happening. Directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Written by M. Night Shyamalan. Release Date: 13 June 2008. Country of Production: United States. Key Cast: Mark Whalberg (Eliot Moore), Zooey Deschanel (Alma Moore), John Leguizamo (Julian).

I'll get straight to the point: The Happening sucks hardcore. I try at all times to see the good in a film, particularly when I sit down to write a public review. There is nothing redeeming about this movie. It's heavy-handed in its message, the acting is unnaturally bad, and the concept is so repulsively stupid that M. Night had to write paragraphs of clunky, expository dialogue just to hope an audience might find his concept remotely plausible.

I get it M. Night. People are hurting the environment. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. You are truly a pioneer of social change. Oh wait, absolutely everyone in the public eye has been discussing the green movement for years now. Way to suit up for the fourth quarter. It's not even a specific environmental problem that's being addressed. Every single plant in the world simply recognizes, magically, that human beings are a specific threat in need of neutralizing.

Listen, M. Night, I think the hype from Sixth Sense has officially subsided. No one is waiting on pins and needles to see what your next masterpiece will be. Just slow down, take your time, and write a decent movie. Not even a great one. A decent one. It's time to get back on track.

The Dark Knight (2008)

The Dark Knight. Directed by Christopher Nolan. Written by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan. Release Date: July 18, 2008. Country of Production: Chicago, USA. Key Cast: Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Heath Ledger (The Joker), Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent/Two-Face), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Rachel Dawes), Gary Oldman (Lt. James Gordon), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), Anthony Michael Hall (Mike Engel).

Why so serious? Walking into the movie theater at about 11:00 PM, I was overwhelmed with my anticipation for this summer blockbuster. I could barely contain myself; I even enjoyed the Regal First Look. Then when the previews came on (which are just as incredible as some of the plot twists of the movie, so I won't dare to reveal them to you), I just about squealed like an 11-year-old girl who just got a date with Justin Timberlake.

So, I know you are all wondering: How was The Joker? Let me tell you, it's everything you've imagined it would be. Ledger does one of the deepest and darkest representations of perhaps any comic book character ever to make the leap to the silver screen. The Joker's semi-suicidal style, his extremely explosive emotional states, and all dashed with a dark irony that can only be called humor. It's no coincidence that the image I've chosen for this post is from the cover of Allen Moore's The Killing Joke, because it is reputedly the comic that was given to Heath for him to consult while doing his character study, and I believe it's (at only 46 pages) the most scrutinizing look at The Joker to date. One thing that I liked about the movie that may have been transferred from the comic is the idea that The Joker does not even recall his own origin, so rather than flashback and retelling it, he just makes up his own stories to justify his actions, or maybe just for fun. I've chosen to subscribe to the theory that the role of The Joker is cursed, and rumor has it that Jack Nicholson suffered from similar symptoms of insomnia during the shooting of Batman (dir. Tim Burton, 1989).

Another aspect of the movie that I really liked was that the Nolans made a point of reintroducing to the plot one of my favorite elements of the Batman universe: the public ambivalence to his actions. At the end of Batman Begins, he was dangerously close to becoming a mythical hero, and although the audience tends to root for Batman, the Gothamites don't always like his so much. I think that as a character, that may be part of his appeal. Batman has the courage to do what's right, even though he takes shit from pretty much everyone, the villain, the citizens of Gotham, the police, etc. But that's what makes the audience's relationship with Batman so intimate, since we know his secrets, we know that he's really good and we can feel like the only ones in his corner.

I can't say enough good things about this movie, the direction they've gone with the character, and the kind of precedent that they're setting for comic/super-hero movies, in general. See this movie!

OK, I couldn't resist.

DARK KNIGHT
A Second Look by Sally Salt

The 7:00 Friday screening of Dark Knight was not so glamorous. There were no long lines; I found a seat front and center with not much effort. I was hoping to be sitting next to pale, single men trying to preserve their stubs—the fans. Instead I was sandwiched in between a family and a group of mothers. The youngest boy in the family kept confusing the Joker with Two Face. The mothers spent the previews chatting about this morning’s episode of The View.

The comic book movies have always attracted the broadest audiences. I know this. This is why they have been an enormous franchise in Hollywood for the past few years. So what happens when a comic book movie tries to reach beyond the campy parameters of the genre? What happens when a performance of an actor within said movie makes the front pages of newspapers? (It might have just been the style sections, but whatever.)

What happens is you get the biggest movie of the year. It’s a formula. You take a genre that has not reached its potential and make a good film. So there you have it. Wasn’t it the same formula with comic books? They start out as dime store gags and then develop into something worthwhile.

And we can’t forget that Batman has been put on the silver screen before; several times, with many different directors/writers/actors. Before now, everyone had a Batman. Mine was a blend between Adam West and George Clooney set in one of the Tim Burton sets. It was cheesy lines and one-dimensional characters and overacting. My dad loved the “Batman movies.” He went out and bought the $400 full latex Halloween costume after Batman Returns. He wore it for six straight Halloweens, until my brother stopped needing an escort for trick-or-treating. I still have the belt somewhere.

I’ve gotten into fights over my Batman in the past. Guys who grew up with Batman: The Animated Series put their faith in Christian Bale. I held out for more Keaton. I found Bale’s voice ridiculous in costume—a boy pretending to be a man. I never will claim that Keaton was any type of hero, but Bale just seemed like a placeholder for someone more suited for the job. I’m not sure if Dark Knight changed my mind. There was one shot, though, that stuck with me. When Bale and Michael Cane are walking out of the emptied “cave” towards the press conference, Noland shot them walking out from behind. I know that it might have not been Bale making any of these calls (but I can hope)…Bruce Wayne’s suit is a bit rumpled and he doesn’t quite fill it out properly, and he’s not limping, it’s more of a slouch really, but he looks small, too small for his clothes or the room. I know I exaggerate it in memory, but that shot was beautiful.

As for the Joker... Now, I refused to read the Post’s most recent write up of Ledger’s performance, but I did read the headlines. It asked the question: What happens when a villain is more interesting then the hero? What has happened in the past Javier Bardem and the Coen brothers pick up a few Oscars. What happened with Dark Knight was the revolution of a genre.

The theaters were packed because of Heath Ledger. There has been a lot written on the subject, so I’ll just say a bit.

Noland gave him a star’s entrance in the film, delaying him to build the tension, hiding his face from us. All good things.

There are details which make the character, and ignoring the tongue flickers, Ledger got me with his physical movements. When he falls on the ground, shakes his limbs, or limps, he does so with subtle jerky motions. Fantastic.

Most importantly, though, and the primary reason “my Batman” has to be reevaluated, was the writing. The best villains of former Batmans have always been Jokers. Jack Nicholson was the best of these Jokers because his lines and delivery were fab. The best of which was, “I am the world’s first fully-functional, homicidal artist.” (Or something.) The rest of the villains have been either power hungry, peace-keepers, evil scientists, or Jim Carrey. Ledger’s Joker is the first honest-to-god psychopath.

The portrayal of a psychopath usually hinges on good acting—Gunnar Hanson didn’t even have proper LINES! ­—but at least half of the strength of the Joker here is the writing. This is most evident when he tells the variety of stories that he makes up about his scars…and the way he shoots his home videos of the Batman imposter (some pathetic, fat Bryan character whimpering and looking at the ground). This seems like a PBS special on a serial killer, featuring grainy prison interviews and reenactments. I believe that this works the same way No Country for Old Men does—

During the best parts of this film, Dark Knight didn’t feel like a movie, it felt like a case study.

Mongol (2007)

Mongol. Directed by Sergei Bodrov. Written by Alif Aliyev and Sergei Bodrov. Release Date: September 20, 2007. Country of Production: Russia. Key Cast: Tadanobu Asano (Temudjin), Sun Honglei (Jamukha), Khulan Chuluun (Borte).

I first got wind of this film when I was mapping out my schedule for the 2008 Sarasota Film Festival, but unfortunately, when I went to buy tickets for it, it was sold out. Needless to say, the combined interest of the public and my inability to see it then furiously made me want to watch this movie even more than I did after seeing the beautiful trailer. Lucky for me, it was released to the theater out at the beach here in town, and I gotta say, the hype was totally justified.

This glorious historical epic chronicles the life of Genghis Khan, from the time he was a child, through his enslavement, to his bloody conquering of the Mongolian empire. The costumes are incredibly elaborate, and the characters are relate-able and animated without jumping the threshold of this movie's period setting. The music is beautiful, and features a great amount of traditional overtone singing (a.k.a. "throat singing") which, if you're unfamiliar with, is almost unbelievable. Check it out:

Some highly accomplished throat singing.

The cinematography is also really beautiful, and many of the epic landscape shots are breathtaking. And at the heart of all the hardcore, gritty battle scenes is a sweet love story, which I'm always a sucker for. So, if you get the chance to check it out, go for it. Who knows how long this gem will be released to mainstream theaters? Since it lacks copious amounts of CG, nudity and/or Hayden Christensen, I'll be impressed if anyone sees this movie.

Diminished Capacity (2008) and Jumper (2008)

Man, ON DEMAND is a bitch. Time for another double feature!


Diminished Capacity. Directed by Terry Kinney. Written by Sherwood Kiraly. Release Date: July 4, 2008. Country of Production: USA. Key Cast: Matthew Broderick (Cooper), Alan Alda (Uncle Rollie), Virginia Madsen (Charlotte), Dylan Baker (Mad Dog McClure), Louis C.K. (Stan).

Matthew Broderick continues his self-exploration through independent cinema in this charming, quirky comedy about overcoming your inhibitions and insecurities. Alan Alda steals the show with a winning performance as Cooper's (Broderick) eccentric uncle. Plus, I think Virgina Madsen is really hot. Ever since I saw her in The Number 23, I've had a little thing for her. Now, she's no Uma Thurman, but what a smile.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there is this trend of overly-grounded protagonists in a lot of comedies I've seen lately. These characters are more or less crippled by their own neuroses, and the grand resolution of the movie is them regaining their confidence. I think this movie had a great execution of this theme, it didn't dwell too much on it, and whenever it did, there was a great punchline to rev it back up again, but I think this might somehow be linked with the impersonalization of our society through computers and cell-phones, etc.

This is linked, specifically in this movie, to the love interest (Madsen). They don't come out and say "technology". In fact, Broderick's forgetfulness and cautious behavior are the result of a severe concussion, but it made me wonder: this message of lost confidence speaks more and more verbally to a generation that is becoming characterized by our impersonality, where face-to-face human interaction is being replaced by AIM game. Are we being digitally sapped of our social essence?



Jumper. Directed by Doug Liman. Written by David S. Goyer and Jim Uhls and Simon Kinberg. Release Date: February 14, 2008. Country of Production: USA. Key Cast: Hayden Christensen (David Rice), Jamie Bell (Griffin), Rachel Bilson (Millie Harris), Diane Lane (Mary Rice), Samuel L. Jackson (Roland), Michael Rooker (William Rice).

I don't really know what to say. I'm sure it must have been pretty cool as a novel, but there had ot have been more to the story than this. The parts that I was interested in, such as the renegade Jumper (someone who can teleport) named Griffin and his guerrilla war against the Paladins (those who oppose, hunt down, and kill the Jumpers, like Sammy L.) were just glossed over, while the parts that I didn't care for at all (namely the central love story between David and Millie) took up the whole fucking movie! Also, Diane Lane is way too huge a name for her two scene cameos of the movie, and the comic book references were pastiche, at best.

Also, none of these characters were really likeable. I didn't know who to root for. Roland is obviously the villain, but the supposed heroes of the film are a bunch of sociopathic, bank-robbing neerdowells, who by the end of the movie, don't really learn any kind of lesson, or even to be responsible for their powers. It seemed like the moral was going to be something like "there are always consequences" and another line in the movie was (and I'm paraphrasing here): "they hate us because we can do whatever we want". Well, by the end of the movie, through some luck, David ends up being able to avoid this whole dispute entirely by not choosing a side and goes on to live his life of hedonism uninhibited by any sense of purpose or good acting. And he gets the girl.

Maybe if they had committed to their amoral villainy the same way that Wanted had, it would have been more engaging, but try as I might, I couldn't make myself root for the protagonist... or against him, and it was my apathy that killed it for me.

Hayden Christensen, you almost ruined Star Wars for me. I guess I keep giving you chances because I really liked Shattered Glass and Life as a House, but I can't take it anymore. You're dead to me.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)

Hellboy II: The Golden Army. Directed by Guillermo del Toro. Written by Guillermo del Toro and Mike Mignola. Release Date: July 11, 2008. Country of Production: USA. Key Cast: Ron Perlman (Hellboy), Selma Blair (Liz Sherman), Doug Jones (Abe Sapien/The Chamberlain/The Angel of Death), Seth MacFarlane (voice of Johann Krauss), Jeffrey Tambor (Tom Manning).

Guillermo del Toro returns to the screen with another wonderfully whimsical fantasy. Coming back in full force from his production of Pan's Labyrinth, he returns to the world of the B.P.R.D. to put some more meat on the rest of the characters in this glorious saga. This films has a lot more creatures in it, and if you're a costume and makeup hound then I would highly recommend it. Not to mention the wealth of other special effects that this movie so effortlessly affords its audience.

When I was watching the movie though, my dad mentioned to me the grace and poise with which the fight scenes were executed (which are also very beautiful). I had not noticed this before (or perhaps it was lost in the sea of sensory stimulation that was just short of overwhelming, at times), but in retrospect, it was incredibly well done. I'm sure that much of this was filming techniques and some of it was probably some CG and wire-fu every now and then, but according to my dad, who is an active gymnastics enthusiast, and use to compete in college, the calibur of their technique was way better than any other kung-fu stunt double he had seen before. According to him, in order to have such a great mastery of the acrobatics and the fighting styles, you would have had ot devote your entire life to training to reach that point.

I couldn't find any information on the stunts or fight scenes in Hellboy but I'd like to find out more about that. I guess the karate is not enough anymore, we wants flips and springs, tucks and kips, rather than the speed of Bruce Lee being enough to dazzle us, audiences are looking for more involvement and contortion from the human body. Which got me to thinking: as the years progress and technology and intelligence sees to have an increasingly rampant growths, it's easy to forget that the human body makes the same improvements, though with perhaps slower progress, progress just the same. I don't think there has every been an Olympic series in which at least two or three events have trumped some world record. Are there limits to the human mind and body, or will we steadily progress indefinitely?

Hancock (2008) and Into The Wild (2007)

I haven't posted in a couple days, but that certainly doesn't mean I've stopped watching movies. Time to catch up with a little feature I'd like to call a double... feature. Work with me.

Hancock. Directed by Peter Berg. Written by Vincent Ngo & Vince Gilligan. Release Date: July 2, 2008. Country of Production: United States of A! Key Cast: Will Smith (John Hancock), Charlize Theron (Mary Embrey), Jason Bateman (Ray Embrey).

This movie is the quintessential, big-budget, summer blockbuster. A real guilty pleasure... and by that I mean that I'm really guilty about not spending my $8 on Son of Rambow. If you're a Will Smith fan, then chances are he's already put your ass into one of those seats, but what did you really think? This wasn't the same Will-Smith-saves-the-world-story that we all know and love. Much like the apathetic, slacker character of John Hancock, the whole movie felt kind of half-assed. Take for instance, the CG. After being dazzled by Will Smith's sexy coolness under the pressure of CG villains like in M.I.B. and Independence Day, I can't say that I didn't expect the time to come for him to be granted his own superhuman abilities, I just wish it was done with a little more finesse. As I'm sure D'Artagnan will agree with me: zombies are awesome, but I was a little let down by I Am Legend (although if they had shown it with the alternate ending that's on the DVD, it would have been fucking awesome). I hope this isn't the beginning of a trend of Big Willy overhyping his hand.


Into The Wild. Directed by Sean Penn. Written by Sean Penn. Release Date: September 21, 2007. Country of Production: USA. Key Cast: Emile Hirsch (Chris McCandless), Marcia Gay Harden (Billie McCandless), William Hurt (Walt McCandless), Jena Malone (Carine McCandless).

This movie was really well-shot and the story definitely tugged at my heartstrings at least a little bit (at most, a lot), but it left me with really ambivalent feelings. It raises another bunch of really interesting issues that play into the discussion we've kind of generated about the definition of heroes. I believe this is based pretty strictly on a true story, but regardless, Chris McCandless's journey is certainly epic and inspiring. But, it was pretty cowardly in some ways, too. He kind of abandoned his family in a Fight Club-ish protest, stirred with a swizzle-stick of intellectualism rather than shaken with homemade napalm.

To me, the real hero(ine?) of the story is Corine, who even after not hearing from her brother until after he had died, managed to keep her own hope and belief in him alive. There are certinaly parts of his journey that resonated with me, and I think would with many people, but I suppose my favorite part of Penn's filmmaking touch is that he did not canonize this boy. He is portrayed as human, which is important, because behind the wit and humor, there are still mistakes, and things are taken for granted, and in his encounters he meets people who approach him with feelings that he is not ready to face, and for that, this is a good movie.

Romance and Cigarettes (2005)

Romance and Cigarettes. Directed by John Turturro. Writen by John Turturro. Release Date: 2006 (Spain). Country of Production: United States of America. Key Cast: James Gandolfini (Nick Murder), Susan Sarandon (Kitty), Kate Winslet (Tula), Steve Buscemi (Angelo), Mandy Moore (Baby), Mary-Louise Parker (Constance), Aida Turturro (Rosebud), and Christopher Walken (Cousin Bo).

I’ll admit that I nearly turned off Romance and Cigarettes after the first 10 minutes. The dialog felt unnatural and amateur. I had already written a one-sentence review—“This movie should have had twice the budget and four more rewrites, then it would have been something.”

Luckily, I had nothing else to do that day. So I stuck with it. I rewrote my one sentence a few times. Then it became two. Then I knew I had to throw myself into it because Christopher Walken danced into the film…and let me tell you, he danced the way I always want him to dance in movies. He got his own number! With backup dancers! I watched the scene three times…

This film is a musical of sorts. There is dancing and singing every few minutes. The songs are different renditions of songs I believe John Turturro just plain likes a lot…from “Piece of My Heart” to “Delilah.” They work into the story of infidelity well, and the dancing is over-the-top and wonderful. When Kate Winslet dances to “Scapricciatiello” and she shimmies, it was pure magic.

A selling point of this movie was the “raw sexuality.” I really liked it. Tula (Winslet) is fantastic as Nick Murder's girlfriend, and nothing like the sexual objects of the recent Hollywood films. This movie made me think about that—the way Hollywood packages sexuality for us. There is this overwhelming plastic factor—always a body type and a personality to match the “sexual profile.” Romance and Cigarettes never presents us with a sexual object, instead it presents us with a character. Kate Winslet was Tula, and Tula shakes her boobies and sleeps with a lot of men and loves Nick Murder.

So where does the film fall flat? Why did I see the movie and make a call about the quality within the first few minutes?

The first reason for this, I believe, was the quality of the film. The budget wasn’t what I wanted from this movie because it needed brighter colors. The film was dull and washed out. The shots are set up beautifully; but it needed to more saturation to be stunning. Then, I believe, it would be difficult to dismiss. As it is, the quality of the film looks low, and the complexity of the writing makes it take awhile to get invested in the film. I can see how it is easy to become disinterested right off the bat.

The second reason this film was hard to digest was the dialog. John Turturro played with poetry, making some scenes feel like some cheap pieces of performance art. There is a scene where Nick Murder’s (Gandalfini) mother walks into his room and yells at him in the hospital bed, “I should have chopped your balls off!” The psycho-babble is definitely worked in. I was momentarily reminded of all those Philip Roth novels I had to read for a class.

Then, for some reason, after the first half hour, I really started to like the dialog. Whereas it had felt like a hindrance to the movie before, at some point I realized that there was no reason to cling so hard to my preconceived notions of dialog that needs to sound natural. Didn't Tarantino cure me of this years ago? The writing was interesting. No, it didn’t seem natural or, at some points, sensical, but after awhile it sounded Shakespearian.

I didn’t love Romance and Cigarettes. Or maybe I did. Either way, I wish I had written and directed it.

For a clip from the movie, check out

Chistopher Walken dances.

Funny Games (2007)

Funny Games. Directed by Michael Haneke. Written by Michael Haneke. Release Date: 27 March 2008. Country of Production: United States. Key Cast: Naomi Watts (Ann), Tim Roth (George), Michael Pitt (Paul).

This movie was a unique experience for me. I watched it recently for the second time, only to find myself reluctantly admitting that its one of my favorite films of all time. I say reluctantly because I hate this movie. I saw it in theaters and it was simultaneously the first time I audibly cheered and audibly cursed at a movie screen in public. I hated it. I still hate it. That's why its so damn good.

This film is designed from start to finish to infuriate its audience. Every convention of storytelling and genre expectation is twisted, taunted, and turned on. The male protagonist is weak. The villains are unstoppable and inexplicable. Escape after escape is presented to tantalize the audience and always they are thwarted--i.e. the shotgun or the knife in the boat. These are simply ways to play with our expectations, but Haneke goes so far as to break the fourth wall and even to defy the accepted rules of time and space to erase the last hope of every viewer that they might know what will happen next. Haneke renders the audience completely helpless.

Besides being masterfully satirical and a true experiment in film/viewer interaction, Funny Games is also visually beautiful. Its shot with a pristine stillness that leaves the viewer completely exposed to the content of the film. Despite the fact that almost no violence is actually displayed on screen (again in defiance of our modern expectations), one remembers in the movie a gripping brutality. A shot of a blood-splattered television set or the gut-wrenching screams of a victim off screen are more than enough to terrify and disgust any viewer who comes under the spell of the film. Instead of using flashy editing to get a cheap scare, Haneke uses mind-bogglingly long takes to allow the gravity of a scene to sink in--the most notable being just after Peter and Paul first leave the house and Naomi Watts must free herself.

I know I'm gushing at this point, but the acting is also incomparable. Naomi Watts and Tim Roth are brilliantly believable as the ill-equipped victims of Paul and Peter's killing spree. Also, I'm not sure I've ever hated anyone more than Michael Pitt in this film. If I saw him on the street I might attack him. Bravo sir.

I'm positive there's much more to say on this film. I may well have to supplement this at some point. I know Sally and Plato have both seen this movie, and I'd love to hear back from you guys on this. I haven't seen the original, but I'm made to understand that they are shot for shot duplicates. Regardless I'd like to see it. Also, I know Plato and I have both seen The Strangers, which is more or less an Americanized remake of the original Funny Games as well. Care to compare sir?

Talk to Me (2007)

Talk to Me. Directed by Kasi Lemmons. Written by Michael Genet and Rick Famuyiwa. Release Date: 3 August 2007. Country of Production: United States. Key Cast: Don Cheadle ("Petey" Greene), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Dewey Hughes), Taraji P. Henson (Vernell Watson).

Talk to Me is a fairly straightforward biopic about a famous black radio DJ and live performer named Petey Greene, who made a name as a man of the people in Washington D.C. in the late sixties and seventies. This is a classic example of a movie based on a true story that is interesting almost only because of the source subject.

Don't get me wrong, the performances are more than adequate and the direction is satisfactory. Don Cheadle is funny and convincing as Petey Greene, and its a story that I'm glad I heard. The music--primarily 60s soul--really adds to the mood of the film, despite the fact that the dates of the songs' releases and the timeline of the film are not always in sync.

The editing bothered me a bit I must admit. Jumps in time are to be expected in a film encompassing the greater part of a person's life, so I let those go. The big problem for me, though, was an unusually high number of match cuts. Sentences were started in one scene and finished in another; or one character is doing something and another is performing the same action in the next scene. I get that its a device often used to create parallel significance, but this was excessive.

Regardless of a few nitpicks, though, this movie boils down to a well enough made biopic worth seeing, if only for the fact that Petey Green was an interesting and influential black American.