49 Up

49 Up ***1/2

Here we have the newest installment in one of the most influential documentary series' of all time. Over the course of the last month I have been intrigued and introduced to "The Up Series," which was created by Michael Apted in 1964. In 1964, Apted was inspired by the quote "Give me the child at the age of seven and I will give you the man." He interviewed a group of fourteen children, all seven years old, and asked their views on life, politics, the opposite sex, etc. While this can sound like a profound experience, the children were all seven at the time. Many of their views were something like:

"I have a girlfriend, but I don't think much of her."
"I don't like the term colored people, because it makes it sound like a purple person with red eyes and yellow feet."

And then Apted decided to find all of the kids again, seven years later when they were fourteen, and see how they were doing. This was a little different. No longer were the subjects eager to talk to the camera and hear themselves talk. All of them were more subtle, and shy, as the ages of puberty finally hit them. Some of them didn't even bother looking straight into the camera. Apted was not done yet, and seven years later, and every seven years since then, he has caught up with the kids, now adults. Not all of them return, and some of them didn't return for certain episodes and then came back for later ones. With "49 Up," the "kids" are all forty nine years old, and twelve of the original fourteen have come back. Upon it's conclusion, I prayed that in seven years I could actually see "56 Up" and see what is happening to them as they approach the age of seniors.

Watching the entire series is a fascinating thing, because it's literally watching a human life. And they don't think about the show as they live their lives. One of the subjects even ends up homeless for the better part of three episodes, and is the actual heart of most of the films. What is great about each film is that you do not have to have seen the past films to understand and chart the growth of all the kids. Apted provides numerous video clips and past interviews and scenes from the previous film in all of them, to provide a comparison. When introducing each subject, you don't even see what they are like at the present until Apted gives us a little recap of their past

The first kid we see is Tony, who wanted to be a jockey when he was kid, and then advanced to a cabbie and a sometimes actor. Tony is married to the same woman, and has learned much during his marriage, especially after having an affair. Tony is the most talkative of all the kids, and even though he minds doing the series, he feels that it was an educational experience. There is Suzy, who went through a long bout of depression and chain smoking until she finally met Rupert, who would eventually become her husband. There is Bruce, who at the age of forty nine, has two kids who are both under the age of five. And then there is Neil, the real gripper of all the episodes, who was at one time homeless. Apted is clever in saving Neil for the end, as any real follower of the episodes would obviously be eager to see how he is doing. While he is finally meeting peace with himself, his biggest regret would be that he never was in a truly serious relationship, and never settled down and had a wife of his own. Watching the past clips of Neil talking, especially when he was seven, you would never guess the way he turned out. A poor and depressed man came out of a talkative and happy boy.

I would like to describe more detail about each kid, but I recognize the faces and the stories, and seem to be having a little trouble with the actual names. I remember the names, but cannot connect them to each story. As for the future, some of them are unsure about if they will return for "56 Up" or not. Suzy, who is mentioned above, seems to have decided not to do the next film. She even states here that she is done, and it's a fine spot to call it quits. And then there is my least favorite of all of them, John, who seems to be a very stubborn and snotty and stuck-up person, even when he was seven. He did not appear in the "28 Up" because he felt that he said everything that he needed too in the previous films. That annoyed me a bit. What annoyed me even more is how he returned for "35 Up" solely as a way to promote the charity that he founded, "Friends of Belgium." He skipped out on "42 Up," and is back here, although he seemed a bit more easy on the program itself. All of them do. In the middle episodes, especially, they all seemed to hate the program, and regret ever being a part of it. Now, they all seem to finally make peace with it, and just accept it. It is something they do, and something that maybe even deep down they enjoy doing. What annoys them most about the movies is that they bring back memories that they wish they could forget. This is seen especially in the middle episodes, when most of the "kids" come to the fact that there parents are dying.

On a closing note, watching these films over the last few weeks has been a very interesting experience. I wish that I had some old videos of myself when I was seven, and fourteen, and then again in a few years. The closest things to home movies that I have are things that me and my father did in spare time. The technique that we were most fond of was making it appear like things were coming out of nowhere. We would take a sandwich, and I would take a bit and he would stop the tape. And then start the tape, another bit, and then stop the tape. And repeat until the sandwich was gone. The same with Lego towers, and even one where I kept putting on different shirts, so it seemed like the shirt I was wearing changed every second. Fun and amusing videos, yes, but not enough to chart the growth of a person and ideals. If I were these kids, I would not regret doing this. It is an experience that nobody else has except for them. A video scrapbook of their entire lives. A comparative study of human behavior and human life. And for the audience, it makes for really great filmmaking. "The Up Series" is a landmark in documentary, and "49 Up" is the most in depth yet. Hopefully I'll be back in seven years with "56 Up," where a whole new lifestyle will present itself. The lifestyle of retirement and the golden years.

Infamous

Infamous ***

Earlier in the year, I happened upon a movie website and came across a list of titles which were coming out in the next few months. When I saw the title of "Infamous," I clicked on the link not having a clue about what the film was about, and when I did read the plot summery I was extremely shocked. I had a spell of deja vu, because the film was exactly like one that I recently saw, "Capote." That being said, I believe that it is probably impossible to write a review for "Infamous" without a slight mention of the 2005 film "Capote." Not only are the two films about the same man, but they also follow the exact same storyline. The major difference, however, is the tone. "Capote" was a bleak and depressing take on the writer. A dark trip into the mind of an already dark man. "Infamous" takes the story on a different approach, a much more comical one, and one that is even slightly more entertaining, but not fully human.

"Infamous" introduces us to Truman Capote as the cream of the crop in the social world. He knows everything about everybody and everybody knows who he is. And everybody also knows to never trust him with any kind of secret, because he will spread it to everyone under the sun. As a writer, he has gained strong acclaim, and has figured out exactly what he wants to write about next. In the newspaper one morning he comes across an article about the death of the Clutter family. A family of four, the Clutters were found brutally murdered in their homes one morning, in Holcrom, Kansas. With his best friend since childhood, Harper Lee, Capote sets his sights for the city in Kansas to get to the bottom of the case, and begin his article. In the guise of an old woman, Capote leaves his mark on the townspeople, who have no interest in opening up to him, especially Alvin Dewey, the detective leading the case. The people in the town change their minds when Capote tells them stories about the stars he knew, and suddenly everybody wants to talk. The killers are eventually caught, Dick Hickock and Perry Smith. Capote does everything he can to interview the two killers, so that he can portray them in a light other than cold blooded murderers. Once he starts to talk to them, especially Perry, he decides that this story will not fit an article in a newspaper, it would have to be an entire book-which he named "In Cold Blood." Neglecting to tell Perry about the title, as not to offend him, Capote begins a kind of relationship with the killer, and comes to a crossroads. If Perry and Dick do not die, Capote will not have a proper ending for his novel, but if they do die, Capote might loose the only man that he could ever truly relate to, and even love.

'Infamous" and "Capote" were both made at the same time, so I refuse to give the classic argument that this is a cheap Hollywood ripoff of the first film. It really is not too bad at all. It views the story told in "Capote" in a different way, but that doesn't make it poor. At times it could seem a little silly. I'll admit, the sequence with Capote dressed up like a woman walking through the town was a little strange, but this could have been who he actually way. Toby Jones and Phillip Seymour Hoffman take different stabs at the role. Jones is more openly gay about Capote, while Hoffman appeared to keep it in. Jones even looks a little more like the author, and some people might even think that Truman Capote was playing himself. And here we also get an intimate look into Capote's social life, which was extremely vast and complete. We get to chart the downfall of the man. "In Cold Blood" ended up destroying Truman Capote. He pours himself into the novel, and it slowly eats his away. Capote is the ultimate example of character development, as he goes from this fun and entertaining man to this poor soul, who wanders life confused and alone."In Cold Blood" ended up being the last book that he finished before he died, even though he attempted to write another. He is also very selfish, and always has to come out as number one in his inner circle. His popularity is even threatened when Lee publishes her little novel "To Kill a Mockingbird," which garnered almost more success than all of Truman's work combined. Like Lee says, "Truman would be happy if I received the Pulitzer Prize, as long as he had two of them first."

My biggest quip with the film was the filler use of "talking heads." From time to time, especially in the beginning and in the end, the film would take a History Channel approach, and make the film seem like a docu-drama. While still in character, people like Harper Lee and Slim Keith would talk to the camera and tell stories about Capote, and discuss certain incidents in his life. I saw these as road blocks in the middle of the action, and their absence in the middle made it appear inconsistent. With that, "Infamous" is much more entertaining than it's counterpart, but it doesn't have the depth of the first film. I enjoyed watching both of them, though, and they both brought their own little spin to the tale. "Infamous" seems to be a box office bomb, which is a shame because everyone is writing this off simply because "Capote" came out last year. They should give this a chance, as they might be strongly surprised by how good and fun it is. "Infamous" is not a retread. It's the same story, and yet it still feels as if it is something new, and I hope people give it the chance that it deserves. The chance that all films deserve.

Nearing Grace

Nearing Grace **1/2

"Nearing Grace" is the second screenplay from Jacob Aaron Estes, who impressed me so much with "Mean Creek" that I made it imperative to see this new one. Maybe it's the fault of the director, Rick Rosenthal, but this turned out to be a little more predictable, not as engrossing, and the characters kind of compared to those that you would see on a made for tv movie. It was not bad, but it fell slightly short of being anything worth talking about. It's been two weeks since I've seen it, and I don't really remember much about how the story worked.

It is a standard coming of age story, the type that we've seen a dozen times and a half before. In the beginning we are introduced to the Nearing family, who have all just taken the blow of a horrible tragedy. The mother in the family has died, and after an
unsuccessful attempt to throw her ashes into the middle of the ocean the family all has to come to terms with the death in their own different way. Of course she was probably the rock and foundation of the family. Her oldest son, Blair, has moved to another country with his wife, and instead of getting a decent job for his family, him and his wife decide to try whatever drug they can get their hands on. The father of the family, Shep, a former professor who now dresses up in leather jackets and rides a motorcycle, a switch from his original short hair, glasses, and button up shirts. And then there is Henry, our hero, who deals with the death with a mysterious infatuation on Grace, a girl in his class who insists on hitting on him every time she sees him. He is so blinded by his interest in Grace that he doesn't see the true love that is right in front of him. And that is his best friend since he was two, Merna. He even tends to pop in through her window whenever he goes to hang out with her. Isn't that cute? He tries to woo Grace into an actual relationship, while at the same time trying to avoid her sometimes boyfriend, and also trying to piece his life back together again.

I've seen this before, and while the story is far too predictable for my taste, the acting really does become a saving grace, no pun intended. Gregory Smith as Henry is a television actor, who stars in some show on the WB, I can't remember with, is an interesting choice for the lead. But he is the central character, and he does it with casual wit and bitterness. His tone of voice tries to make everything he says sound mysterious and wise. As one of the other characters say, "Why does everything you say sound like its coming from a fortune cookie?" Jordana Brewster takes a break from all the screaming and mutilation of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning," and actually takes a stab at acting. She's pretty good at it, as the seductive temptress. And then there is David Morse, who appears to be the heart and soul of the movie, as well as the only character that I actually felt for. Morse also wowed me in spring's "Down in the Valley." These three actors especially, as well as the supporting cast, actually bring life to otherwise lifeless characters. And the final few moments of the film are actually very eye-rolling, even more so than some of the other situations these people find themselves in. Come on, Henry and Grace end up swimming naked until her boyfriend steals their cloths. Wrapped in only a blanket, they run back to town to her house, in the middle of the rain nonetheless. Fine performances are able to make "Nearing Grace" actually near grace, but the film as a whole is simply a better made tv movie. Like I said, it isn't a bad film, but it doesn't have anything very special about it. I'd say look for "Mean Creek," but don't expect more of the same. Expect less.

Viva Pedro Part Eight: Bad Education

Viva Pedro Part Eight:
Bad Education ****

Ah, all roads must come to an end. Since the middle of August, each week I have been watching a new film by Pedro Almodovar, as a part of the eight week retrospective "Viva Pedro." And it is ironic that "Bad Education" is the last film of the retrospective, while it is also the first Almodovar that I have ever seen. When I saw "Bad Education" in 2004 I hailed it as a masterpiece, and one of the year's best. While it fell short of the year's top 10, I was upset that it didn't reach the success, critically and financially, that it deserved. It is engrossing, hooking you into the plot from the very beginning, and never letting go. Sitting into the theatre a few weeks ago, prepared to see this one the big screen for the first time in two years, I was excited. How would I feel about "Bad Education" two years later, seeing seven other Almodovar films since then? And the answer was simple. It is probably my favorite of all the work he has done.

Working on the film for ten years before finally getting it made, Almodovar's "Bad Education" starts with violins and other string instruments providing a frantic tune. One that is
forbidding and yet puts you in a trance. Something is going to happen here, but what? We are then introduced to Enrique, a film director who has a case of writer's block. As a way of coming up with new film ideas, he looks around the newspapers for interesting stories. He is interrupted by a knock at the door, where Ignacio enters. Ignacio reveals himself as a friend of Enrique from school, where the two became best friends and lovers. Ignacio has changed, and Enrique cannot see anything of the friend that he knew in him. He even changed his name, and demands to be called Angel now. Agents. . . or Angel. . . drops a story off with Enrique. Entitled "The Visit" it is a story about the past, with the two boys in school, and at the same time tells a fictional story about what happens to the characters when they grow up.

Now we get into the movie within a movie, which in turn leads to a movie within a movie within a movie. Pay attention. Enrique reads the story he was sent, which is the story of Zahara, a cross dressing club singer who goes home with a man that she sees in the club. After having far too many drugs, the man ends up falling asleep during an intimate moment, and Zahara goes through his wallet. He finds his ID, and learns that it is Enrique, someone from his boyhood who was his first lover. Zahara decides to go back to his childhood, and get revenge on the priest that tore them apart. His plan is about blackmail, and he will go through extreme lengths to be successful.

While reading the fictional account, Enrique remembers what actually happened. While in school, Ignacio was the favorite of Father Manolo, who was enchanted by Ignacio's voice. While in the forest, Ignacio sings "Moon River," and the priest cannot help by try and touch him. Ignacio meets Enrique, and the two become fast friends, going to various movies together, and then becoming something more. However, in the middle of the night the two retreat to the bathroom, where they are caught by the priest. The priest sends Enrique away from the school, and the two friends are forced to leave one another forever. Flashing back to the present, all of these three stories merge together, as Enrique learns the mysteries of Ignacio. . . Angel. . . and also confronts the past and Father Manolo.

On print is could seem confusing, but on the screen it is a vision. Almodovar doesn't try and trick the viewer by getting him confused as to which story is going on. Instead he changes the size of the screen. And the flashbacks only occur for the first half of the film, where the screen squeezes together a little bit. As the eighth film in the series, I could see many recurring themes. When Almodovar isn't talking about women and their struggles, he is talking about men that want to be women and their struggles. And his images are fantastic, bringing strange darkness to the brightest colors. Who know that yellow and orange could be so creepy? Almodovar is able to reinvent any genre from the past that he wants to do, and this is his film noir masterpiece, , beating the similarly paced "Matador." Underrated, but my personal favorite of the eight I've seen.

And so, the festival has ended. I could question "Bad Education" being used in the festival, as it is fairly recent and can be accessed by anybody with a video store. But in a way, it is the perfect way, in my personal life, to close it. I saw this in a new light, now knowing everything that I know about this director. And it will be hard to see any more films by him that are not on the big screen. This was a terrific festival, and the only true way that I could appriciate Almodovar for what he truely is: One of the genius directors of our time. Even his weakest works are something original and strange and always something to see. Thank you Sony Pictures Classics for "Viva Pedro!"

For quick references to the films in "Viva Pedro:"
Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown ***1/2
All About My Mother ***1/2
Talk to Her ***1/2
The Flower of My Secret **1/2
Live Flesh ***
Law of Desire *1/2
Matador ***
Bad Education ****

And while "Viva Pedro" may be over, Almodovar's new film "Volver" comes out November 3rd, to be reviewed by yours truly soon enough.

Viva Pedro Part Seven: Matador

Viva Pedro Part Seven
Matador ***

"Matador" is not to be confused with the delightful human comedy of the same name from 2005, but instead a dark, disturbing, and creepy Almodovar film from 1986. Those who expect Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear sharing witty banter and cute one liners will be sorely disappointed. "Matador" is the oldest film that you will be at the "Viva Pedro" film festival, a retrospective of eight classic Almodovar film, and as one of his first efforts it is one of his strangest and best. He does not return to his classic themes of women in crisis, but instead tells a film noir tale about murder simply for the sake of murder. From the very first opening credit sequence of a man pleasuring himself in front of some of the bloodiest scenes from a movie I have ever seen, you know that you are in for a twisted ride.

"Matador" tells the story of Diego, a former matador who was hurt in a goring accident years ago. Since he cannot practice the art anymore, he decides to spread his knowledge about the art in a matador training school. The problem with Diego is that ever since his goring he has been obsessed with killing. One of his most interesting students is Angel, who wants to prove his manhood to his teacher who has doubts. Angel ends up raping Diego's model girlfriend, Eva. Persuaded by his strongly religious mother, Angel decides to go to church to confess to the crime, but instead walks straight to the police station where he not only confesses to the rape, but also tells them that he is the man they are looking for related to a string of murders around the city. Angel gets a lawyer, Maria, who it turns out really has a hidden agenda. She only wants to help Angel as a way to get close to Diego, a man who she has admired for a long time from afar. The two become closer, and it turns out that Maria is obsessed with him instead of just having a crush. Even when she is being physical with a man, when she is done she imiates the bullfighter, but sticking her hairpin into the back of the man she is with. The three interact with one another and end up changing each other.

"Matador" does not depict any bullfighting, unless you count the video clip of Diego getting attacked by the bull. Instead, there are three bullfighters, and everyone else are the bulls. This is a story about obsession. Obsession with proving oneself, obsession with death, and obsession with trying to have the perfect life. And for the most part, it is an intriquing, quickly paced, and wonderfully dark Almodovar film, and an unusual one at that. Watching these films is interesting seeing how he changed over the years. My only quip with the festival is that they show the films in a random order. If they showed them in a chronlogical order, I think I might be able to mark trends in his career. Going from the mid 80's, to the late 90's, to 2001, and then back to the mid 90's again is a little confusing. The middle is slightly slow, but the final climax(and no pun intended) is haunting and brilliant, and it is a shame to see the film end. Much like the festival.

Coming soon is the final film in the "Viva Pedro" series, "Bad Education."

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning 1/2*

I have come to realize that there is no such thing as horror anymore. The genre is slowly being replaced with torture. And not torture in the way that it is torture to sit through anymore of this stuff, simply torture in the way that every "horror" film out there is about somebody tying someone else up and doing things to them. It started with "Saw," but it's progressed and brought along carbon copies like "Hostel," and now "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning." This is my first delve into the world of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," and after it was over I had no interest in renting either the original or the remake. It is simply brutal, to the point where it isn't even entertaining, and bloody to the point where it isn't even fun to watch. Instead it's an hour and a half of people being treated like meat, being hung up, having their legs cut off, seeing bone, until the final bloody moment where it doesn't even matter what is going on anymore. And it's not even clever, like the "Saw" movies tend to be. Instead it's people getting hurt, over and over again, until they are all dead. Sounds like fun, huh? It really isn't, and if I didn't see this one for free, I would regret ever watching it.

"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" begins with a old meat factory where one of the employees gives birth. The birth kills the mother right away, but the child is adopted by a woman and her husband, who declares him as one of the ugliest things he's ever seen. Years later, in 1969, the baby is now named Tommy, and he works at the meat factory. The factory is closing due to a disease in the town, but Tommy refuses to leave. Instead, after being insulted by the boss, he kills him, and takes with him the chainsaw in the office. We then focus on the "heros" of the story, where two brothers, Dean and Eric, are on their way to enlist in the military. Eric has been to Vietnam already, but is enlisting because Dean was drafted, and he wants to be there for his brother. Before enlisting, they decide to take a trip with their girlfriends, Chrissie and Bailey, but little does Eric know that Dean plans to stay in Mexico to avoid the draft. The peace is interrupted by a trip to a gas station(of course), in the middle of nowhere(obviously), where upon leaving, the gang is intercepted by a biker woman with a shotgun. They get into an accident where the biker demands all their money. On the scene comes Officier Hoyt, who shoots the biker dead and then puts the kids into his car. There's more to the officier that meets the eye. For example, he isn't a cop, but the man who killed the cop to prevent his son from going to jail. And he donned the uniform and became this other person, bent on keeping his family safe. And from that moment, the lives in these kids spiral downward to hell, as Hoyt is bent on making them suffer like they have never suffered before. And he beats them, cuts them with knives, all while they are persued by the deranged Tommy, who becomes Leatherface after cutting off the face of one of the kids, and plastering it on his own. Hell, maybe they were better of going to fight in Vietnam. . .

I just cannot see any entertainment value in this movie at all. Horror movies nowadays don't try to be scary anymore. Instead, they try to outblood the other movie. Each one tries to be more gory than the last. However, some gore movies, and I do mean "Saw" here, actually have some kind of story to get the viewer involved. This one just captures the main characters, and lets up watch them suffer for an hour without any kind of remorse or real point. It is gore and blood for the sake of gore and blood. I understand that Hoyt is supposed to be crazy, but why? Is there a reason at all? This is supposed to be "The Beginning," and yet I still feel like I walked in halfway. These are characters that could have some kind of a backstory, but instead we just get him cutting off his brother in laws legs for us to see bone. There is no logical way to explain how someone would find something like this entertaining. This defines the terms snuff film.

And if you want to call it a horror movie, it doesn't bring anything new to the genre, except maybe the types of organs that you see on screen. It has the classic cliches. I mentioned the spooky gas station in the middle of nowhere, of course, but there is also the person we believe is passed out waking up, people suddenly being in the shot when another character turns around, etc. Even the cinematography is nothing special. We're given a grainy perspective, which is fitting for the darker than life subject matter, but it doesn't save this movie in any way at all. The only thing that could have saved this movie was a plot, and that was destroyed during the writing process. I must question you're sanity if you find any minute of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" scary or even entertaining. This crosses the line to the point where the line can't even be seen anymore. It's pointless, ridiculous, and disgusting, but not even in a fun way.

Little Children

Little Children ****

The suburbia setting is the metaphorical playground for the actions of the characters in "Little Children." A landscape of connected people, who all know one another, and should learn how to play nice. When we are all younger, there are a few simple rules that our parents teach us never to do-don't steal, don't lie, don't talk to strangers, don't pick on others that aren't your size, etc. But, it seems like the parents in this film need to be taught a lesson, as they do all of these things, only in stronger and more disturbing ways.

Beginning on a quiet little town, in a quiet little park, "Little Children" starts with a narrated introduction of Sarah(Kate Winslet)-who is described as slightly boyish, quiet, and one who keeps to herself (even though I can't ever understand how any script can manage to use the phrase "boyish," and then cast Kate Winslet without changing any dialogue, but whatever). Sarah seems a bit out of place. She has a masters degree in English literature, and seems more interested in the actions of Madame Bovery, as opposed to her daughter Lucy, whom she can't even seem to remember her snack. She is in a marriage that means nothing as her husband looks at porn all day, and she has no connection to the other mothers at all. Except, however, when "The Prom King"(Patrick Wilson) comes into the park. He is a father who comes in with his little son all the time, but his mysterious absence for the past few months has become the main hot topic with the mothers. Sarah is dared to go up to him and find out his name and number, to which she accepts, and the two begin a friendship of sorts. He is married to Kathy(Jennifer Connelly), a documentary film maker who also seems to be more interested in her film about a little girl, as opposed to the needs of her own son. When her son sleeps in the same bed with his parents at night she doesn't even have the decency to cover up when she leans over him to give her husband a long kiss while wearing skimpy underwear. Sarah and Brad are tired of their lives, and the only place where they can find solace is when they are with one another. They find many excuses to be with one another, often using their children as the way to do it. Sarah knows that Brad will be at the local pool at a certain time everyday, and she uses her kid as a way to go there. There will be no suspicion if she is seen at the pool with her daughter. It is only then that they decide that maybe they should go off together, away from their humdrum and dull lives, and into something new, fresh, and exciting.

A few blocks away is Ronald(Jackie Earle Haley) a registered sex offender who was just recently released from jail, and who just moved in with his mother, May. May has trust in her son, and forgives him for any mistakes that he might have made in the past. He thinks that she is a good boy who just needs a nice woman his own age , which is why she places an ad in the newspaper for him to find a date. Ronald would like to live some kind of a normal life, if that is even possible, but his life is instead made miserable by Larry, a former cop who is horrified at the notion of having a sex offender live in his town. He remedies this by forming a group against him, and by plastering fliers all over the town. He bullies Ronald by pulling up to his house every single night, a few times each night, and calling out insults and warnings to him.

This is the playground that these characters play in. Larry is the bully, who picks on Ronald. Ronald is that kid in the playground who always seems to have to be with his mother, and who would not be able to go on without her. Then there is Brad and Sarah, who are selfish and only look for things for their own benefit. And Kathy, who is a little selfish, and a bit self centered, but what kind of up and coming film maker isn't. All of these characters are not happy with the way they live their lives, and they are all looking for some kind of alternative. At the breakfast table while Brad and Kathy talk, you could hear the sounds of a train whistle far off in the distance, as if beckoning for Brad to go off and leave his home. The same for Sarah as she is visited at night by a neighbor. It's faint, but it is there.

"Little Children" is another one of the best films of the year. It is a dark and pitch perfect satire, never laugh out loud funny, but darkly comic enough to make the bitter heart happy. The last twenty minutes are some of the most frightening minutes I've spent in a movie theater, as I approached the edge of my seat, wanting the film to end to see what happens, but at the same time never wanting the experience to finish. It was strange. It has terrific performances, especially by Kate Winslet, who is unable to do wrong, and Jackie Earle Haley, who has been absent for a while by seems to make some sort of a breakthrough here. There are no characters to really root for here. They all do their good and their bad. Even Ronald, the sex offender, shows signs of being human, but he completely erases it with some of the acts that he does. But he is trying. Over the last few years I have come into the practice of observing characters instead of always trying to relate to them, or finding too much to hate. Some of my favorite characters in the last few years of film are those that do some of the most wretched things. Things that you don’t think you can forgive them for. Well, maybe they don’t want you too.

I said before that "Little Children" is about looking for a life better than the one you have, but at the same time it is about keeping and accepting the life that was given to you. To ignore the various train whistles that call out to us in the midst of a crisis. To try and make life work without succumbing to the temptation of the first thing that falls in your lap, and most of all to abide by the rules of life, which never seem to change from being a kid. Instead, they just get a little more mature, but the meaning never ceases.

The Departed

The Departed ****

Over the last few years, the name Martin Scorsese has been met with apprehension. While he is a legend, and the director of such masterpieces as "Goodfellas," and "Raging Bull," his last few films haven't been the most iconic. Having never won an Oscar, I'm grateful that his first wasn't for "Gangs of New York," or "The Aviator," two very good films, but nothing memorable as the years past. But now things are a little different. Returning to the gangster genre that he perfected, Scorsese is back to form with "The Departed," an engaging, grim, tragic, and darkly comic masterpiece that happens to be one of the best films I've seen all year, and by far the most entertaining. It was a good choice for Scorsese to return back to this genre, as maybe now he'll get that Oscar that has been due to him for the last few decades. And for this, I think he deserves it.

"The Departed" is the story of two moles, neither of which knows the other's true identity. The first is Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio), a cadet at a police training camp. After being pinned out by Captain Queenan and Sergeant Dignam (Martin Sheen and Mark Wahlberg), it becomes apparent that they want him to infiltrate the South Boston mob of Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). After spending a few years in prison as a way to divert any attention from the fact that he tried to become a cop. Costigan successfully manages to get himself into Costello's circle. In another unit of the force there is Captain Ellerby (Alec Baldwin), who wants to nab Costello for selling illegal items to the Chinese. His leading man on the job is Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon), who is rising fast in popularity on the force. His life even seems on the rise, especially after starting a relationship with the beautiful Madolyn (Vera Farmiga), the psychiatrist at the station. However, what everybody doesn't know is that Sullivan knows Costello, and has ever since he befriended him as a little boy. Costello trusts him more than anyone, which is why he chose him to go to police training camp and become a rat there. The police get closer and closer to being able to nab Costello for his actions, but he begins to get suspicious. He starts to get the idea that he has a rat in his crew. Costigan tries to get the information regarding Costello to Queenan and Dignam without being caught by him, and Sullivan does what he can to not get caught when he is assigned to catch the spy on the force, who is him.

"The Departed" is a film all about identity. During the opening scenes, a classic Scorsese montage that introduces all the films central characters to the tune of the some best music you can hear, Costello says to young Sullivan, "When I was your age, they would say that you could become cops, or you could become criminals. But when you're facing a loaded gun, what's the difference?" Playing on that theme of "what's the difference," Scorsese is able to effectively tell his story, giving many equal characteristics to both DiCaprio and Damon's characters, especially when Costigan begins an affair with Madolyn, and then her becoming pregnant. We never really do find out whose baby it is, but then again, what's the difference? Funny story, I even remember being at work one day, when a young kid came out of the movie saying how confusing it was. He claims that he was even having trouble determining who was who, since the two main characters looked so much alike. I guess the phrase "what's the difference," applies there too, even though I didn't really see much of a resemblence.

The cast is absolutely exceptional, and it's obvious that everyone was having a great time, especially Nicholson. Over the last decade or so, he's been drifting from the bad guy role, ala "The Shining," and going more towards the warm and delightful comedy roles. After all, he did do an Adam Sandler movie, and "Something's Gotta Give" in a row. He is terrific as a comedic actor, but nothing beats Jack in a bad guy role. He has this way of distorting his face, and creating some of the best facial expressions that you can see, but never duplicate. Take one scene where Costello does an impression of a rat. He is able to buck his teeth and roll his eyes in the back of his head while making the sounds a rat makes. I've tried, but I can't seem to redo it. Even DiCaprio was fantastic here, an actor who I never find anything amazing about. I still don't understand what Scorsese sees in him, casting him in three movies in a row, with a fourth on the way, although peaks of what he does see come out here. Alec Baldwin brings some comedy to the film a bit with his small role, and Mark Walhberg manages to use every single variation of the "F" word that I can think of, but then again so do all the other characters.

Looking back, it does have a few minor flaws. For example, a random cocaine scene featuring Jack Nicholson and two women seems to have been inserted in the film way after it was edited, for no reason other than to show Jack with a glossy look on his eyes as he throws the powder at the women. It's short, but seemed worthless, to a film that is long enough. At two and a half hours, "The Departed" does take time out of your day, but it doesn't feel very long at all. Scorsese is certainly the master of pacing, and through all of his films, "Taxi Driver," "Goodfellas," "Casino, even though they are two hours to three hours long, each minute feels like two. Scorsese is a quick storytelling with long running times. That seems to be a great way to describe him. And even though it has a few small flaws, "The Departed" is so entertaining that you forgive it, and don't even notice them until well after you left the theater. The last half hour is full of twists and turns, and blood and gore, but I guarantee that if you see one twist coming, there is one right around the corner that you won't see. And the final image has an ingenious visual that it is the first thing that pops into my head whenever I think about this. "The Departed" is indeed a true Scorsese masterpiece, and sure to become a gangster/cop classic. It brings hope to whoever was starting to have their doubts about Scorsese, but it prove that whether or not Scorsese has an Oscar or not, what's the difference? He's still got the power to make a master film. Sure to be on my Top Ten at the end of the year.

Open Season

Open Season ***

After the strong downward trend in animated films of late, I was shocked to see that "Open Season" was actually a good movie. I haven't actually laughed at something I've seen in a cartoon for a long time. It may not be the most original cartoon to come out of Hollywood, but it's the funniest since "Cars." And for once, it's not even a mixture of two better animated films. We've seen the animals before, but it doesn't take the plot from anything else. For example, "The Ant Bully" was just a combination of "Over the Hedge" and "Antz." But, the kids will laugh at the kiddie jokes, and the adults with laugh at the jokes that will go way over the kids head. And it's entertaining. And short. And it looks good. And with something of this calibur, when it's not Pixar or independant, that is all that you're looking to do. Make the kids happy, and to not be bored yourself.

"Open Season" starts off with Boog the bear. A domesticated bear, who preforms in a local zoo, doing a stage show. He has the greatest life that he could imagine. He sleeps in a garage, watching television, eating crackers, and he's raised by the best owner that he could ever have: Beth. Boog's peaceful life is destroyed when he rescues Elliot from the hood of a hunters car. Elliot suddenly thinks that because Boog saved his life, Boog has to protect him from danger all the time. He shows up at the wrong times, and even convinced Boog to sneak out of the garage one night and go to the local general store. Boog, who never eats chocolate or other sweet sugars, is overjoyed by everything that he sees, and when he returns home in the middle of the night, its in the trunk of a cop car. Beth begins to think that Boog could be a danger to the rest of the town, and decides that it might be time for her to set him wild. She brings him to the center of the woods, and leaves him there. Boog wakes up in the morning confused and scared, but it only gets worse when Elliot comes out of the bag that he was in. The two are together now, forever. And the plot thickens when its revealed that its Open Season in three days, when it will be officially legal for the hunters to come in and kill whatever they want to. Boog and Elliot, especially if they are going to live in this lifestyle, decide that they have to do something about the hunters, and unite all of the forest creatures in an attempt to stop the hunters from killing them all, and to be able to life a peaceful and free life in nature.

It may be predictable, but "Open Season" is short and sweet. I don't think I checked my watch once during the entire film, which is good after some of the animated drivel I've seen all summer. It may be "yet another animated film" but this is the one to pick out of all the others that are around at the moment. It even has some laughs, and I learned that Ashton Kutcher is better when its just his voice coming out of an animal, as opposed to him actually being on the screen. Important life lessons are learned everyday. I liked many of the forest characters, including the group of squirrels who act like an Scottish military unit, and another animal that always looks at Boog and Elliot and just said "Buddy!" And it has its sappy moments, but you'd expect it too, so when Boog decides to go off and find his home on his own, and that sentimental song comes onto the soundtrack, you know that it'll be over in just a few minutes. "Open Season" is a pleasant surprise, and not the practice of torture that you'd expect it to be. The kids will love it, and the adults will be able to tolerate it. And that is all that is needed. . .

School for Scoundrels

School for Scoundrels *1/2

"School for Scoundrels" doesn't seem to want to accept the fact that it's a black comedy. And it could have been a much better one at that. Come on, it has the makings. . . casting Jon Heder, who was hilarious in "Napolean Dynamite," and then casting Billy Bob Thornton, the only actor that could play a fantastic jerk of a man. It may seem like he's been type cast ever since "Bad Santa" came out, but everybody has to admit that he does a fantastic job whenever he plays one of the meanest men of alive. His acting alone saved the remake of "Bad News Bears" from being complete trite. But anyway, here he is again, fine as always, and he might have again saved a film from being completely terrible. "School for Scoundrels" needed more. I wanted it to be meaner. I wanted it to be darker, and I wanted it for be funnier. I just felt that they copped out by turning this potentially dark film into a silly, slapstick romantic comedy. The entire third act was just a gimmick, and not a very good one at that.

"School for Scoundrels" tells the story of Roger, a poor and lonely meter clerk who is always getting chased around by the same people that he has to ticket. Case in point are these two men who took his entire uniform when he tried to ticket them for a foul park job. Roger does not have the best luck at all. He volunteers at a "Big Brother" program in the gym, for the last three kids that he tried to mentor wanted a change. So, his friend and boss gives him a phone number, but tells him that he can never tell anyone about it. All he needs to do is call the number and follow the instructions. Roger's curiosity gets the better of him, and the number leads him to Dr. P, a self help instruction whose class is underground and secret. There is no set meeting, so everyone in the class has to be ready at all times. Dr. P teaches lessons about confidence, and advice towards the opposite sex. "Be Dangerous! It's Cool!" is at the top of the board one day. Roger uses Dr. P's advice to ask out Amanda, his next door neighbor. He also catches the attention of Dr. P, when during a hands out activity involving paintball, shoots Dr. P's muscle Lesher in the face. However, Dr. P doesn't like competition, and soon he's "accidentally" bumping into Amanda at the bookstore, and chatting her away. Roger catches on to Dr. P, and tries to show everyone the kind of phoney that he is.

I was happy that the ending of "School for Scoundrels" wasn't what I expected it to be. Without giving anything away, if anyone has seen the ending to "Anger Management" they may have a vague idea of how I thought this was going to conclude, and at first it does, but then it pulls a second twist on you. This is just a poor excuse for the full potential that this film had. Maybe on paper there was more substance to it. A few more darker jokes, and maybe it was more spirited, but also maybe director Todd Phillips cut all of that out to make it more commercial. It even had one of the biggest Hollywood third acts that I have seen in a comedy in a while. There was even Roger wearing dark sunglasses, with spy music featured on the score. To add to it, many of the jokes that are actually in the film aren't very funny either, so it is kind of a lose-lose situation. The romantic plot of the film never really works either, as John Heder and Jacinda Barrett don't have the greatest chemistry that I've seen. Acting wise, she is much higher as well, and I never really understood why she was in this movie to begin with. This is the kind of film you make when your starting to get roles, and not when you've already proved yourself. It may just be me, but I thought that she was terrific in both "Ladder 49" and the "The Last Kiss." One of the best parts of the latter, anyway. There is even a pretty ridiculous cameo by Ben Stiller towards the end, but by then the film has lost all hope of trying to regain comedic value. I didn't have the good time that I could have had with "School for Scoundrels." Billy Bob, your rudeness and great insult delivery is wasted here. Jon Heder, show the perfection you did when you played Napolean Dynamite one more time. Please. . . before it's too late.

All the King's Men

All the King's Men **

Dragged all the way to September 2006 from its original December 2005 release date, "All the King's Men" was an event that I waited for months and months to see. I have read the book by Robert Penn Warren over a very hot July, and fell in love with it. It was perfect in every way. And then I heard they were making a movie of it. Wow! Sean Penn! Jude Law! Anthony Hopkins! While I was reading the book, I wasn't thinking of casting the movie based on what I read, and when I read the actual cast I didn't really think that they fit the part. But Sean Penn, Jude Law, and Hopkins are all such great actors, that I figured they would be able to mold the characters and make them great. And they tried, and they came close, but just didn't do a good enough job to capture the true heart of the novel.

"All the King's Men" is a tragic political drama, telling the story of the rise and ultimate fall of Willie Stark. Originally a man of the people, Stark has good intentions. Running for Governor on a reform platform, he eventually turns to blackmail and bribery as a way to get whatever he wants passed. This includes finding out information on Judge Irwin. The story isn't told through the eyes of Stark, but through the eyes of one of his advisors, Jack Burden. A newsman, told to follow Stark for an article, Jack eventually gets a job with the Governor, and forms a close relationship with him. Jack and the Judge have a special kind of relationship with each other. Jack's father disappeared when he was just a boy, and the Judge was kind enough to take him under his wing, taking the boy out fishing and shooting. Jack also had an interesting childhood, always spending times with his best friends Anne and Adam Stanton. Eventually starting a relationship with Anne one summer while they were teenagers, he is confused by his feelings for her in the present, and eventually becomes consumed with hatred when Anne begins an affair with Willie. Willie changes greatly from his original personality. Originally, his speeches would generate public attention, as if he was Jesus preaching to the people. Over time he begins to fool around with many women, having a full mistress in addition to his one night stands. But his main goal is to be popular, and to gain support, no matter who he has to hurt in the process.

The main problem with the film is the script, but I can't give full blame to writer/director Steven Zaillian. The book is extremely dense, featuring so much. In the novel, the story of Willie Stark isn't the focus. Instead it is more about Jack, and his past, present, and future. The movie tells more about Stark. That is the portion that Zaillian wanted to talk about more. However, that doesn't stop him from including many sections about Jack, only doing them in such a quick way that there is no way to truly enjoy them. There is a thirty five page or so narrative in the novel about the relationship of Jack and Anne during that summer together. It is beautifully written, and you can't help but see exactly what Jack sees in Anne throughout it. It really does make you fall in love with her, as a reader, which is why when you find out that she is having an affair with Willie you are shocked and you feel betrayed. In the film, this section is glossed over. It makes it seem as if they didn't even have a relationship, and include they just decided to have sex one summer evening. They don't, which is an important factor in the book and film, but there relationship just seemed non-existent.

In addition, the film misses another important element. Willie Stark becomes completely hated towards the end of the film. He is a cruel and cold man who only cares about himself. In the novel, there is a passage where his son gets into an accident playing football. It is towards the very end, and one of the last major events that happens in the story. It allows us to see the human side of Willie returning, which doesn't make his character seem all bad. In the film, there is no mention of this happening. In fact, I think his son is only mentioned one single time, at a football game, where Stark calls out to him from the stands.

Now, I am a firm believer in keeping book and film separate, but I have to compare the two in this case to really show how empty this script is. I only discuss the book to describe how the movie cannot work. I think that it is impossible to really put in everything from Penn's novel into a two hour movie without skipping important sections. But Zaillian doesn't skip the right ones, and puts in a lot of dull, overlong scenes and speeches. I couldn't help but wonder how the movie would be if he replaced those scenes with actual character development. Because there really isn't any. I couldn't see how Jack changed. I didn't really care. I didn't even care about his relationship with Anne, which is one of the true beautiful things about the story. Willie is the only character with any real change, and his change is only a plot device and nothing real or human. Sean Penn isn't exactly the type of Willie Stark that I imagine in my head, and he doesn't even deliver to the best of his ability. He seems to be phoning in his performance a little bit. Anthony Hopkins also doesn't seem to care about anything anymore. He seems to just act in movies just for the sake of working, even though he was perfect in "The World's Fastest Indian." But supporting work in "Alexander" and "Proof" is uninspired, and not the Hopkins that I know and love. I wouldn't bother seeing this film, and I would much rather recommend the book instead. It's not Zaillian's full fault. It's a challenge adapting this novel without making it four hours long. Thankfully, with his pacing it was only two hours. I suppose you could see the film if you want a general outline of the story, but for the true raw and dense material, the book is certainly the place to be. Originally thought to be an Oscar contender, "All the King's Men" is stuck in the middle of September blues, and also another disappointment of the month.

The Queen

The Queen **1/2

As a performance piece, "The Queen" is by far one of the best I've seen in a while. Helen Mirren is mind blowing as Queen Elizabeth II, and she is a shoe-in to get a nomination for the Best Actress Oscar. Hell, maybe even a win, because the Academy does like to honor the vets. For the rest of the movie, the actual point of storytelling, direction, etc, even as a historical piece, it just didn't do anything for me. I was not impressed by what I was seeing, and it often felt like nothing was really happening. But I did admire the acting enough, which makes "The Queen' worth seeing, just to see all those great actors at work.

In the beginning, we see Queen Elizabeth getting a painting of her done. She sits prominently, with perfect posture. In a rather silly title sequence, the words "The Queen" on her left side, and then Mirren looks straight in the camera, as if she is simply winking at us. Not a good place to start. And then we shift into the introduction to Tony Blair, who was just elected by the people. All that stands between him, and the position of Prime Minister, he must get approved by the Queen, which he takes with intimidation and fear. He is given a list of instructions to follow on entering the room that the Queen is in, including never to show his back in her presence. The Queen approves of Blair, and the beginning of their rocky relationship begins. A few nights later, she receive some news, her trusted advisors waking her up. Princess Diana has been killed in car accident, the former wife of Prince Charles. The Queen refuses to give any sort of public statement, and while the country goes into a state of tragedy, the Royal family doesn't treat it as one. The Queen does not consider Diana part of the Royal family once she left. Blair tries to do what he can to convince the family to give a statement over Diana's death. The conflicting views: The family considers it a private matter, while the public wants to be on the know about what is happening. Elizabeth even calls for a private funeral, where the public cannot come in. They opt to stand in front of the palace, with candles, calling for the Queen's retirement, which is when Blair steps in to see if he could make things somewhat normal again.

Mirren plays the Queen with such power, and is obviously the perfect choice. She looks like her, she acts like her. . . .this is the second great historical performance I've seen all year, the first being Forest Whitaker in "The Last King of Scotland." James Cromwell does a fine job as Prince Philip, portrayed as pretty unsympathetic to what is going on around him. And the last acting mention is Michael Sheen as Tony Blair, and actor who I never really noticed until now. And while "The Queen" tells a good moral about family values and political values, it never really got off the "made for tv" movie standard. It's script never finds a proper tone, drifting from a drama to light comedic wit. At one moment, The Queen is staring straight ahead, not knowing what her next move should be, and the next she is opening a door while a pack of domesticated dogs comes running out. Oddly enough, "The Queen" was written by the same man who wrote "The Last King of Scotland," Peter Morgan, and it's obvious that he put a little more work in the latter film.

My favorite part of the script is probably the relationship between The Queen and Tony Blair. It doesn't get off to a fine start, with his a stuttering mess, and her a powerful royal ruler. One has been beloved for years, and the other may have won by a landslide, but is still just getting ready to begin a rule. However, there is shift halfway through, and Blair begins to be more beloved, while people are beginning to think that it should be time for The Queen to retire. And then a little bit of final irony is that Blair is starting to become a more negative leader, based on his experiences and input in the Iraq War. And yet, the two are always there for one another, throughout the entire film. They may not agree, but they are constantly civil. She has years and years of experience over her, and he respects that, but he believes that the time should come for her to stop doing what is right for her, and what the right thing that she should be doing for the people is. Mirren and Sheen portray their characters as experts, and as if they actually were them. It's also interesting to see how the Royal family could act. They are real people, and do not sit in a castle on a throne in front of many adoring servants. It doesn't work that way. They are people too, and Mirren gives human qualities to such a high royal figure. She makes mistakes, and does things that many would consider controversial. She is fantastic, and will be nominated. She also saves the film from being stuck in NBC Original Movie mode. However, I have a feeling that the film itself will be nominated for a Best Picture, but I just can't admire it as a Best Picture. Save for the acting, I could not see anything special in this film at all. But, history is always beloved by the Academy, so this won't be the last time I hear about "The Queen." It's worth seeing for some great Oscar worthy acting, but for everything is, it's perfectly fine to watch in the confines of home.

A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints

A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints ***1/2

"A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints" is a powerful film, filled with some of the best preformances that you'll probably never see. It captures the type of city life that I never got to experience-groups of kids, all in their little cliques, walking down the streets, acting like they are big shots, and acting as if they have all the answers. Never being a part of something like that, I cannot really take any life experience into the theatre with me, but I can still observe it, and get a feel for what it is like. This film starts off with a group like that-four friends who are always around one another, getting in trouble, doing things in the subway that makes the train conductor roll his eyes at them, and wonder what they're parents are like. It's the 1980's, in Astoria, New York, and it's also one of the hottest summers on record.

From the very beginning, we see an old woman, who we later know is Flori. She is contacting her son, Dito, and informs him on his answering machine that his father is sick. Who are these people, and why will this bit of information be crucial? Well, the answer to that lies in flashbacks. Dito is an older man now, and he wrote a book about his experiences in Queens, especially in that fateful summer. He was the big hot shot on the block, hanging out with his friends, Antonio and Nerf. Antonio isn't the happiest guy, as his father is notorious for beating him up from time to time, giving him a tough and rigid personality. When he wasn't with his friends, he was with his father, Monty, who loved him more than anyone else, and was always around for advice. However, he refuses to get an air conditioner, no matter the temperature. When somebody makes a comment about the heat, he simply says "It's hot because its the summer." Dito meets the new exhange student from Ireland, Mike O'Shea, and the two of them begin to work for Frank, a gay dog walker. In addition, he starts a relationship with Laurie. Dito is growing up, but tradgey is just around the corner, making him consider Mike's offer to go to California, and start some kind of life there. Dito doesn't know if he could leave his family, friends, and life behind him, and start over across the country. Maybe his home is exactly where he is, no matter what is happening to him.

The film divides itself into two parts. We have the flashback scenes, as well as the scenes of Dito, now grown up and turned into Robert Downy Jr, heading back home after leaving many years ago. These intercuts tell us what happens to Dito when he was young-he ran away from home. The question is, why? What happened to Dito that made him abandon the only things that he knew and loved? This is the basis of our story. It's based on the real life experiences of Dito Montiel, who does a perfect job of conveying his past onto the screen. The cast gives powerhouse preformances, especially by the younger crowd. While Robert Downy Jr. and Rosario Dawson may be big names, they don't really create the characters they are playing. Instead, they seem to follow up what has already been laid out by Shia LaBeouf and Melonie Diaz. Some of the scenes are stunningly emotional, and I even got myself caught up and engrossed in what was happening on the screen. It is quite an experience to watch, and one that is well worth it.

It's a film about comparison, and about recognition. We see what happens to Dito, and the neighborhood that he grew up in when he was a teenager, and now that he is back, almost twenty years later, things are very different. Not everything is solved in the end, but it's not about the journey, its about the events leading up to it. There is more to come in the lives of these characters, but we just won't be able to see them yet. That is "A Guide to Finding Your Saints," which I'm sure will never be made, and this is all we have. Find this little gem somewhere, and soon before it vanishes without a trace.

The Last King of Scotland

The Last King of Scotland ****

The entire movie year is all buildup for the September-December months. I may have sat through some great films in the last eight months, but for the most part, they have been garbage. Films so bad that the studios don't even want to release them. But now, after all of my patience, it finally pays off with the mark of Oscar season, and with "The Last King of Scotland," the Oscar race officially begins. After such disappointments as "The Black Dahlia," I finally think the cream of the crop will reveal itself. This film is nothing short of great, not to mention compelling, and featuring Forest Whitaker in the performance of his career. This seems to be the role that he was born to play, capturing the exactly qualities of former president of Uganda, Idi Amin. Seeing some of the photos during the credits, he even looks just like him. Promising to bring a fair government to the country of Uganda, Amin ended up being a murderer, and was responsible for 300,000 murders during his power. I was sucked into this film from the very first minute, and it doesn't let go. During the last twenty five minutes, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen, because it was so chilling.

"The Last King of Scotland" begins with Nicholas Garrigan, a Scot who just finished medical school. He is now destined to follow his father's footsteps, and work with him throughout his career. This isn't good enough for Garrigan, so he grabs a globe of the world and spins it, claiming that the first place he lands, he goes. The winner is. . . Canada. He considers it, and then decides against it. So he spins again, this time landing on Uganda. This might be just the place for him. He goes into Uganda, and finds himself the only other doctor in the whole country. He also learns that 80 percent of everyone living there prefer the witch doctor as opposed to a medical one. Nicolas walks right into Uganda history. The previous president is dead, and he is now being replaced by Idi Amin, a self appointed leader who promises to return Uganda to the people, and to bring a well organized government to the country. Nicolas cheers with the rest of the crowd, but on his way back to the campsite, Amin's guards comes out in trucks, calling for a doctor. Amin was hurt by an animal, and needs someone to cater to his injured hand. Nicolas willingly goes to the president, and heals him. Amin has the feeling that Nicolas is British, the race that he hates the most, but is charmed when Nicolas reveals himself to be Scottish. Amin loves the Scots, mainly because they are in conflict with the British. Amin states "if I could be any other race than the one I am now, it would be Scottish." Amin decides that he wants this man to be his full time doctor. Nicolas leaves the other doctor, and his wife who he developed feelings for, and goes to live with Amin. He has a great time. Amin is charming, introduces Nicolas to his three wives, and has the power to talk anyone into loving him. But slowly, Nicolas begins to see another side to Amin. He is constantly paranoid, and even murders anyone with the slightest doubt about his rule. Nicolas decides that he wants to get out of this situation, and decides to leave, if only he can escape the fierce grip that Amin is holding on him.

"The Last King of Scotland" is told mainly through the eyes of Nicholas Garrigan, a character who is so real that it is amazing that he isn't a portrayal of a real person. Garrigan is really a combination of many of Amin's actual doctors, all rolled up into one person, more or less. It has a very interesting way of telling the story, as if we were the people of Uganda who were deceived by Amin. It begins as a delightful experience, almost a full comedy. Hell, there was even a flatulence joke somewhere in the middle. And then it just gets worse and worse, and more brutal, until the final climax where everything just explodes. The final half hour of this film is so haunting and chilling that you won't be able to take your eyes off of it. But this is what it was like for these people. They saw something in Amin, and really thought that he would be able to save them. They were tricked, and so will you be. You'll be so convinced that Amin is a good guy, that you'll completely forget that there's a second half of the movie, where things could only get worse.

What I also loved about "The Last King of Scotland" was that it was an Oscar movie, that doesn't seem like one. This was a gritty and realistic portrayal of a historical event, instead of something glorified by Hollywood like "The Aviator." This one actually makes you feel something, and requires time to think and digest what you have just seen, instead of only being entertained by it. And Forest Whitaker truly blows everyone else out of the water. His Amin slowly gets worse and worse, and more and more evil. Amin is probably one of the most evil men that I could think of, and strongly diabolical as a movie character. James McAvoy, who played Nicholas, delivers well too, but his character leads me to a point of criticism. Even though he was a great character, and is played very well, I really could have lived with less of Nicholas and his relationship with the pretty doctor, played by "X-Files" Gillian Anderson, and more of Amin and their relationship. Looking back, this relationship seemed almost pointless, and filler that just wasn't needed. You don't really mind it much while watching it, but afterwards, when all is done, you want more Amin, and more Whitaker.

This is one of the best films of the year, and by far the most terrifying. It grabs you from the start and doesn't let go. It has one of the smoothest transitions from a light hearted experience, to a dark and creepy one. If Whitaker isn't nominated at the Oscars next year for Best Actor, it would be a crime, worse than when Paul Giamatti lost a nomination opportunity to Clint Eastwood back in 2005. A dark, gritty, a true to life historical experience, this is the kind of history that I would rather watch, instead of something that is conceived by Hollywood. This steers clear of Hollywood history cliches, and works in favor of that. There's nothing to complain about watching "The Last King of Scotland." Let the Oscar films rolls right in. . .

Beer League

Beer League **

Trying not to confuse anyone out of seeing "Beer League," Artie Lange stapled his name to the front of his movie, so that nobody avoids it because they thought they already saw it through "Beerfest," the slightly better in quality, but maybe not in rudeness, summer comedy. "Beer League" is dirty, and raunchy, and has so many swears that my ear was about to fall off, but at times it is very funny. I find it hard to rate movies like this, and I had the same problem with "Jackass Number Two." If you walk into a movie called "Beer League," you have to just expect to see a movie named "Beer League." This isn't going to win any awards, and in a few months, it'll probably be completely forgotten. But for the moment, it has a few worthy laughs, which is all that is needed to enjoy this.

"Beer League" is Artie Lange's movie, for the most part anyway. He wrote most of it, stars in it, but manages to avoid the directing job. He plays Artie(go figure), a thirty something year old slacker, who still lives in his old bedroom with his mother. He just quit his job, so that he could avoid his father's example and stay at the same deadend job for the rest of his life. Instead, he spends his time drinking, watching television, and play softball with his local beer league. His team is terrible, and even though Artie practices in his backyard, he constantly shows up to the games drunk, and gets the team into fights with their enemy team, run by Artie's lifelong rival, Dennis Mangenelli. Mangenelli has always been one step ahead of Artie, and Artie, tired of all of it, gets them into a fight which the police determine to be the last straw. They have had enough of the two teams always dishing it out to one another, so they decide to disqualify both of them from the league. Mangenelli has a better idea: Instead of doing that, they could both have a fair tournement to see which team could stay in the league. Whichever team makes it closer to the end of the season is the clear winner. This doesn't seem fair to Artie's team, as they don't exactly have the reputation for being winners, but Artie agrees to the conditions, claiming that there is no way in hell that Mangenelli is winning the trophy. Artie also begins to change his life after starting a relationship with Linda, whose reputation with men doesn't exactly sit well with Artie, especially after its revealed that she's been with Mangenelli.

"Beer League" is pretty poorly made, with a direction job thats pretty much completely phoned it. It's really just a foundation for Lange to spit out some profane one liners, and there is a message, but thats not too important anyway. This was made to just sit down, and have a good time with. And sometimes, many of the comedy sequences last too long, or just aren't humerous enough, but there is also plenty to laugh at here. Artie Lange is a pretty funny guy, and some of his one liners actually had me laughing out loud. His romantic subplot allowed us to see some kind of sweet and sensitive side, even though he is limited to some romantic lines as "Hey, why don't you give me a handjob?" But then again, thats the kind of movie this is. Now, for "best beer movie of the year," I would probably have to go with "Beerfest." Not only was that funny, but it was also pretty damn clever. "Beer League" is solely for Lange to show his stuff, which might be the second reason why he placed his name in front of it. It may not win any trophies, and it may look like it cost less money to make than a box of toothpicks, but "Beer League" does have its moments. Target audience will love it, especially when drunk. Everyone else, there is some worthy comedy here.

Renaissance

Renaissance **1/2

To describe "Renaissance," it fits into that classic saying of "all style and no substance." It has some of the best animation that I have ever seen put to film, and really raises the bar high in that department. In the other department, the one about actual storytelling, it doesn't get very far at all. Make after the success of "Sin City," "Renaissance" works like a graphic novel, telling the story in black and white, and film noirish, except animated. The future seems bleak in Paris, 2054, and so do the people living there. We follow Barthelemy Karas, a cop who has just been given a difficult assignment. To find Ilona Tasuiev, the sister of Bislane Tasuiev, who was kidnapped on her way out of a club. She wasn't a bad woman, Ilona, and one of the last conversations that she has with anyone was about how she is constantly working all the time. Barthelemy probes deeper and deepers, and discovers that the kidnapping could all be a plot ignited by the city's biggest company, Avalon, who has a new product-immortality. Falling in love with Bislane, Barthelemy's hard exterior seems softened as he hunts for whoever it was that took Ilona.

The vision behind "Renaissance" is that we have a bleak future ahead of us. None of these ideas of the future, shown through Terry Gilliams "Brazil,' or even Orwells "1984," picture us as happy campers a few decades from now. Us humans will be screwed in the near future, where everything is so dark and grim and our every single move is being watched. I really did love the choice of animation. Very much like in "A Scanner Darkly," "Renaissance" tells the story of the future in a way that we can't ever really see it. It's distorted, and shown in a non-realistic way. Our future could be anything, but the only thing that is certain is that it's unknown, which is why we can't capture a true, live version of the future. In addition, it works on the graphic novel vibe, and doesn't seem as forced as something like "Sin City." The graphic novel idea works here. It also works on the film noir element, of the dectective with a depressing past, channeling his frustrations through the mental anguish that the current case is putting him through. Simply put, the animation saved the film, but it just wasn't enough to flat out recommend the movie. My rating is more of an averge, weighing out the style of the film, and the actual method of storytelling, as well as the overall story itself. That kind of thing is important to me, and no matter how beautiful a film could look, it's nothing with a story behind it. The story was too blase for me, with very little action. It seems uninspired, not to mention that the immortality subplot seemed to come out of nowhere. It's a shame, how something that looks so groundbreaking could end up being something rather medicore. The American voice cast doesn't improve matters, as everyone doing voices seems as if they are reading their lines off tiny paper cards. I hope that Daniel Craig doesn't use the same voice here in the new James Bond movie, or he might be out of Bond before they start making the next one. I wish Miramax could have left the original version alone, and released this with subtitles. It just seemed so wooden, as if the voice actors simply didn't care about making the film.

"Renaissance" is really only half of a good movie. I could have actually looked at this film for an entire day, but I don't think I could have listened to it. The animation and stunning, groundbreaking visuals cannot provide enough entertainment for two hours. I have to have some kind of emotional investment into the story and characters. "Renaissance" failed to help me achieve this. It's really more of a missed opportunity. It is something to see, sometime in your life, especially if you're an animator or art student, but it isn't something that is important enough to go rushing out and find.

Haven

Haven *1/2

Shame on the people marketing "Haven," referencing a great film like "Crash" on the poster for their disappointing, dull, and uninspired film. After seeing the result, it's obvious to see why "Haven" was put on the shelf for two years after being made. I suppose the easiest comparision could be to "Pulp Fiction," only in the way that it tells the non-linear story of three separate events, and then connecting them all together in the end. But it's never interesting, and its never really clever, and at times it was just dreadfully boring. I wasn't impressed, in any way, at anything that was done, and I just wanted it to end.

"Haven" begins with the story of Carl and Pippa Ridley(played by Bill Paxton and Agnes Bruckner), a father and daughter who are all each other has. It's almost Pippa's birthday, and her friends are still speculating why she's still a virgin. Her father has some sort of surprise for the big day, but the plans are interrupted when it is revealed that Carl is really a shady businessman who is now wanted by the Feds. This forces him and Pippa to not even have time to pack a suitcase, and to flee to a small room in the Caymans Islands. Now in the Islands, Pippa is upset about everything that she had to leave behind, and begins to explore Caymans night life. It's a more wild time on the islands, where there is always a party, and everybody seems to be experimenting on some kind of drug or the other. Pippa meets Fritz, a local who is constantly in trouble with the law. Everything than suddenly goes into a switch, and we flash to six months earlier, and are introduced to the bulk of the film. The story of Shy and Andrea, (played by Orlando Bloom and Zoe Saldana). Shy is in his early twenties, and is romancing seventeen year old, almost eighteen year old, Andrea. Their love is forbidden, as her brother and father believe that he is a disgrace, and will only shatter any name that the family has made for themselves. She gives Shy her virginity, and in turn, her brother scars his face for life. Going into the present day, Shy begins to see what Andrea has become. She is forced to go into counseling as a result of what she's done, and instead of being able to love Shy, she becomes more like the island whore-going from man to man, and doing drug to drug. Shy decides that he must stand up for the woman he still loves, and figure out exactly who is responsible for her ending up this way.

The first half focuses on Ridley, the middle section on the tragic love story between Shy and Andrea, and the third half pushes everything together. There is a third story involving the shady Mr. Allen, another corrupt businessman, but that mostly fits into Paxton's storyline. The two seem unrelated, and once about halfway into Bloom's storyline, you begin to wonder if you're even still watching the same movie. But, little tiny scenes and shots play an important role to establishing the main connection, and when its over, it doesn't seem as clever as it should have been. It was interesting to see Orlando Bloom in such a role like this. He still delivered all of his lines in a wooden tone of voice, but it was welcoming to see him in something other than a big Hollywood film. My theory is still that he only managed to hit big by starring in films that were penned to make over 300 million dollars. "Lord of the Rings" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" are perfect examples of this. Maybe he could try out his acting range with a small film like this once in a while.

Another problem, aside from the overall writing and plot twists, were the visuals. Director Frank E. Flowers just doesn't use the Cayman Islands to the best of their ability. I understand the irony here: The Cayman Islands have also been an escape for movie characters, and people in real life. When people come into money, or have committed a horrible crime, where is the one place that they always seem to go. The Caymans! It is a safe "haven" for them, and this film shows what madness goes on there, and the consequences of residing there in escape. Considering its supposed to be paradise, this film features this land as everything but. And Flowers depicts this, and instead of showing blue waters, he puts a dark gray tint on every shot, and moves the camera around as if he has the shakes. It was impossible to really enjoy anything. I get that it was the point to not show the Cayman's in all their natural glory, but the visuals could have aided to some kind of payoff in the film.

I love films like "Haven." Big ensemble films, with all unrelated storylines coming together in the end. It's an old gimmick, but when it works well, it turns out amazing. This type of storyline can't rely on acting to pass it, but it must have a clever script. Without a good script, and earned connections, an ensemble piece cannot work. "Haven" doesn't really work well, the less than stellar script just leads to undeveloped characters. The most developed section is probably the relationship between Andrea and Shy, but Bloom managed to turn him into such a wooden and one dimensional person that it was impossible to really understand how he felt about her, or root for their relationship. Saldana's Andrea is the best acting job here, and her drift from innocent nice girl, to drugged up village bicycle is so sudden, but she does it in such a natural way. I just wanted her to be saved, as opposed to any kind of relationship subplot. I really hope she gets around in the near future, because her performance was one of the sole winners in "Haven." This could have sat on the shelves for a little while longer, or just came straight to video. This is Flowers' first feature length film, and maybe he can work a little harder on his second effort. Or he could rework "Haven" in the future, and fix it up a little bit. It's not a bad concept, at all.

Jackass Number Two

Jackass Number Two **

Reviewing a film like "Jackass Number Two" is very difficult, because it presents the two types of people in this world. Those who watch and enjoy the television show "Jackass," and those who are the opposite. Therefore, even though I found it very funny and darkly entertaining, I can't give it more then a two star rating. I would never recommend this to someone, and it's pretty redundant to review it because the only people that would see it are those that find the show humerous. It isn't a movie that was meant to review, so I rated it so as an average. Four stars for those who love the show, and zero for those who hate it. it is an inbetween. I can't personally review it for each person who reads this.

That being said, I am surprised that nobody from this program has died yet. After seeing everything that Johnny Knoxville, Steve-O, Bam Margera, Wee-Man, and the others do, I wonder if they really plan on collecting life insurance. They take what they do to the extreme, and the various stunts that they pull are sometimes so impressive, that I wonder if they could be immortal. And I give one word of advice to parents: don't ever let your children see this film, ever. They push it to the limit. And thats all "Jackass" is. It's a series of stunts, pranks, and sketches that real people are actually doing. It starts off with a warning-they call themselves professionals, and tell nobody to ever imitating anything that they see in this film. I'm sure that that warning doesn't stop everyone from doing anything here, but I'm sure it was required for them. And then it starts right away with a man putting a sock over his genitals, making it look like a mouse, and then putting it in a hole in the wall which leads into a snake tank. And then it continues with a man putting a leech onto his eyeball, a man dressed in red running away from a bull, a man not only sticking a fish hook through his cheek, but also attaching a fishing pole to it, and then jumping into the middle of shark infested waters. Not to mention, someone sitting on top of a rocket, and then igniting it into the sky while riding it. "Dr. Strangelove" it's not, but it's still pretty damn humerous. And after that, there is still about an hour and fifteen minutes left.

If you didn't find anything in that last paragraph funny at all, stay away from this film at all costs. It only gets worse, and what I mentioned isn't the half of it. Folks could say that most of the stunts in "Jackass" are computer doctered, but I really don't think so. One guy actually branded himself, and has one of his butt cheeks permanently destroyed as a result. This stuff sometimes pushes the limit from practical joke, to actually self-mutilation. But, if you enjoy it, by all means see this movie. If you're new to the world of "Jackass," but you found what I mentioned intriqing, see the movie. But if your easily offended, grossed out, or just plain sickened by the thought of any of this, stay as far away from the theater playing this.

Something which I did find odd is the rating. I am shocked that this didn't get an NC-17. And this is a perfect fit to go into my review for "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." "Jackass Number Two," an R rated film, graphically shows naked males running around, sticking funnels up their behinds, going to the bathroom in model bathrooms, while being chased around by bulls and other dangerous animals. And yet, a little fake sex scene in "The Cooler" gives it an NC-17. it doesn't make any sense how this, a film with sitations that have been reported to have imitations, could be released widely where anyone can see it, and some films with tame sex scenes could get an NC-17 plastered on their film, where it's impossible to release it in a large number. It's quite sad, really. But that is an argument which will be going on forever.

"Jackass Number Two" is impossible to rate, which is why I am neither partial nor impartial in my rating decision. Once again, all I say is this: If you like the content, see it, and if you don't, don't. And also, it may only be 20 percent gross, but the final segment might be one of the most ingenious things I have ever seen. It's an elaborate prank, and without saying anything, works perfectly, and sets a new high for pratical jokes. Hell, it might even be worth the price of the ticket to see what they came up with.

Old Joy

Old Joy **

"Old Joy" is a male bonding experience, with hardly any actual male bonding. It's 75 minutes long, with so many long driving shots, that anyone with a short attention span should look elsewhere. Having patience will not end up being rewarding, and you'll leave the theater feeling that you could have done something else with your time. It has such a thin plot, that I don't even have to put it into a separate paragraph. It starts off with a man, Mark, who is on the phone with his old friend Kurt. Kurt has to take a little camping trip to Portland, Oregon, to check out a few hot springs for some reason or the other. He convinces his pregnant wife Tanya to let him go on for the night, and he will return the following afternoon. Mark goes to pick up Kurt, who is more like an aimless drifter than a person with any actual plans in life. He wanders from place to place. And the two begin their road trip, where they reignite their old friendship, and prepare for the end of it as well. They make it into the wilderness, when true revelations are made.

The visuals in "Old Joy," and I mean the wilderness scenes, are absolutely stunning to look at. At one point in the film, Mark makes a comment, saying that sometimes by living in the city, you forget that all of this is out there. The forest is a world unto its own, and something that I know very little about. There are some amazing shots to see, of the mountains and the rivers, and the sunset. The problem simply is that the film needs a bit more. Half of it seemed like filler. For example, the driving shots, which go on for multiple minutes at a time. I could feel my eyelids getting heavier as the minutes went on. And it's a shame, because this story was ripe for deep dialogues, and more developed characters. The screenwriter didn't take advantage of his plot or story, and seems to ignore it. There is some political commentary, mostly about Bush(surprise!) and I'm almost positive that there was a gay undertone in the next to last scene, but I still can't place my finger on what actually happened. When its over, you realize that you know nothing about these two people. They hardly even talk to one another, and the little that we do know isn't enough to come up with a logical conclusion about their friendship. It could be possible that they won't be ever seeing each other again. However close their friendship was in the past, it will never be the same as they are in totally different worlds. While Mark is about to be a father, and about to literally settle down and start a family, Kurt doesn't want to stop his lifestyle of roaming around from place to place like a nomad. But, everything is so minimal, that I couldn't even care about anything that happens. The two friends go on a trip one day, and return the next. Not a whole lot. Will Oldham, a singer/songwriter who I've never heard of before, plays Kurt, and steals the show. He brings a little bit of brightness compared to Mark, who basically just sits straight ahead and delivers his lines with the most wooden presentation. "Old Joy" needs to be a little longer, and a little more plot and action. I don't mind slow films, but this one doesn't deserve to be this slow. It's too short, and needs to tell some kind of story, one worth telling.

Viva Pedro Part Six: Law of Desire

Viva Pedro Part Six:
Law of Desire *1/2

Every single great director out there has made one stinker for every five or so great ones. And so, I have discovered Pedro Almodovar's with "Law of Desire," the sixth film in the "Viva Pedro" restropective series. It's not the first Almodovar that I disliked, but the first that I downright hated, and the first where I felt like I checked my watch a dozen times instead of paying attention to what was going on. I didn't doze off, but I felt like I was coming close. "Law of Desire" is long, unfocused, and it drifts from event to event quicker than a Slinky going down a flight of stairs. It's never interesting, and doesn't have any memorable, or amusing characters that I can remember. It's also very dull, and throughout the middle, I didn't want to know what would happen to any of these characters. In fact, I didn't even care, not a little bit.

Originally released in 1987, "Law of Desire" begins with a standard Almodovar scene. There is something happening to who we assume will be the main character. Or there is a tragic event being told to someone, And then Almodovar plays a trick on the audience, and it turns out that this scene that is happening is really part of a film within a film. The same thing happens here, as through the first scene we are introduced to the directing styles of Pablo, a very popular gay filmmaker, who has numerous adoring fans. One of these is Antonio, who constantly pops up at all of the filmmakers events. Pablo is in love with Juan, a young man who doesn't respond to the stacks and stacks of letters that Pablo writes to him. In an odd twist, Pablo writes the letters to Juan that he wants Juan to send back to him. The perfect writing which Pablo wants to recieve. Pablo's sister is Tina, who used to be a man before the operation, after a strange relationship with her father when s(he) was a little boy. Pablo ends up meeting Antonio, and they form a sexual relationship, until Antonio is overcome with jealousy over Pablo's affection towards Juan. And Antonio begins a path of revenge, as a way to fulfull his utmost and deepest desires, no matter what it takes.

"Law of Desire" follows a theory that was presented in "The Flower of My Secret." It is alright to do whatever it is that is done when a person is overcome with emotion. Antonio is obsessed with Pablo, and hates Juan, so whatever he does to conquer his feelings for Pablo is alright, because it's really his desire doing it. This film, however, just doesn't work at all. I found it very uninteresting, and at times hard to watch. There was a little subplot about memory loss towards the end which was just misplaced. I felt as if Almodovar put a whole bunch of little pieces of papers with ideas into a hat, and then slowly picked out a few and formed a script based on that. It failed at whatever it tried to accomplish, which I don't think was much. I forgive it to a point. This is one of his earlier films, and not everyone starts with a perfect career. But for early Almodovar, there is much better, as this series proves, including "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown," his comic masterpiece.

Seeing this series as a whole, I can see that "Law of Desire" is a slight precurser to "The Flower of My Secret," but only slightly. I'm also noticing that Almodovar uses similar themes and motifs in many of his films, which ironically make these earlier ones slightly hard to watch. I've seen many of these stories and styles in his later works. I certainly am noticing that Almodovar has a select number of actual gems. But I keep watching, to see some of the most unusual characters and plots ever put on film.

"Viva Pedro" continues soon with "Matador," as the series comes to the final two films.