Friday, August 31, 2007

Self-Medicated


Self Medicated *1/2

Directed by Monty Lapica
Written by Monty Lapica

Starring:
Diane Venora as Louise Eriksen
Monty Lapica as Andrew Eriksen
Michael Bowen as Dan Jones
Greg Germann as Keith
Kristina Anapau as Nicole

107 Minutes(Not Rated)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*MINI REVIEW

"Self Medicated" is so melodramatic that it's past the point of even being serious. Monty Lapica has made a portrait of a person who is wrecking his life after the death of his father-his Andrew (who he also plays) cuts school, spends the nights getting high, and gets arrested for stupid reasons like shooting people in the streets with paintball guns. His mother gets fed up and worried, and sends him to an institution to get him cured-an institution that may be just as violent and screwed up as he is. Lapica goes for strong emotion with his film, but it all just seems forced and phony-a point made better by his constant stale overacting. Another problem-all of his characters are supposed to be in high school, but all the actors were in their twenties. It gave the feeling of people pretending to be high school kids, and Andrew's friend Nicole (played by Kristina Anapau) seems to think that donning pigtails and running around giddy all the time seems to make her seem younger than she is. This could have been a good movie but goes overboard with trying to tug at your heartstrings that it can't even be taken seriously.
Playing At:
Quad Cinemas

Exiled


Exiled **1/2

Directed by Johnny To
Written by Kam-Yuen Szeto and Tin-Shing Yip

Starring:
Anthony Wong Chau-Sang as Blaze
Francis Ng as Tai
Simon Yam as Boss Fay
Nick Cheung as Wo
Richie Ren as Sergeant Chen
Roy Cheung as Cat
Josie Ho as Jin
Suet Lam as Fat
Ka Tung Lam as Boss Keung

110 Minutes(Rated R for strong violence and some sexual content. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINI-REVIEW!

Hong Kong director Johnny To knows how to shoot a good movie. He knows how to keep the excitement flowing with neat shots, good camera work, and great editing. But "Exiled" seemed like it had the energy of To behind the camera, but nothing was working with the actors or the screenplay-which I couldn't make heads of tails of. To tells the story of five hit men-friends for their entire lives-who are set to kill a mobster. The mobster pleas that they can kill him after he does one more heist-a heist for gold bars so that he could provide a bit for his wife and infant child. The mobsters let him. It's a decent premise, but its not executed very well. I found myself slightly bored by the way the story unfolded, however neat the direction was. To directed the much better and much more exciting "Triad Election" earlier this year. The script has some moments of black comedy brilliance, including a doctors operation to the most tender part of a males body, as well as the eventual chance to get the gold. "Exiled" isn't a must-see, but To is certainly proving himself as an action film direction. It ends on a really good-and very bloody-note.
Playing At:
Angelika Film Center
Lincoln Plaza Cinemas

The Nines


The Nines ***1/2

Directed by John August
Written by John August

Starring:
Ryan Reynolds as Gary/Gavin/Gabriel
Hope Davis as Sarah/Susan/Sierra
Melissa McCarthy as Margaret/Melissa/Mary
Elle Fanning as Noelle

102 Minutes(Rated R for language, some drug content and sexuality. )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John August spent a good few years writing for Tim Burton, and his screenplays took already published material and turned them into something special and unique. There was the masterpiece "Big Fish" which had writing that brought me to tears, and the lesser "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' which did capture the tone of the novel. With "The Nines" August is writing his own story, and it is just as neat and puzzling and mysteriously winning as his other screenplays. He also directs the film and has a knack for that as well, adding to the mystery that the story brings out.

Without revealing too much, "The Nines" tells three different tales-intersecting the same main four actors. In the first part, Ryan Reynolds plays a man who set fire to his house and is put under house arrest in the home of a writer. Gary is an actor and is quickly bored in the house. He ends up meeting his neighbor, Sarah-played by Hope Davis-who seems to be interested in him-or at least his acting persona. Gary gets creeped out by the house, and the strange noises he hears all night long. And he begins to notice the number "9" appears more than it should, and he tries to get to the bottom of that mystery. In the second part, Reynolds plays a writer (Gavin) who is getting ready for his television show "Knowing" to get on the air. The lead in the show is Melissa (played by Melissa McCarthy), an overweight woman that may not appear to be a classic leading role type, but Gavin has faith in her. However the executive at the studio-Susan (Played by Hope Davis) has other plans for the show. In the third part, Reynolds is Gabriel, a video game designer whose electric car runs out of batteries in the woods. He leaves it with his daughter and wife Mary (played by Melissa McCarthy), and on the trip to get cell phone service he meets Sierra (Hope Davis, again) who ends up giving him help.

The less you know about the film the better. It unfolds its three tales-all parallel not only in actors but also in characters-and unlocks mysteries as it goes along. And its a total blast discovering all of the similarities. Ultimately August has created a worthy commentary about the creator. Reynolds goes through three types of being a creator-an actor, a writer, and a video game designer-all of which end up designing their own worlds all for themselves. Does this status as a creator make him special than all the other regular people? The film even goes so far as to saying that Reynolds is God-all of his names actually start with the letter "G"-and the Hope Davis character(s) may be Satan herself-all of her names start with the letter "S" and she is always providing the most conflict for him. The movie is loosely based on August's own struggles to get a television show on the air, so that is another clue.

Ryan Reynolds is very good here. I've always said that with better material-better than "Just Friends" and "Waiting. . ."- he could really do some good work. He has a certain amount of charisma that is rare in recent actors. And his performance really delivers, never winking at the camera and taking all his characters seriously. Hope Davis is good as usual, and Melissa McCarthy is very good as well-this is my first experience with the latter, and August was brave to use a woman that is not usually in parts like this. One of two things August does-for example having Hope Davis do a musical number-doesn't really work and seriously seems out of place. I suppose he was trying to make it even stranger, but it just didn't fit. But this is an intelligent movie without ever seeming like too much. With repeat viewings you will probably be able to connect the mystery more, but I was able to get the point. At first I thought that it was going to be a thriller in the style of "The Number 23,' but it became something more-something more relevant to life and the universe, and it really does get to you if you want to be a writer. "The Nines" is very well done and should spark long conversation after seeing it.

Playing At:
Landmark Sunshine Cinemas

Balls of Fury


Balls of Fury **1/2

Directed by Ben Garant
Written by Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant

Starring:
Dan Fogler as Randy Daytona
Christopher Walken as Feng
George Lopez as Agent Ernie Rodriquez
Maggie Q as Maggie Wong
James Hong as Master Wong
Terry Crews as Freddy
Robert Patrick as Sgt. Pete Daytona
Diedrich Bader as Gary
Aisha Tyler as Mahogany

90 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for crude and sex-related humor, and for language. )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Balls of Fury" is easily the best movie ever made. . . about ping pong. In fact, I think it might be the only movie ever made about ping pong. Come to think of it again, I don't think I've ever even seen ping pong used in a movie in any way. Well, "The Squid and the Whale" used it fairly well. This is the final comedy of the summer, and while it isn't anything to rave about, it has its moments and it has a mild share of laughs. This is the film that you see if "Superbad" is sold out, or if you've seen it more than enough times. When I went into the theatre I was wondering how many times they would make a joke about ping pong balls in comparison to the male private part, and honestly they did not overuse that joke. In fact, it was hardly used at all.

The film introduces us to Randy Daytona, who as a child was the best ping pong player ever. I think one of the sports announcers said it perfectly. "He'll join the list of ping pong greats, who include. . . well, actually I have no idea." When Randy's father bets money on a game with Feng-the leader of an underground Asian triad-he is killed when Randy bombs. Randy never played in a contest again, but amuses little old ladies as matinee shows. He is called in by Agent Ernie Rodriquez, who needs him to get invited to Feng's underground ping pong tournament, so that the FBI could finally catch him doing something illegal. He goes under training with Master Wong, but in Chinatown it is illegal for them to teach ping pong to the white man, and Master Wong is thrown out-unless Randy can defeat The Dragon-a little girl who plays a fierce ping pong game. It is when he defeats The Dragon that Randy is given a chance to go to Feng's ping pong tournament, and becomes surprised with "Sudden Death" actually means that the loser is killed.

Compared to the comedies of the summer thus far-with the strong exception of "Hot Rod"-"Balls of Fury" is pure comedy, and there is not an ounce of drama in it-unless you count the tension of the final ping pong game, which may be the best ping pong game ever put on the big screen. I think what makes it funny-and a joke that stays funny in an odd way-is how seriously these people take ping pong. It reminds me of at the start of July when I was watching ESPN and it was the Annual Rock Paper Scissors Competition. You would not believe how seriously people were talking "RPS" and the slow-mo's and the refs just made it priceless. I watched "Balls of Fury" in the same amusing vein. Its super light fluff-you can do worse, but it'll make you laugh. And its always fun to see Christopher Walken-even when he plays the evil leader of an Asian triad. But he's Walken and we love him. "Balls of Fury" is mild laughs and its even fun at times.
Playing At:
Area Theatres

Death Sentence


Death Sentence **1/2

Directed by James Wan
Written by Ian Jeffers, based on the novel Brian Garfield

Starring:
Kevin Bacon as Nick Hume
Garrett Hedlund as Billy Darley
Kelly Preston as Helen Hume
Jordan Garrett as Lucas Hume
Stuart Lafferty as Brendan Hume
Aisha Tyler as Detective Wallis
John Goodman as Bones Darley

110 Minutes(Rated R for strong bloody brutal violence and pervasive language. )
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Death Sentence" is probably the most simple and straightforward action movie of the summer-probably even the year. I guess it was its simplicity-just a fed up father avenging death by shooting everybody who was responsible anywhere he can-that is giving it bad write-ups from critics everything. The two papers that are connected to me-New York Post and New York Daily News-both gave it a rating of a one or one and a half, and it is virtually being panned-except by Roger Ebert. I think its because Ebert got the same enjoyment out of it that I did-its just a simple action movie. Action movie fans will get their kicks out of it, and that's why it was made. It wasn't made as a showcase for Kevin Bacon to wow us with a great performance. It wasn't made to tell a complex and complicated story. It was made to tell a story of revenge, and it does it with some pretty neat action sequences. It really is a decent film, and you could do worse with mainstream cinema.

Bacon plays Nick Hume, a strong family man who has his perfect wife, and his two children. When his son Brendan, a high school hockey champion, is killed in a gas station holdup, Nick wants the gang responsible-a group of kids that have a gang where the initiation is to kill a random person-put in jail for life. But since he was the only witness, his lawyer tells him that the chance of life in jail is not possible-maybe three or five years at the most. Nick ends up allowing the kid off at the trail, and decides that he has to take matters into his own hands. But this simple action digs a deeper hole, and Nick is not longer the only one that should fear this gang: but his entire family should be prepared for the worse as well.

There really isn't much to say about "Death Sentence." It does veer into strong melodrama at times-the Kevin Bacon family scenes are a little too perfect, and he doesn't seem to have any flaws at all. There is some mild philosophy, but nothing above the usual revenge ideas-is the revenge bad because Bacon is turning into the people that he hates the most? That sort of thing. There is an odd turn by John Goodman as an arms dealer. I like Goodman a lot, but I his brief work here was a bit sour. I'd say the best scenes were the action scenes placed all around the film. They are grisly and rather intense, and well done. They seem to make sense, and are much more mild than the other intense action film of the summer 'Live Free or Die Hard." I can recommend "Death Sentence" for some of its qualities. It isn't anything special, but its rather effective in what it sets out to do. James Wan-the director of "Saw" and "Dead Silence"-is able to use gore and violence in a way that doesn't seem gratuitous for a change. He isn't the world's greatest director, but he does a decent job here.
Playing At:
Area Theatres

Halloween


Halloween *

Directed by Rob Zombie
Written by Rob Zombie

Starring:
Tyler Mane as Adult Michael Myers
Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Sam Loomis
Scout Taylor-Compton as Laurie Strode
Sheri Moon Zombie as Deborah Myers
Daeg Faerch as Young Michael Myers
Brad Dourif as Sheriff Leigh Brackett
Danielle Harris as Annie Brackett
Kristina Klebe as Lynda
William Forsythe as Ronnie White

109 Minutes(Rated R for strong brutal bloody violence and terror throughout, sexual content, graphic nudity and language).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Zombie's "Halloween" is a lifeless clunker of a remake-at times scene for scene of the original, and then at times just an endless ramble that will forever be known as Zombie's interpretation of the classic 70's slasher film. You could see Zombie trying to give the material a little more heart than the first, but he fails by giving villain Michael Myers the most obviously horrid lifestyle, but that does not justify the killing as much as Zombie thinks it does. He also casts some of the worst actors in the history of cinema, including his own wife-Sheri Moon Zombie-who only profits as an actress when her husband makes a movie. Now I'm going to assume that every ones seen the original "Halloween"-and John Carpenter and Jamie Lee Curtis make a much better team than Zombie and Scout Taylor-Compton-a virtually unknown young actress who will stay that way after this-the only time I ever heard her name in the news was when she ran away from home and was presumed dead for a few days.

Now the original "Halloween" starts with a brief ten minute prologue about how Mike Myers ended up killing his family on Halloween night, and then was sent to an institution where he goes under the tutelage of Dr. Sam Loomis. But then he escapes and on Halloween night several years later ends up returning to his Illinois house to reign terror on the town once more! This prologue is extended to about forty five minutes in the remake, painfully recording every single detail of Myers life-including how his mother was a stripper and kids in school would taunt him about that, how his sister was hit on all the time, how his mother dated a no good drunk who would make fun of him every chance he could, and how Michael would be picked on at school or beat up, and he would cover his face with a mask to hide himself. Very sweet, really. . . or it would be if Zombie did not throw us every lame factor that would make someone an outcast. But its no surprise that he ends up killing his mom's boyfriend, his sister and her boyfriend, and then his mother has no choice but to send him to Loomis. I thought it would be done but it still wasn't, and Myers goes through a long and painful interview process, until his eventual escape. There is even another attempt at heart with a prison guard who is good to Myers, but when Myers escapes he kills him anyway.

We then flash back to Chicago where we get another character-Laurie Strode, the role that made Jamie Lee Curtis a star-who on Halloween night is going to babysit for young Tommy. She has her two friends-Lynda and Annie-both who intend on having sex with their nerdy boyfriends. But when the babysitting gig starts it continues with Myers killing her friends and then intending on killing Laurie. Meanwhile Loomis has a feeling he knows where Myers is going, and with the help of the town sheriff, played by Brad Dourif-why?, tries to stop him before it's too late.

Zombie's film is problematic from the start. It seems like he wanted to make his own version of the movie, and at the same time make a faithful remake. Its clear that he wants to try and make another dimension to the Michael Myers character, at least to show his cruddy lifestyle to justify his behavior and his lifestyle. But the beginning-which really branches from the original-is just plain dull. I could care less for Myers in this film where we see him as a child into a young adult, than I did in the original where he is just a random killing machine. Then we get the second half, where Zombie really intends on presenting the first film-the problem is there is only about forty five minutes left until the end and he wants to show the whole ninety minutes of the original. The entire second half seemed so rushed and hurried, even though there are plenty of throwbacks to the first-Laurie's walk to school with the young Tommy chatting her up on the way, Myers with a sheet over his head with the glasses of the person he just killed on. There is just no tension. Remember in the original there was that certain tension-Laurie was a good girl on her babysitting gig not knowing what was going on. . .the phone rang. . .nobody. . it led up to something. This film has zero tension and zero suspense-we are introduced to Laurie for about ten minutes before the slashing begins, and its just not scary at all.

The biggest change is that this time Myers has a bit of a motive-he is not a random killer after all. I won't ruin the surprise, but I did kind of figure it out once Myers killed his family at the start. I'll admit the motive and the twist wasn't too bad-it gave Myers some kind of a purpose. But then again isn't it scarier to think about a killer with no motive at all? Whose only motive is to kill and kill again? Yes it is.

The acting is bad all around-save for the miracle presence of Dourif and Malcolm McDowell, who plays Loomis. But even McDowell is obviously coasting his way through this. He knows that this isn't a very good film, but he doesn't exactly have the most impressive filmography. But he is still so good. He has this odd presence around him that follows him in every role he does. The unknown young actress and actors cast is almost embarrassing, and unless Zombie enjoyed working with them they won't be in anything else than Rob Zombie films.

The "Halloween" remake is awful-Zombie tries to be faithful and do something of his own, but he can't have it both ways. He tries and fails. This is a painfully hard to watch film-and I should have known better when a movie called Halloween comes out on the 31st of August.

Summer's over, bub.

Now Playing At:
Area Theatres

Thursday, August 23, 2007

The Nanny Diaries


The Nanny Diaries ***

Directed by Robert Pulcini and Shari Springer Berman
Written by Robert Pulcini and Shari Springer Berman, based on the book by Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Kraus

Starring:
Scarlett Johansson as Annie Braddock
Laura Linney as Mrs. X
Alicia Keys as Lynette
Chris Evans as Harvard Hottie
Donna Murphy as Judy
Paul Giamatti as Mr. X
Nicholas Art as Grayer

107 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for language. )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Nanny Diaries" may very well be the surprise of the summer, and I feel like this is a film I will be defending for many days to come. Fresh off the heels of last year's "The Devil Wears Prada," a film that I am still puzzling the awards and nominations it received, "The Nanny Diaries" is a similar commentary on the 5th Avenue Women and their constant need to accessorize and buy and wear the latest things, etc. This time instead of women wanting to buy a new dress because its the latest fad, they want to have children. And then they treat their children as they would a necklace or a ring, or just simply hire somebody else to take care of it: the nanny.

Scarlet Johannson is the nanny in the title,-her real name is Annie- and she recently graduated college and her mother wants her to go out and start a corporate gig. When she flops at an interview, a twist of fate and a case of mistaken identity begin her work as a nanny for the X's. Mrs X. is a classic 5th Avenue Mother, who has no job or real purpose but to constantly demand alone time, and time for herself. Mr. X is the rarely seen father who is having many affairs with secretaries, and needs to work more than actually see his son and wife. Even so, Annie begins to take care of their son Grayer, who begins to slowly warm up to Annie after a rocky start.

The best parts in "The Nanny Diaries" are the scenes where the Annie character is at her job and relating to the X's. Mrs. X is a better equivalent of the Meryl Streep character in "The Devil Wears Prada." She is cold, bitter, but behind that mask you know that there is something a little kinder-or at least a fragment of what once was. However I didn't really see Meryl Streep portray that other side to her character, except in one scene. Laura Linney does a fantastic job in the role, showing several dimensions to Mrs. X. Perhaps there was something in the man she married once upon a time. But why is still hanging with him? Is it because she is used to this phony lifestyle that she has created for herself? Is it because she wants to stay together to her son? Does she love her son? Does she love her husband? The answer to all of these is yes and no, as Mrs. X struggles to rid herself of whatever life she led once before. She says so herself-she grew up in Connecticut. You don't become a rich Manhattan woman when you grew up in Connecticut with the snap of a finger-especially when you are jobless.

The movie is fun during the initial nannying scenes, and the drama is handled quite well. There are a few in-jokes, a few of them for New York people only-many will not get those. There is a sly reference to "The Devil Wears Prada,"-an old materialistic and condescending woman who also happens to be Mr. X's mother is reading it on a beach. And Scarlett Johannson's cell phone ring after getting the job is the chimney song from "Mary Poppins." Nicholas Art as the young son is not the best actor in the world, but certainly not as hammy as others-say Josh Harnett's son in "Resurrecting the Champ." And it was great to see Paul Giamatti playing a bad guy once again-the next time is in the upcoming "Shoot 'Em Up,"-see my advanced review a few posts down-and he even looks different than he has before. Even his eye color changed.

All that being said, there is the inevitable downfall of the film, and that is two characters. The first is the standard, typical "best friend" character, usually played to be a sassy and independent woman-here played by Alicia Keys. The other is the standard and typical "love interest," here played by Chris Evans who can't act his way out of a paper bag. He is terrible, and the chemistry between him and Johannson is so bad that I thought the film would blow up. The love subplot takes up such a small amount of screen time that it was almost pointless, and whenever those scenes came up the film just took a wrong turn. I guess it was needed in a Hollywood way, but it wasn't needed to tell a good story. Overall I did get enjoyment from "The Nanny Diaries." I bet it won't get the praise that "The Devil Wears Prada" received, but it doesn't need to. "The Devil Wears Prada' getting strong praise was an odd fluke, and yet another one of those Hollywood mysteries that I will never understand.

Now Playing At:
Area Theatres

Right At Your Door


Right At Your Door ***

Directed by Chris Gorak
Written by Chris Gorak

Starring:
Mary McCormack as Lexi
Rory Cochrane as Brad
Tony Perez as Alvaro
Scotty Noyd Jr. as Timmy
Max Kasch as Corporal Marshall
Jon Huertas as Rick
Will McCormack as Jason

96 Minutes(Rated R for pervasive language and some disturbing violent content)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Right At Your Door" is a crafty, well made, and creepy apocalyptic thriller, in the vein of those alien films like "War of the Worlds." The only difference is, this time it isn't aliens from outer space that is killer us, it's chemical bombs. And nobody knows how, and nobody is given any information, creating a terror frenzy from the five minute mark. There isn't much peace and sanity in this film, and if your expecting something with an "everything is going to be ok," ending like "War of the Worlds," or even "The Day After Tomorrow," you will be sorely disappointed. "Right At Your Door" is grim and bleak, from the very start, and it doesn't let go.

When we meet young married couple Lexi and Brad, they seem happy enough. Lexi goes to work everyday and Brad tends house-running errands, waiting for various installation men as they move into their house, etc. One day Lexi goes off to work, and Brad hears on the radio about explosions in the downtown area. He is frantic. He starts calling Lexi. No answer-of course her phone battery is nearly dead. He looks out. There is the skyline covered in smoke and debris. Ash is falling from the sky. Brad listens to the radio. They tell him to seal his house shut, and with the help of an intruding neighbor that is what is does. The bombs were dirty and toxic, and those who were out in the terror should be quarantined right away. Once Brad seals the house Lexi returns home, and Brad refuses to let her in, leaving her out. But when it turns out that the bombs and toxic waste aren't the only terrors they should worry about, the two of them are on constant alert.

There is a certain lack of originality that happens when you take a story like this. To be honest we have seen many thrillers similar to "Right At Your Door"-where the world is going crazy, family members are torn apart, the government gets involved and makes a mess of things, etc. But while Chris Gorak's story isn't the most enlightening in the world, he does a very good job at creating a certain bleak aura, really putting you in the situation. Once the bombs hit the colors are grim-dark greens and gray especially. Rory Cochran and Mary McCormack are good in their roles, and McCormack (who is a very underrated beauty) showed some subtle moments where I really thought she was about to attack her husband. These moments do not look like they were in the script, but creations of her very own. There were moments where I didn't know if the two of them would remain loyal to one another, or even be trusting of one another. And I'm grateful that the script did not resort to having the infected people turn into zombies or anything like this. This is much more realistic. There are also several surprises-especially the ending, a delicious and ironic twist that made the whole thing worthwhile.

I do not understand why films like "Right At Your Door" cannot garner a more wider audience. Is it the budget? Hollywood audiences have seen films in the vein of "Right At Your Door," but they are usually ladened with special effects and epic battle scenes. Can people not take apocalyptic thrillers with more humanity and more social commentary? Is it too much for them? They can sit through a terror film like "War of the Worlds,"-which is good in its own way-but they have to ignore terror films like "Right At Your Door." In aspects this is a better film, and contains much of the same content and much of the same stories as the big budget thrillers. Another Hollywood mystery I will never understand.

Now Playing At:
Angelika Film Center
AMC Empire 25
Clearview on 62nd

Deep Water


Deep Water ***

A Documentary by Louise Osmond and Jerry Rothwerll

Narrated by Tilda Swinton

92 Minutes(Rated PG for thematic elements, mild language and incidental smoking. )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Deep Water" made me remember a film I saw exactly two years ago this month that blew me away. It was a documentary masterpiece, and even made my list for the Best Films of 2005. That film was "Grizzly Man," a deep, haunting, and very creepy documentary about Timothy Treadwill, a man who lived in the woods with the grizzly bears for several months every year. When he wasn't with the bears in the woods alone he was not happy, and his diaries about his time in the "real world" showed that the only world for him was with the animals. Eventually Treadwill was killed with a rouge grizzly bear, and the only evidence of his death is an audio tape which was destroyed by his best friend. I remembered watching "Grizzly Man" in the theatre, and I remember being terrified of it. There was something always creepy about it. I think it was the fact that I was watching a man do what he loved, so happy in his element, and yet I knew that tragedy would be striking him very shortly. And most of that film is told through the video tapes he made, so we actually see him in his element. I was also creeped out, and sickly curious, by the fact that they might play the tape where he is being killed-but it was destroyed and does not come up in the film.

"Deep Water" is similar in a way. It is about man's interactions with nature, and how they transform him from what he once was. It is also about how nature is much more powerful than man, and its influence is stronger than that of any other person. It is not nearly as creepy or powerful as "Grizzly Man" was, but as nature documentaries are concerned, this is still unsettling and creepy, and it makes you afraid of what it around you. The focus is several years ago, in 1968 England. We follow Donald Crowhurst, who entered a race to sail around the world. He builds his own boat, and goes off. However he soon finds out that his boat, and his skill, is not nearly good enough to be in this contest, and he parks his boat not far off the coast of South America, and he waits for the other contestants to circle the world before he joins them on the way home. He shuts off his radio transmitter, and begins to create his false log of where he is daily. This requires much more effort than just lying about where he is. He has to use mathematical formulas and create realistic evidence that he sailed "x" amount on that day-in coordinate to mapmakers and judges on the way home. Through discussions with his family and friends, we piece together the story of the race, as well as talking about the others who were sailing. One of them was a French sailor who became scared of returning home, because the ten months alone at sea transformed him.

In addition to telling about how isolation and loneliness with only nature as your friend could change a person, this character study of Crowhurst also makes it hard to not be angry with the man who is lying about having sailed around the world. He is doing this not only for himself, but he fears being ridiculed and made fun of if he doesn't return or drops out of the race. He is afraid of scandal, most of all, and even though he is lying through his teeth, I almost felt sorry for the guy. Crowhurst eventually died, and it is assumed that he threw himself off the boat to avoid said scandal, leaving his diaries and his ultimate confession behind.

Now I know that "Deep Water" and "Grizzly Man" share that connection of nature eventually killing the man, but I think the reason why 'Deep Water" did not haunt me on the level that "Grizzly Man" did was because "Deep Water" relies on third person telling of the story, and strong narration by Tilda Swinton-who has a better voice than face. Seriously. "Grizzly Man" had tape of the descent into madness, and we were able to chart it better and actually see it happened. While "Deep Water" is creepy and the end is very unsettling, it did not have the emotional charge that the Herzog film had. It's interesting and disturbing, but not nearly as powerful. It's an interesting story, though, and even if you have no interest in sailing or boating, it's still good to watch. I know nothing of the sort, and do normally like sailing movies-"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" still sits painfully with me four years after seeing it-but I recommend "Deep Water" as an fine documentary. Although on any day I would recommend "The King of Kong" as the documentary to see. That's one of the best movies of the year. This is just interesting, but an interesting film is always better than a bad one.

Now Playing at:
Angelika Film Center

Resurrecting the Champ


Resurrecting the Champ ***

Directed by Rod Lurie
Written by Michael Bortman and Allison Burnett, based on the Los Angeles Times Magazine article by J.R. Moehringer

Starring:
Samuel L. Jackson as Champ
Josh Hartnett as Erik
Kathryn Morris as Joyce
Dakota Goyo as Teddy
Teri Hatcher as Flak
Alan Alda as Metz
Rachel Nichols as Polly
David Paymer as Whitley

111 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for some violence and brief language. )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING: This review contains a certain about a spoilers for surprises that occur about halfway through the film. Since knowing them may upset your viewing experience for the film, I am warning you early so that you avoid them.

"Resurrecting the Champ" is being billed as something based on a true story that was based on a lie. Of course, if you think about that as you begin to watch the movie, it does give away some of the halfway mark surprises-something that the trailer actually avoided, to my immense surprise. But it's an interesting little story, and the film version of that story does take it turn it into a little bit of a melodramatic nightmare, but the performances are worth checking out, and at times it does have its heart in the right place. It is also an interesting mediation on lying, the place it has in society, and the place it has in the home. When it is acceptable to lie, if ever, and when it is not.

Samuel L. Jackson delivers some of his best actual acting in recent memory-a long distance away from "Snakes on a Plane" here-as the Champ. Champ is a homeless man living in alleyways, but once upon a time he was a legendary boxer named Bob Satterfield, at one time the Heavyweight Champion of the World. On the other side there is Erik Kernan, a newspaper reporter who usually does small little bylines in the paper. Separated from his wife and his young son, who he often fabricates stories to about being friends with John Elway and playing golf with Ali, Erik has the intention of moving to the upstairs floor with a different paper, and sees a potential story in the Champ. He begins interviewing him-here is a boxer that fought the Raging Bull Jake LaMotta, and who everyone thought to be dead for twenty years. And he is living on the street! But once the story hits, and Erik begins to rise up in his career, facts begin to come into question, and Erik's reputation goes on the line.

My analysis of this film is fairly simple. It comes out at the end of August, a few weeks shy of the time when Oscar contender films usually come out. And it shows. This is not an Oscar caliber film, but it's enjoyable, entertaining, and has its heart in the right place. Samuel L. Jackson is kind of great as the Champ-loaded with latex and other make-up to make him almost unrecognizable. I remember seeing the trailers for this-completely under advertised film, more on that later-and not knowing that it was Jackson until they said him name. Champ isn't a character that you are meant to pity, but you could watch in a realistic light. He is not a sobbing sack like the script could have easily made him, and Jackson would have had no problem with that. Josh Hartnett makes me forget flops like "Hollywood Homicide" and "The Black Dahlia" and does some good work here. The two leads are fine, and bring some heart and energy to the film, but the supporting cast does nothing but bring out cliche after cliche.

First there is Alan Alda as the newspaper editor character, similar to Bob Balaban as the editor in "Dedication," except Alda is coasting his way through-and for good reason, because he's Alan Alda and can do whatever he wants. There is Kathryn Morris as the ex-wife of Hartnett who is there to give him advice and moral support-she claims to not like him, but you know in the end they will find solace in each other again. I was glad that Hartnett-even though he had the chance several times-did not find comfort in another woman's arms, something that could have complicated the film even more. They avoided that, thankfully. They also avoid a third act courtroom scene which I really smelled coming, and did not. There is his son, played by Dakota Goyo, who is just awful. There is an example of his "acting" in the trailer, when Hartnett asks if he's proud of his father. The line is "real proud," but the delivery is so laughable. Yes, he's like that the whole film. And there is Teri Hatcher as a Showtime executive who lands Hartnett a role as a television boxer reporter, in a brief and useless additional ten minutes. She is just as bad as the kid.

For all it's flaws and cliches with the supporting acting and background subplots, I liked "Resurrecting the Champ" for it's interesting look into lies and why we tell them. When facts about Champ really being Bob Satterfield become brought into question, we see a comparison between the lies that Hartnett tells to his son-about him being friends with famous sports figures-and the lies that Champ may be telling to Hartnett. While you could say that lying to a child in such a trivial way is harmless, but lying to one child may be worse than lying to a massive group of people who are inspired by the story of Champ. Hartnett and Jackson play their roles well, and if the film was released later in the year I would say that Jackson had a chance for an award. But this will probably be forgotten as the major contenders begin to be released next month. "Resurrecting the Champ" is a good film-imperfect and flawed-but on the whole it works.

One thing to mention: I was surprised with Yari Film Groups choice to barely advertise this film. I remember seeing the ad twice in one day last June-I think before "Mighty Heart" and "Sicko"-but after that I didn't even see a single poster, television ad, or banner for the film. YFG produced the great "The Illusionist" last year, and the hit "The Painted Veil," but hit low with flops (and bad films) like "Gray Matters," "First Snow," and "Kickin' It All Sckool," as well as the five year delayed "Shortcut to Happiness,' which had a small release in the boonies in July-it never opened in New York which is why I didn't see it. I guess the company is failing, because had it been advertised I could have seen this having a moderate box office success, but I guess they lost faith in themselves.

Now Playing At:
Area Theatres

The Bothersome Man


The Bothersome Man ***1/2

Directed by Jens Lien
Written by Per Schreiner

Starring:
Trond Fausa Aurvaag as Andreas
Petronella Barker as Anne Britt
Per Schaaning as Hugo
Birgitte Larsen as Ingeborg
Johannes Joner as HÃ¥vard
Ellen Horn as Trulsen

95 Minutes(Not Rated-Mild Sex, Comic Violence)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was any justice in the world, I would say that "The Bothersome Man" was a shoe-in for a Best Foreign Film nomination at the Academy Awards next year. But I know that in the end, the award will go to somebody with a name. Someone more famous, and "The Bothersome Man" will disappear as quickly and easily as a needle in a haystack. In fact, I bet it doesn't even get a nomination, and this is the last time you will hear of this film. And it's a shame, because it really is fantastic. I didn't know what to expect walking in, and all I knew was that it was a film from Norway. But I didn't know how funny, I didn't know how smart, and I didn't know how visually great a film this was, as the events within it unfolded slowly, up to its bleak, yet hopeful in a way, finale.

"The Bothersome Man" begins with a man named Andreas being dropped off in front of a gas station in a strange and empty town. He is given a job as an accountant, and finds himself in a world where everyone seems to act the same, and nobody is bothered by how empty the town really is. Andreas notices, and even though he soon finds himself living with Anne Britt, a materialistic woman who he indulges in mechanical and passionless sex with every night, he still notices the lack of children and the lack of feeling that everyone has. He begins an affair with Ingeborg, the sexy co-worker who he finds out only uses him for pleasure, and is really seeing about four other men at work and in her apartment. Defeated and heartbroken, Andreas ends up bumping into an old man he saw in a bathroom once, and makes a startling surprise. There is a crack in his wall, and from it comes the most glorious and beautiful music. It reminds him of the past. It reminds him of what he is missing. And Andreas will stop at nothing until he can get through that crack.

I will admit that we've seen movies like this before. We've seen films that take place in a satirical society that is like our own but oddly different. We've seen films where one man, sometimes two, end up finding that they could stand together and get out of this. There's a ton of them-"Brazil," especially-and they are usually a commentary on our government and the direction it is heading. I don't know much about the Norway government, but I have thoughts that this is a take on them. But I always say that I don't mind a film with a plot that has been overdone if it is done well. If it is a story well told, and "The Bothersome Man" is that and more. Director Jens Lien has a massive amount of talent, and the visual look of the film is beautiful. Almost every shot is eye candy, and the script by Per Schreiner is even a bigger treat. This film has several moments of black comedy gold, including a very long sequence involving a train, and Andreas eventual discovery of what is inside of the hole in the wall. I was laughing harder than I have in a while-next to "Superbad," but that's a different type of comedy.

I like how the film takes its time telling the story. The crack in the wall plot couldn't have introduced itself until after the hour mark, but the beginning really does adjust you to this society. And if you go in not having seen a single frame of the film-like myself-the events will unfold and confuse you at first. What am I watching? you will ask. So where is Andreas? Is isn't in this world, that's for sure. He must be in a hellish underworld, punished for something he did in real life. Whatever it is he doesn't know, and we certainly don't know, but he knows that he is missing something, and he knows that he is not that far from getting it back. "The Bothersome Man" does not have a happy ending, but it doesn't end on a bleak note. It is unfinished. What will Andreas find on the next leg of his journey? But it ends on a perfect note, never overstaying its welcome, but there isn't anywhere to go from there. Has he escaped, or will he never get out? Why would he want to? Everything seems to perfect.

Now Playing At:
Cinema Village

Mr. Bean's Holiday


Mr. Bean's Holiday *1/2

Directed by Simon McBurney
Written by Harnish McColl

Starring:
Rowan Atkinson as Mr. Bean
Emma de Caunes as Sabine
Max Baldry as Stepan
Willem Dafoe as Carson Clay

90 Minutes(Rated PG for brief mild language. )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now with "Mr. Bean's Holiday" we have come to the ending of our massive summer of sequels. And this is the one that everyone keeps forgetting, and like most of the others, it isn't very good. Now I like Mr. Bean. When I was a little kid I would watch the television show whenever it came on, and was always entertained by Bean's antics-the one that I recall best is when he ends up with a Christmas turkey over his head, a skit that was revisited in the "Bean" film that came out almost a decade ago. The new Bean film is problematic-and it made me realize that the character is fun to watch, but only in small amounts of time. In a ninety minute film, not so much.

Rowan Atkinson is a very talented actor both physically and verbally. While the Bean films rely more on physical comedy than verbal comedy, I know that he can do things dramatically after last years hilarious "Keeping Mum." His character of Mr. Bean is a quiet, silly, and yet innocent man with the mind of child in a way. The film starts on a rainy afternoon in London and Bean wins a raffle prize to the beach in Cannes, France. The trouble starts right away, from getting into the wrong taxicab, to making a man miss his train, leaving his young son onboard. Bean ends up pairing up with the kid, and the two of them end up traveling to Cannes together, with the help of a beautiful French actress, leading them to the premiere of the new film by ultra pretentious director Carson Clay (played by Willem Dafoe-that's right, Willen Dafoe is in this movie). Bean is eventually mistaken for the kidnapper of the young boy, and everyone is after him, but he just walks right by as if nothing is the matter.

Atkinson does play the Bean character well, and he never breaks from it. When I saw him do something straight in "Keeping Mum" I was surprised by his comedic range, but he goes back to his basics here. The problem with "Mr. Bean's Holiday" is that there is no counter-Bean. There is no straight man by his side to balance him out. Even the kid he is paired with is stupid. There is no intelligence anywhere. It was just ninety minutes of pure Bean, pure goofy Bean. And goofy Bean is funny, and I found myself laughing at the first twenty minutes or so-the length of the television show-but after that it just became frustrating to watch. As constant mishaps piled up and up, it just began to annoy me. The films best moments come in the third act, at the Cannes Film Festival. The movie within a movie-Carson Clay's pretentious drivel that everyone sleeps through by himself-is pretty funny, as is the conclusion where Bean eventually saves the day. But at times "Mr. Bean's Holiday" grew tiresome. The character is funny but in small doses. Stick to the television show if this is your first Bean experience, otherwise the character may rub you the wrong way.

And so the summer of sequels is over, and the fall movie season is just around the corner. . .

Dedication


Dedication **

Directed by Justin Theroux
Written by David Bromberg

Starring:
Billy Crudup as Henry Roth
Mandy Moore as Lucy
Tom Wilkinson as Rudy Holt
Dianne Wiest as Carol
Christine Taylor as Allison
Martin Freeman as Jeremy
Peter Bogdanovich as Roger Spade
Bobby Cannavale as Don Meyers
Bob Balaban as Arthur Planck

111 Minutes(Rated R for language and some sexual content.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Playing in Theatre 2 of "Actors Turned Directors" is. . .

"Dedication" stars Billy Crudup as Henry Roth, a children's book writer who collaborates only with Rudy Holt, an elderly illustrator who is also Henry's only friend. Henry is a mess. He had a bad childhood, and his mother is off somewhere and his father is dead. He also has many obsessive compulsive like behaviors-being superstitious of the number seven, often laying down on the floor with heavy objects on him, much to the chagrin of his live-in girlfriend, Allison, who walks out on him at film's open. In fact the only person that seemed to understand him is Rudy, but he sadly dies of a brain tumor. But Henry is still under contract with his publishers, and he needs to find a new person to illustrate the new adventures of "Marty the Beaver." And the person that gets the job is Lucy, who finds it hard to work with Henry considering he is such a rude and cruel person-often quoting "Life is. . ." and then continuing with a nasty comment. But the two of them find a way to work together, and maybe even more, as Lucy may be the only person to cure Henry. Meanwhile, Lucy is visited by her former thesis advisor/boyfriend, who wants to woo her back once again, and Henry is visited by images of Rudy who give him advice or just tell him off.

Now most of the problems from "Dedication" come from the script, which is as uninspired and contrived as anything in Hollywood. I would expect something more from something so low budget. For one thing, the cast of supporting characters exist only as a way of giving the film some more quirks. There is Lucy's mother, who wants to kick her out of her apartment because she also happens to be the landlord. The part is played by Dianne Wiest, and the character is so pointless that after two scenes they never even bother returning to her. And the apartment conflict quickly disappears. There is also the rigid and strict editor, played well by Bob Balaban, but its a part that he could do in his sleep. And Martin Freeman's Jeremy-Lucy's ex-boyfriend that wants her back-is barely in the film and provides no conflict at all. Getting rid of him is so easy. And there's an odd part with Peter Bogdanovich, who has no lines and gives off a single look to Billy Crudup's character-and yet he gets third billing. Clearly there was more to the film that got cut, as I can't image all these actors-Christine Taylor and Bobby Canavale as well-being in the project for such useless roles.

In addition to using these extra characters to make the film more quirky and "cute," there is also the thing with Henry's tics and twitches. Lets take a film that deals with OCD well, like "Matchstick Men." In that film, there was a rhyme and rhythm to all the tics. Here, they try to pile them up constantly. A scene where Henry recites his problems seems to go on forever, and at times it seemed like Crudup was getting bored reciting all the lines. And as the film progresses, and him and Lucy fall deeper and deeper in love, you see the tics slowly disappear-and its done in subtly ways. Henry looks on the counter and finds that he is sleeping without books on his chest. But Henry never even seemed that bad so that when he getting better you don't even care. And that scene about halfway through-when you think that he'll be alright, but then tragedy strikes and he succumbs back to his old self-comes obviously and with such a clear forcing motion that I was surprised I wasn't punched in the face with how much this script treated me like a child.

Lets talk about the main love story, by the way. Its so typical and standard, yes-but if it was played well I could over look that. Crudup and Mandy Moore have zero on-screen chemistry, and the movie lacks any heart. I could care less if they ended up together, because I didn't see any reason why each one would find anything in the other. They go from merely working together to kissing so randomly, that even though I knew it was coming it took me by surprise by how quick. They did not click at all. Crudup has done some good work in the past, and Henry Roth could have been a good and complex character if he were written well. I could only think of one actor that actually made the film worthwhile: Tom Wilkinson, who exited far too soon. And since he does pop up throughout the film after his death-in another contrived "ghost" imagery-he is able to give the film just a little bit of heart. In his brief role, Wilkinson, on his own, saved the movie from being badly acted on all parts. And I liked that little touch of Crudup's initials being HR (Henry Roth) and Wilkinson's being RH (Rudy Holt)-just showcasing how they may be close, but they are total opposites.

That being said, there is a second thing that worked in "Dedication" and that was the work behind the camera from director Justin Theroux. I may not love him as a actor-even though he has done some amusing work-but in his directorial debut Theroux manages to put some style and life through imagery and music, even though he is working with such a bland script. He gives the film a bleak blue look, and does some cool transitions whenever Henry is visited by Rudy, or whenever he goes back into his "OCD" mode. If Theroux had a better script-or if he wrote his own-he is capable of some good work, and I await his next effort. But in the end, and it kills me to say it, "Dedication" is not a good movie. It's obvious, has not heart, is poorly acted, and is one of the worst contrived scripts of the year.

Now Playing At:
Landmark Sunshine Cinemas
AMC Lincoln Square

The Hottest State


The Hottest State ***

Directed by Ethan Hawke
Written by Ethan Hawke, based on his book

Starring:
Mark Webber as William Harding
Catalina Sandino Moreno as Sarah
Ethan Hawke as Vince
Michelle Williams as Samantha
Josh Zuckerman as Decker
Laura Linney as Jesse

117 Minutes(Rated R for sexual content and language.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Hottest State" gives evidence that Ethan Hawke should stick behind the camera instead of popping out in front of it. I never really found him to be that good of an actor, and his little acting bits here are there for the viewing to directly compare his work behind and in front. It's also quite curious that this film is released now, just two weeks after Hawke co-star and probable friend Julie Delpy released her "2 Days in Paris." Its even more curious how Hawke and Delpy seem to owe a lot of their work together in "Before Sunrise," and "Before Sunset," as well as Richard Linklater's writing. Both films are about the relationships of two people-in "2 Days in Paris" it was the end of the one, and in "The Hottest State" it's about the whole one.

When Mark Webber's William Harding first meets Sarah, he doesn't know what it is that he's feeling. But he says simply "At 20, I did not meet the girl that I was to grow old with, and by 21 I was heartbroken." This could probably give you an idea about what direction the film goes in, and if it hasn't that you really need to work harder at pay attention. They meet in a bar-she is a musician and he is an actor- and he is instantly smitten. She seems to be too, but maybe not as hard. And they start a loose relationship. She moves in with him until the lease on her apartment starts, and together they paint her apartment when the time comes. And when he gets an acting job in Mexico the two of them go together, igniting six days of pure passion. But then the inevitable happens, and they go back to their realistic lives, where she begins to reconsider things. She wants to go back to the reason why she moved to New York-to be on her own, and she doesn't want a relationship to muddle that up. And as William tries to find a way to get her back, he considers his father and why he never contacted him for years and years after his mother took him out of Texas.

Hawke's script, based off of his own novel of the same name, does a great job depicting a relationship from beginning to the ultimate end. There is that awkward beginning, the more heated middle, and then the final bout of chaos where you know that it'll end badly. Most of the film is Mark Webber-a relatively unknown actor from glass shards like "Bomb the System," and great work like "Storytelling," and he does some good work in "Broken Flowers,"-and Catalina Sandino Moreno-a great young actress that blew everyone away in "Maria Full of Grace." The entire film relies on their chemistry and without it "The Hottest State" would have been a bust. But the two bring such life and energy into their characters. Supporting work by Michelle Williams and Laura Linney do not seem to really put as much effort in their characters, or perhaps they are just underwritten. Williams appears just as a foil to the Sarah character, and Linney-as William's mother-is there in two scenes to spit out a few cliched words of wisdom. But it all has a heart.

I think Hawke screwed up the final scene by putting himself in the movie as William's father, and while he worked in the two or three scenes that he popped up in throughout in flashbacks-saying things like "Just remember. . . I'm not the one leaving Texas." Hawke plays the character with zero emotion, and his chemistry with Webber in that scene is almost not there at all. I would expect that Hawke would know what to do-the father character is his own creation in both novel and book form-but he just isn't a very good actor. His direction on the other hand is fantastic, and there are several neat shots. The music in the film is quite good as well, even though it was so blatantly obvious that Catalina Sandino Moreno was not singing during her music scenes. The dubbing was distracting.

Despite being overlong, and lagging in the middle, "The Hottest State" is still an effectively told story of a relationship from its promising beginning to its sad and somber conclusion. And even though it ends on a down note, "The Hottest State" is somewhat hopeful. William will be a stronger person after his ordeal with this woman, and the next time he falls in love-as his mother predicts "many times"-may go a little smoother because of it.
Now Playing at:
Landmark Sunshine Cinemas
Clearview Chelsea

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Also Opening This Week. . .

Also opening this week (the week of the 17th) is "The King of Kong: A Fistfut of Quarters."

This is a great little documentary about a competition to get the world record in the arcade video game classic "Donkey Kong."I've seen the film during the Tribeca Film Festival last April/May, and for a mini-write up of the film (which I gave a four star rating), visit my section of The 2007 Tribeca Film Festival!

"The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters" opens on August 17th at the IFC Center!

NYC Noir Double Feature: Something Wild and Killer's Kiss


For my last NYC Noir double feature before I close up with a review for "The French Connection" next week, I choose a double bill featuring too rarely shown films. The first actually had a week long release at the tail end of last year at IFC Center, but the other was something very special that I knew should be seen on the big screen.

Something Wild (1961) **1/2
112 Minutes
Directed by Jack Garfein

"Something Wild" is a bit more strong than the others films I've seen at this festival-with the exception of "Rosemary's Baby,"-but it was weird in a negative way taking what could have been a decent character study and turning it into something too unbelievable and too over the top. Starring a beautiful Carroll Baker, she plays Mary Ann, a young student in New York City who is raped on her way home one night. She returns home the next day to her stepfather and her over-domineering mother, but soon she moves out of the house and quits school to work at the five and dime. She contemplates killing herself, and just as she is about to throw herself into the river, she is saved by a mysterious man who ends up locking her inside of his house and not letting her go until she agrees to marry him.

For the first hour I could say that there was some promise here. It was good to watch Baker walk around New York City, harrowed and violated. I was hoping it would lead to something more. Her inner struggle would be represented in a realistic and symbolic way. But the second act-which largely takes place in the man-Mike's-basement apartment, is uninteresting and consists of uninspired dialogue like "Let me out," and "No." If that was the best that writer/director Jack Garfein could come up with as the climatic scenes of his films, I pity him, even though I don't know what happened in the original novel "Mary Ann", written by Alex Karmel. I could see why its ended on the note that it did-that Mike and Mary Ann needed each other-that life just was not what it would have been for Mary Ann if the incident did not happen. It does not condone the rape or justify it in any way, but it just morals up that "This is what happened, and this is what came of it." But what did come of it, and how it was portrayed on the scene, was not interesting, and they forced me to accept too much, more than I was able too. Baker is good, and there are some fun cameos by Jean Stapleton, and a young Doris Roberts that was hard to spot, in her film debut. This is merely a decent film that I was taken out of many times.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer's Kiss (1955) ***1/2
67 Minutes
Directed by Stanley Kubrick

This next film really does pull you in after the disappointing "Something Wild," and its wonder not many people have heard of it because its by one of the greatest directors who ever lived. Stanley Kubrick's second actual film is "Killer's Kiss," a strong film noir with a weak story, but photographed incredibly. Seeing this on the big screen was a treat. I wanted to eat up every image. Jamie Smith plays Davy Gordon, a New York City boxer that sees the girl next door being attacked by dance club owner Vincent Rapallo (played by Frank Silvera, who does a great job seeming hate able here). He falls in love with the girl-Gloria-and wants to run away with her, but is being pursued by the evil Rapallo, who will making sure that she doesn't get away, or at least doesn't end up with another man.

The story is weak and didn't do much for me, but never lags as the film is only just over an hour. The acting is fine, there are those classic noir lines. The first line was something along the lines of "It's crazy how you can get yourself in a mess sometimes . . ." and the middle had my personal favorite "Like the man said, "Can happiness buy money?" " But what to see here is Kubrick's great photography. The best scenes are the ones that really go out there, like the climax which takes place in a mannequin factory, but even the simple shots-walking down the street, running on the rooftop-becomes a thing of beauty. There was not one shot here that did not have tons of effort put into it. People discuss "A Clockwork Orange" or "2001" as if they were his only films, but I have seen almost all of his early stuff, and somewhat find it slightly better. "Killer's Kiss" should be viewed just as much as "Clockwork Orange." It is not the genius of his later works, but you could spot what we know is going to come a few years later.

For more information on the NYC Noir Festival, which ends very soon, visit the Film Forum Website!

Hannah Takes the Stairs and Mumblecore Films: A New, and Hopefully Brief, Wave of Independent Film-making


Hannah Takes the Stairs **

Directed by Joe Swanberg
Written by Joe Swanberg and Greta Gerwig

Starring:
Greta Gerwig as Hannah
Kent Osborne as Matt
Andrew Bujalski as Paul
Ry Russo-Young as Rocco
Mark Duplass as Mike
Todd Rohal as Brian Duges

82 Minutes(Not Rated-Language, Nudity)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I review the so-so film "Hannah Takes the Stairs," playing until August 28th at the IFC Center, let me tell you a little bit about a new genre of film taking place right under our eyes, that you are probably unaware about.

Mumblecore films.

Is anybody aware that we are living through film history at the moment? You know how all those textbooks, and Internet fan people rave about things like the "French New Wave," or the "Dogma 95 Movement." Well, now ten years from now they will be talking about a movement that started only a few years ago-2004 or 2005, depending on what you call the films release. Founded-and dubbed the "mumblecore movement"-by Andrew Bujalski, whose film "Funny Ha Ha" started this thing. You probably aren't aware of this movement, because as of now these films usually don't open in cities with population ten. Sometimes I find them on the Sundance Channel, but it's usually the small art houses in New York and LA that get them first, and last because they usually bomb at the box office. He is a pioneer, but Bujalski's "Funny Ha Ha"-which I gave a simple one star rating-puts him on the same page as Christopher Columbus-who pioneered a land, and then murdered everywhere there. Bujalski may have invented this so called "mumblecore movement," but "Funny Ha Ha" slaughtered my eyes and my ability to have fun at the movies.

But what is mumblecore? Mumblecore films are made by ultra independent filmmakers-these movies are usually shot on location at friends houses, made for a few bucks, shot on a cheap digital camera, and in the case of "Hannah Takes the Stairs," was probably edited on the same MAC computers that make appearances in the film. The movie has two shots of credits at the very end, and its just a list of special thanks. That's how many people are involved with the making of these movies. It is a small group of film-makers that rotate acting, directing, and writing. And the scripts are usually just guides from the director-here Joe Swanberg-and most of the lines are thought up by the actors off the tops of their heads. They try to capture the awkwardness of everyday life with endless scenes of people hanging out, doing stupid things during their conversations-I'll get to that later-and mumbling their lines when they don't want the person they are talking to to hear what they are saying-thus "mumblecore." I like these films the same way I like Richard Linklater's early films-not at all.

"Funny Ha Ha" started this thing, and I really detested that movie with a passion. My problem with that film was not the lead performance by Kate Dollenmayer-who was pretty decent and disappeared off the face of the earth. My problem was that even though it was realistic, it did not make for interesting viewing. I could have the same plot from "Funny Ha Ha" and go out for a few nights with some friends. Some films actually make you feel like you are hanging out-for example the wedding scene in "The Deer Hunter," or most of "Goodfellas." But these films-"Funny Ha Ha" especially-made me want to go hang out to get away from these so called "characters" who have nothing better to do than to wander around aimlessly, have trouble finding love, and then end up complaining because they have no money. Well, you can see all of the "mumblecore films" you'd like at the IFC Center in New York City from August 22nd to September 4th, in a festival they are calling "The New Talkies: Generation DIY." The festival will include several mumblecore films, many of which I have not seen and do not intend on seeing based on what I've seen so far. They also include one week engagements of "Hannah Takes the Stairs," and "Quiet City," which opened next week and I have nixed from my schedule. This is my only trip to the festival.

Out of the bunch I can recommend one, but I don't know if I would really call it "mumblecore." I saw "The Puffy Chair" a little over a year ago, and while it does feature the "hanging out" scenes, it does seem realistic, but in a sweet and poignant way. The realism comes from the depiction of a relationship between the two characters, and they play it the way people in relationships act. That film actually had a script, and situations that were comic and that worked at the same time. That film is playing on August 26th and 27th at 12:20, and 9:55, and if you have not yet seen it, it's certainly worth checking out.

And now for "Hannah Takes the Stairs."

"Hannah Takes the Stairs" has a foundation over the lead performance by Greta Gerwig-whose cute in a "girl next door" kind of a way. On one very hot summer she is dating Mike, played by "Puffy Chair"s Mark Duplass, who exits this film much too early. But she simply isn't happy, much like Mike wasn't happy working which is why he quit his job and decides to do nothing for a while. I can relate to that, but then again I'm eighteen and he's twenty-eight. Whose the bigger loser? So she dumps him, but soon finds herself dating Paul, one of her co-workers. And we see their relationship, until she begins to become unhappy once more, but finds solace in the arms of her other co-worker friend Matt.

And that's more or less the plot, or better-the loose connection of scenes that make us feel like we're watching conflict. But we're not watching real conflict. We're watching life, but we're watching it in an awkward way that I find more annoying than amusing. I am all for believable dialogue and conversation, but it does not make for interesting film. While I did not find anything to rave about in "Hannah Takes the Stairs," it was a strong notch above the Andrew Bujalski. I just do not like him, and find literally nothing good to say. Even his work in this film-acting wise-I wanted to punch him. He has this aura of a pompous nature, and he was the only character that I actually found to be forcing his so called "believable dialogue and conversation." Take a scene where Hannah asks him to come up to her apartment. They are sitting on a couch and she asks him a question. He picks up a slinky and puts on end over her ear and begins to speak into the other end. No other character does anything this obviously forced and trite, but Bujalski does. I think its because he wants to seem more lifelike, but it just made him completely silly and I was laughing at him, and not with him.

The good thing about this film was Greta Gerwig, who played Hannah. While she doesn't really have a career as an actress in anything than these films, she had a decent center on this one. I think I have a grip on Swanberg's movie-the title, which I think represents Hannah's constant struggle and her hard ways of going through life. She takes the long route of the stairs instead of something simple as an elevator. But when you're watching a movie like this, there is no way to end it because it keeps going on and on. At 82 minutes this should be a breeze, but it seemed like a burden. And the ending, which does find a certain way to close up what is happening, is only tentative peace. Hannah has found happiness for the moment, but based on what happened in the first eighty minutes of the movie you know it isn't going to stay that way. So there is no real conflict or story arc to follow. There is nothing to follow except for our characters going to parties, to each others houses, to work, or to their bedrooms.

All I hear about are raves from critics saying how neat this new wave is, but audiences that I've encountered seem to disagree. At both "Funny Ha Ha," and "Hannah Takes the Stairs," there were tons of walkouts. I remember "Funny Ha Ha" was packed when I walked in, but nearly empty when I left. These films do not have appeal, and they are almost all the same story but with different actors and directors. I do not need to watch characters aimlessly trying to get through life for an hour and a half. It does not make for interesting cinema. Maybe for an interesting experiment, but an entire movement? I think not. I can't see "Mumblecore" being as everlasting-in this time or fifty years from now-as French New Wave or Dogma 95-two more movement I wasn't too fond of-but for now I guess its a sub-level of independent film. The lowest level I can find.

For more information on the Mumblecore festival at IFC, click here. I do recommend you give one a shot, just to experience it, and I recommend "The Puffy Chair" if you have time for it.

Superbad


Superbad ****

Directed by Greg Mottola
Written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg

Starring:
Jonah Hill as Seth
Michael Cera as Evan
Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Fogell/McLovin'
Bill Hader as Officer Slater
Seth Rogen as Officer Michaels
Emma Stone as Jules
Martha MacIsaac as Becca
Aviva as Nicola

114 Minutes(Rated R for pervasive crude and sexual content, strong language, drinking, some drug use and a fantasy/comic violent image - all involving teens. )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was recommended "Superbad" last April when I declined the invitation to a special advanced screening. I gave the paper to a friend of mine who went and said that even though it was unfinished, it was hilarious. I then saw the trailer before "Grindhouse" and thought it looked as funny as she said it was. Only I was surprised by how popular and hyped it became before its released. I kind of thought this film would go in the direction of "Hot Rod" and not in the direction of "Knocked Up-" which I knew would be a strong success. After "Knocked Up" this is the second mainstream comedy of the summer, and is better than that film by a mile. I did give "Knocked Up" a three star rating, but looking back the film just didn't do it for me. More on that later. "Superbad" is very funny, directed fairly well, and the two leads-Michael Cera and Jonah Hill (who you can pinpoint in almost every teen comedy I can think of in recent memory-"40 Year Old Virgin," "Knocked Up," "Grandma's Boy-" have perfect chemistry with one another. They could have been actual friends for years and I probably would not tell the difference. And lastly it has a script-one of raunchy and dirty jokes and even a bit of poignancy that I felt I could relate to in a way. As a matter of fact, this film comes out at the perfect time in my life. But yet again, more on that later.

"Superbad" follows a day in the life of Evan and Seth (fitting because the film was written by Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg, and if you know what Seth Rogan looks like, you'll probably be able to guess which character in the film he is, despite the same names.) The two of them have been friends for years, and were planning on going to college together until they did not get accepted in the same schools. And with three weeks left of school, Seth is planning a sex filled summer, to be prepared for when he goes to college. And that requires getting the cute Jules to become him girlfriend. And Evan has his eyes on Becca. The opportunity arrives when Jules decides to throw a party, and Seth proclaims that he has a fake ID and could bring booze to the party. He really intends on using the fake ID of their nerdy tag-a-long friend Fogell, until they feels that he blows it when his fake ID proclaims him "McLovin'"-a twenty five year old Hawaiian organ donor. Fogell decides to try and buy the booze anyway, and after the store gets robbed, the cops arrive, and Seth and Evan think their friend has been arrested. With sex and not getting jailed on the mind, the two of them flee. But the two cops-Officer Slater and Officer Michaels-actually think that Fogell is a twenty five year old Hawaiann organ donor named McLovin', and the three of them set out for a wild night. Meanwhile Seth and Evan go on a quest for booze to get their nights with their lady loves.

"Superbad" does not so much have a plot but has more situations. This is a long and continuous flowing movie, with one thing leading up to the next. Like a long sentence. As are some of the best nights. I could say that this is not only funnier than June's "Knocked Up," but it is simply a better movie. "Knocked Up" was directed by Judd Apatow, and if you revisit my review for the film, you will see that I don't find Apatow to be a good director. His films are strong by the actors and have nothing to do with the scripts he writes. They are also mostly improv giving this constant awkward and inconsistent feel to it. "Superbad" did not rely solely on the actors to make up witty lines on the spot, but rely on actually comedic situations. The scenes in this movie were well written and the situations these characters find themselves in were funny in themselves. Hill and Cera probably did make up lines off the top of their heads, but if they did I couldn't notice because it all seemed to flow and seem natural. It didn't seem edited down and odd like in "Knocked Up." I'm having a hard time seeing the strong love for that mediocre comedy. The dirty dialogue also didn't seem forced and obvious like in "Knocked Up," and I was able to accept that these characters talked that way just because that was who they were. They were actually believable, and spoke in a constant raunchy rhythm. Not a single line seemed out of place.

In addition to being very funny, there is also a sweet side to this one, even though it doesn't start to shine until the last scenes. At its heart, beyond all the fiflth and raunch, "Superbad" is a film about two friends that want to share this last night with one another. They have been friends for all their lives, and are all each other has, and now they are going to be leaving the protection of one another. Having graduated high school only two months ago, and also seeing all my friends go off to different places, I can relate to this, and its handled very well. The final shot is not only a symbol for the two breaking off into different directions, but also is handled where you know that it is not over. It ends on a very sweet note, and this is yet another film I've seen recently where I have been swept up by nostalgia.

And I've gone this far without discussing one of the films funniest characters-the irresistible McLovin'. played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who was only born a few days before I was, and was literally plucked off the streets for the role. And while I know that he will be haunted by this role for the rest of his life-I mean he was good, but I can't see him ever do any other movie, ever-this is a damn fine film to be known for the rest of your life that you were in. And his friendship with the two cops-one played by Rogan, and I wish the other were played by his co-writer-offers some of the best comedy moments. The clueless cops and just the fact that they called him McLovin' the whole time made me smile. And they get their own little poignant moment at the end as well. Nothing was wasted. "Superbad" is dirty, sometimes mean, sweet, and downright hilarious. The best comedy of the summer and one of the best movies of the year.