Also Opening This Week. . .

One other film opening this week, which I saw in Toronto.

The movie is Syndey Lumet's "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead," and it's a very entertaining, well acted, and well made crime thriller, starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke as two brothers who face consequences after their plan to rob a mom and pop jewerly store goes wrong. I rated the film a *** of ****, and the full review can be found here. See it!

"Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" will be playing at the Angelika Film Center and the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas.

Slipstream

Slipstream ***1/2

Directed by Anthony Hopkins
Written by Anthony Hopkins

Starring;
Anthony Hopkins As Felix Bonhoeffer
Camryn Manheim As Barbara
Lana Antonova As Lily
Fionnula Flanagan As Bette Lustig
Monica Garcia As Monica
Jennifer Anne Franklin As Shelly
Gavin Grazer As Gavin
Christopher Lawford As Lars
Jennifer Mann As Joanie
S. Epatha Merkerson As Bonnie
Christian Slater as Ray
Jeffrey Tambor as Geek / Jeffrey / Dr. Geekman

96 Minutes(Rated R for language and some violent images. )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Slipstream" was directed by Anthony Hopkins, and it certainly is the most unusual, experimental, and interesting films released probably since last year's David Lynch exercise, "Inland Empire." And its clear that Hopkins gets a strong influence from Lynch, using actors to pay several people, jumping in time, quick edits, odd voice overs. And yet I walked away from 'Slipstream" with a firmer grasp over what Hopkins was trying to say than I ever do from a Lynch film. Hopkins has created an interesting experiment-trying to tell the story of a man, a writer, on the verge of death, reflecting on his life, imagining people as characters in his screenplay, and then sometimes they are real people, and then sometimes they are closer to him than they are in reality, all leading up the end of the man's life-this isn't a spoiler, it's told in the first line of the film.

Hopkins plays Felix Bonhoeffer. In the beginning we learn that Felix is dead. He is a writer whose working on a screenplay about two gangsters-one played by Christian Slater and the other played by Jeffrey Tambor-who get involved in a diner robbery. In reality it turns out that Slater, a man named Matt Dobbs, has begun to take over the directing job from the actual director, a rather incompetent man who directs with a baby strapped on his stomach because his wife is suffering from post pardon depression. Then we get more involved with Felix-who sometimes has a wife named Gina (played by Hopkins actual wife), but she is also sometimes a character in the movie, and then sometimes the niece of a woman that he knows, depending on what is going on in his subconscious. And there is a certain amount of commentary on actors and their roles-Slater actually ends up dying from overacting at one point-and a segment involving some of the characters from Felix's screenplay end up in his hard drive, complaining about how Felix is killing them all off. A producer played by John Turturro is depicted as a loud mouthed angry and self-absorbed man, who plays, but hates, golf, and only seems to play because it seems to fit his job. He proclaims "I eat writers for breakfast!"

Am I doing a good job explaining the plot for "Slipstream?" Probably not. Why? Because this isn't so much a plot as it is a puzzle. We know that its about a man who is dying. As for the other characters and actors, you have to figure it out for yourself. It certainly is exhausting watching this film, but you don't walk out of it confused and puzzled about what you saw. You have a grasp on what is happening, although you should see it a couple of times. And even though I gave this the same rating as 'Inland Empire," I think that Hopkins was better at making a film about a man in a dreamlike state, if only because his film made me feel like it had a strong point, and it made me feel like I was watching something bigger than experimentation. Hopkins stated that he made this film "as a joke, just to have a good time," and it's clear that he did. The editing is wild and all over the place, and a scene where the continuity script girl is killed off and a parked car changes colors between shots was witty, and its clear that Hopkins was poking fun at the industry that he has been involved in for years. By the time the credits rolled, and as I went home, and even now, I like this movie more and more. I liked how it was daring and made sense at the same time. I liked how I was very involved at what was happening. I liked the sly jokes, and dialogue-especially references to "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," whose star is imagined by Felix to be driving down a road with him. I hope that Hopkins will make another movie one day, as "Slipstream" is an inspired and extremely enjoyable effort.

Now "Slipstream' is leaving New York tonight, from it's only theatre in the city, but hopefully any non-New York readers will be able to find it somewhere where they are in the upcoming weeks.

Rails & Ties

Rails & Ties ***

Directed by Alison Eastwood
Written by Micky Levy

Starring:
Kevin Bacon as Tom Stark
Marcia Gay Harden as Megan Stark
Miles Heizer as Davey Danner
Marin Hinkle as Renee
Eugene Byrd as Otis Higgs

102 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for mature thematic elements, an accident scene, brief nudity and momentary strong language. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going into "Rails & Ties," I didn't really know what to expect. The film premiered last month at the Toronto Film Festival, yet I never encountered anyone who saw a screening of it or even knew what it was. It had hardly any buzz. It opened to lukewarm reviews, and it opened with a box office smaller than the amount of money I made last year working in a theatre. I was pleasantly surprised. "Rails & Ties" is the directing debut of Alison Eastwood, with strong relation to the other famous Eastwood out there, Clint. In fact, she is his daughter. She has done acting work in before, and the film that I seem to relate to her best with is "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil," oddly enough directed by her father, but with this movie-which doesn't have the name Clint on it anywhere-it's clear that maybe in a couple of films she'll direct her way to the big top. "Rails & Ties" is a quietly effective and extremely well acted drama, and perhaps it suffers a bit from being too loaded with drama, a fault of the script. But what makes it aim higher than your standard made for television drama is the performances by Kevin Bacon and Marcia Gay Harden-who is also out there right now is a good indie drama called "Canvas." As for Bacon, this is some of the best work he's done in a few years-maybe the last great work he did in "Mystic River" or even "The Woodsman," and he's done several films since then.

Bacon and Harden play a married couple-Tom and Megan Stark-who have been married for several years but their relationship is dying out. It could be from the fact that they never had children during their long marriage, and it could also be that Tom can't face the fact that his wife is dying of cancer. Tom works as a train driver, and driving the train on one fated Tuesday he sees something on the tracks-a car. He makes a judgment to go by the books and try to slow the train down instead of pulling an emergency break, and ends up killing the woman inside, who wanted to die anyway. Her eleven year old son manages to get away. The kid, Davy, ends up being sent to a foster home where the woman always wanted a girl. He escapes and ends up going to Tom and Megan's house. She is excited and wants to keep him-without letting the authorities know. He'll know that if they found out he would loose his job, and his upcoming hearing does not make things better. But they keep Davy and begin to care for him as their own, while Davy's social worker is hot on the trail trying to find the boy who has been declared missing.

There are a few eyerolling moments scattered throughout the film, but I think a lot of the fault lays with the screenplay, by Micky Levy. Some lines like Megan speaking to Tom-"You're like sand. I keep trying to get a hold of you and you just slip through my fingers" is a bit out there, and maybe there is just one too many dramatic plot devices into place. Davy's mother is rather out there-with men, drinking, maybe even drugs. The cancer plotline. Even the fact that Davy and Tom are very much alike, from their clothing to the fact that both of them love trains. But the acting manages to make this film be something more than a melodramatic excursion. Kevin Bacon is very strong here, in a season that is filled with great male performances. Marcia Gay Harden is doing a different variation of "Canvas"-still ill, and with that same maternal tendency. I liked the way in which Eastwood directed this film. She never got too showy or experimental. She seemed keen are trying to tell an effective story, which she does. She tells a story of a man that seems set into his ways-and distant from everything that is important. He doesn't know how to progress forward, a strong irony as his career and life is built about constant motion. "Rails & Ties" isn't the strongest film out there, but in the disappointing dramas of the last two weeks, this one is actually one worth soughting out. The box office disappointment is a shame.

Now Playing at Angelika and Lincoln Center 12 and IMAX, but both theatres are giving it up and its moving to
AMC Empire 25 and Village East Cinemas Friday November 2nd.

Dan in Real Life

Dan in Real Life ***

Directed by Peter Hedges
Written by Peter Hedges and Pierce Gardner

Starring:
Steve Carell as Dan Burns
Juliette Binoche as Marie
Dane Cook as Mitch Burns
Alison Pill as Jane Burns
Brittany Robertson as Cara Burns
Marlene Lawston as Lilly Burns
Dianne Wiest as Nana
John Mahoney as Poppy Burns
Norbert Leo Butz as Clay Burns

98 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for some innuendo. )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dan in Real Life" is that feel good movie of the season-at least until December's "The Bucket List" comes out. Over the years Steve Carell has been really making a sort of name for himself-starting out in comedies like "Anchorman" and "Bruce Almighty," and now he's a name. And while "Dan in Real Life" will probably not appease the fans he made with "The 40 Year Old Virgin," it really is a sweet little movie-to be taken with a certain amount of leniency-it's not exactly a depiction of real life-but more on reality later-it's a romance comedy, with some nice insight on family and relationships, and a few laughs to boot. This movie is too harmless to not like, but also at times a little too cute for its own good. It's not one of the best movies of the year, but its diverting, and great counter programming to the already box office winner 'Saw IV."

Carell plays Dan Burns-a newspaper advice columnist who apparently knows all about relationships and family, and the concept of syndication has slowly been talked about. However, his life isn't all perfection like his advice. Dan's wife died, and he is left with his three daughters-the seventeen year old Jane who wants to drive, the fifteen year old Cara who claims to be in love with her boyfriend Marty, and the even younger Lilly, who went Jane and Cara won't speak to him states "You're a good father, but a bad dad." The four of them go to a home in the country with Dan's parents, his brothers, his sister, and their families. Him being single now he has to sleep in the laundry room, often falling asleep to the sounds of washing clothes. He goes out one morning and takes a little walk and ends up meeting Marie in a bookstore-played by Juliette Binoche. The two of them get along and talk for hours until she gets a call from her significant other and has to leave-but he still cops a number. It isn't until he gets back to the house where he learns that Marie has been dating his brother Mitch-played by Dane Cook, whose best film is still 'Mr. Brooks." The two of them try to forget about what happened between them, and certainly not tell anyone, but as the week goes on Dan falls under her spell easily, and tries to get it together without making a complete fool of himself.

What really does make the movie work on a high level is the chemistry between Carell and Binoche. This is actually a rather odd film for her to be in-I'm so used to seeing her in such dramatic foreign films, but in the world of mainstream Hollywood comedies it works. I actually believed they could be happy together, and wanted them to end up happy in the end. Maybe its because I'm a sucker for romance done right. Both of those performances are terrific. And I would have preferred a little more of them, and a little less of the extended family happiness montages-Dan's family likes to do things together, which is fine-from crossword puzzle competitions to charades to playing football-but I didn't need to see it all in detail. I would have enjoyed a few less montages and a few more scenes of development in the main relationship-including a segment in a bowling alley.

In regards to the title, yes, this movie does not really depict real life-in fact at times its far from real life. But I think that writer/director Peter Hedges-who made the rather sour, but for some reason loved "Pieces of April" a few years back-was going for a certain amount of irony with the term "real." First of all, "Dan in Real Life" is the name of his column. Dan's trip to see his family seems to have them wanting to escape real life-hence the rather long happy family montages. And yet the harsh realities of life-the surprises, the heartache, the complications-seem to just force themselves right in. Marie, the Binoche character, at one point says that she is with Mitch because she got out of a tough relationship and he was fun and funny. And yet that seems to be all that he is-not a committed person, not serious-somebody outside of real life. I actually think that there is something a bit more involved in the rather carefree aspects of the movie, and not it being underwritten-kind of a play on words, irony thing happening. I actually think this is a very smart script, with quite a few things to say-things said by other characters end up applying to much different characters later on. The daughter claims she loves her boyfriend after knowing him for three days-a character played by Emily Blunt later on laments that she only got to be with her boyfriend for three days, and Dan claims to love Marie after three days, and it's clever how it all comes full circle.

I did like this film, quite a bit. It's a great escape, it's sweet, funny, and you leave satisfied. Carell is terrific as a rather down in his luck guy trying to change his life-the humor comes from the heart and feels natural, and the characters-from Carell, to Binoche, to the daughters, all have their little flaws and quirks, they don't always do the right thing but they are endearing. The ending leaves a few things open, but it does state that the ability to at least try to find love and happiness is always there-it may not be perfection every time, but life isn't perfection. "Dan in Real Life" is a winner.

Also Opening This Week. . .

Two other films opening in release this weekend, both of which I've seen already but am reminding you about them anyway.

The first is the re-release of the re-released film "The Nightmare Before Christmas," except the catch is that its in Dolby Digital 3-D. This is clear picture, and 3-D images that (sometimes) actually look like they are coming at you. It's a pleasure to see this movie on the big screen in any form, even though at times the 3-D effect was a bit irritating. But I gave this new experience of the film a **** rating when I saw it during its first release one year ago this weekend. You could find my complete review for the film by clicking here.

The Nightmare Before Christmas in 3-D is playing at the beautiful Zeigfeld, a reason why I might actually want to go again, especially after my "Blade Runner" experience.

The second film opening is "Wristcutters: A Love Story" a sometimes delightful, sometimes full of itself indie film about a group of people that end up in a purgatory type place after they all killed themselves in different ways. I saw the film at a special screening last April, and said that the movie was good, but I foresaw that it would be popular among the younger crowd, who will eat it up and proclaim it much better than it really is. But it's a nice film at times, and I actually laughed out loud at several moments. A great supporting job by Tom Waits is icing on the cake. I rated the film *** of ****, and you could find my complete review for the film by clicking here.

"Wristcutters: A Love Story" will be released at the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas and the Regal Union Square.

Gone Baby Gone

Gone Baby Gone ***1/2

Directed by Ben Affleck
Written by Ben Affleck and Aaron Stockard, based on the book by Dennis Lehane

Starring:
Casey Affleck as Patrick Kenzie
Michelle Monaghan as Angie Gennaro
Morgan Freeman as Jack Doyle
Ed Harris as Detective Remy Bressant
John Ashton as Nick Poole
Amy Ryan as Helene McCready
Amy Madigan as Beatrice McCready

114 Minutes(Rated R for violence, drug content and pervasive language. )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I came to the conclusion at some point during Ben Affleck's masterful directorial debut "Gone Baby Gone" that either people are good at translating the work of Dennis Lehane-whose novels I have never read-or he is an extremely powerful author. His novels brought two great films to the screen-the first being Clint Eastwood's 2003 film 'Mystic River," and now with "Gone Baby Gone" I know who to go to if I want to read a great mystery story. There are many twists and turns all throughout this film, and not only that but there are deep characters, extraordinary acting by a few masters and a few rising wonders, and it is even made as if it were done by a pro. Affleck hasn't wowed anyone with his acting for the last few years, but made quite a turn in last year's "Hollywoodland," but maybe behind the camera is the right place for him to be. He certainly will not be insulted for his work here.

Affleck directs his own brother Casey-the best actor in the family-as Patrick Kenzie, a private investigator who works on same town cases with his girlfriend Angie Gennaro-played by Michelle Monaghan, who I always knew would somehow rise higher than next to nothing appearances in "Mr. and Mrs. Smith." The two of them are asked by Beatrice McCready to help find a her missing niece-the young Amanda. Her mother Helene, a junkie, goes on the news all the time to ask for help to find her daughter, and Patrick and Angie reluctantly take the case-both because its a job that's way above what they are used to, and they are scared about what they would end up finding. The two of them begin the investigation, with the help of Jack Doyle, a cop in charge of a unit to make sure that children are safe, and Detective Remy Bressant, another cop that has no mercy for those that do bad things to children.

That's really all you need to know walking in, as "Gone Baby Gone" takes several twists and turns starting from the second reel. So much happens in the movie, and every twist actually seems like it could have actually happened. It never seems too much, or it never seems padded into the script. And beyond the great mystery story-and this is part investigation, part action film, and part character drama-there is terrific and very strong performances to boost. Casey Affleck is finally getting the credit he deserves-last year's "Lonesome Jim" and "The Last Kiss" combined with this and "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" already make an impressive filmography. Michelle Monaghan is also very good, and I'm glad Affleck didn't cast a well known leading lady when there is such a treasure that is always under the radar-she was also one of the few right moves in "The Heartbreak Kid." And Morgan Freeman is perfection as usual, but it's Ed Harris who I think could snag a Supporting Actor nomination early next year. And it's not only credit to the actors for giving in strong performances, but there was a lot to work with on the page.

To start with Casey Affleck's character Patrick is easy. This is a character that changes constantly-is always being given choices to make, many of them extremely difficult, and by the end he is nowhere near the person he started out as. Seeing changes in the characters played by Harris and Freeman are a bit more difficult, but they are in a constant change of mood. Their principles are put to strong tests throughout. I think I might drift away from classy literature for a bit and actually pick up a book by Dennis Lehane. "Mystic River" was one of the best movies of 2003, and "Gone Baby Gone" is one of the better movies of this year. I don't know if its a credit to Lehane or if he's just been lucky getting good film makers to bring his work to the screen, but whichever it is, these are believable mystery stories, with real situations and real characters brought to life through good writing, direction, and acting. This movie is so strong and packed with so many turns that even though you may predict part of it, you're always far away from the big picture.

War and Peace (1968)

War and Peace (1968) ***1/2

Directed by Sergei Bondarchuk
Written by Sergei Bondarchuk and Vasili Solovyov, based on the novel by Leo Tolstoy

Starring:
Lyudmila Savelyeva as Natasha Rostova
Vyacheslav Tikhonov as Prince Andrei Bolkonsky
Irina Gubanova as Soniya
Antonina Shuranova as Princess Mariya
Sergei Bondarchuk as Pierre Bezukhov
Vasili Lanovoy as Anatol
Vladislav Strzhelchika as Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte
Angelina Stepanova as Anna Pavlovna
Viktor Stanitsyn as Ilya Andreyevich Rostov
Oleg Yefremov as Dolokhov

420 Minutes(Not Rated)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was with a minor amount of hesitation, and a strong amount of curiosity that made me trudge out to New York's Film Forum on a rainy afternoon to sit through the seven hour 1968 Russian film "War and Peace." Seven hours is a lot of time to devote to a film, and because the theatre wanted more money, I was forced to pay twice-once for the first part which is playing for four hours, followed by a two hour dinner break, and then a second admission for the last three hours of the film. Both parts are separated into two other parts, with an ten minute intermission in between, giving three breaks in the whole thing. The ten minute breaks are fine, but the two hour one I had a problem with. But it was important that I went on a Wednesday-one of three days, the other two being Saturday and Sunday, where you could see the whole film in one day. You can see the parts in whatever order whenever you want, but like two years ago when I saw the Italian masterpiece "The Best of Youth," there is something about continuing the spell of the film-trying to make the break in between as short as possible. I even sat in the same seat during the second part as I did the first to try and distance myself from the break at all.

And it was a long day-an entire day of my life went to Sergei Bondarchuk. And how was the money? Well, it was massive, and I don't use that word often. This film is probably the most massive and ambitious project that I have ever witnessed-and I was lucky to see it in all it's glory on the big screen-and I suggest that any person that calls themselves a fan of film will go out to Film Forum by next Thursday to see this. But there is a big difference between admiring a film and actually liking it, and in the end I think I felt the same way about Herzog's "Fitzcarraldo," which I recently saw on the big screen, as I do about Bondarchuk's "War and Peace." I can see the strong effort that went into it. I was able to see images on the screen that I have never, and will never, see anything equal to. But during this film I found it hard to really actually involve myself with the characters-the long term three characters, not the countless relatives and friends and associates that we are introduced to throughout. Maybe the blame lays at the fact that no film can ever really translate the original. I have not read Tolstoy's novel, but I do have it laying on my bookshelf for that moment where I decide it's time to crack to open, but there are some movies that have a hard time translating a two hundred page novel, let along a fourteen hundred page novel. Despite that, this might just be the most massive epic I was ever treated to, and you certainly will never ever see anything like this again.

I really don't think that there is one long moral to this film-it's from such massive material that there is constantly things going on-scores and scores of characters are introduced by the second, and you really need paper to keep track. They all have different names deciding on who is talking to them-I had the same problem when I read "The Brothers Karamosov" or even "Crime and Punishment." But I think Bondarchuk did a good job dividing the film into its separate parts. Part One of the film is our introduction to the three main characters. The first is Pierre Bezukhov, played by our writer and director Sergei Bondarchuk. One of Pierre's jobs is taking care of and educating Natasha Rostova. Our first impression of her is that she is a rather irritating child, going through her scenes like a deranged dancer, her eyes wide with innocence, and hope-and maybe even a little insanity. We also meet Prince Andrei Bolkonsky. The first two and a half hours describes how these characters change, who they are, and events. The second part of the movie feature more of Natasha, and the young lady that she ends up becoming. We follow her as she worries that nobody will want to dance with her at her first ball. She is asked to dance by Prince Andrei, and the two of them fall in love. Eventually he asks her to marry him, but he does need to go away for a year first-and she can also use the time to decide if she does indeed love him. She eventually begins to fall in love with another man, and this part charts their doomed loved affair, including Pierre's confession that if he were a better man, he would ask her to love him. This part ends the segments between 1805 and 1812, and war soon begins. The third part tells of the Battle of Bolonov, and the fourth part Napolean's destruction of Moscow.

The first two parts really do rely more on character and plot, while the latter two parts ends up being one of the screens biggest spectacles ever. The first two parts, for the most part, take place during a time of peace, an irony as what is going on in the characters lives is far from peace. And every single shot in this movie is so extraordinarily well plotted-from an amazing ballroom dancing scene in part two, with thousands of extras seemingly dancing in unison, to a simple shot of a young girl-Natasha-emerging from a room for the first time-wide eyed and happy. The battle scenes during the over hour long battle in the third part is a complete wonder to behold, and Bondarchuk uses so much depth in showing the fight, that in addition to the massive explosions going on at the front of the screen, there are tiny smoke clouds and fires all in the background, dotted against the sky. I watched in a certain amazement, trying to imagine how hard it must have been to plan these shots-the actually be a part of what was happening. It's one of the great wonders of the world how they made this.

"War and Peace" ended up winning the Best Foreign Language film at the Academy Awards in 1968. Did it deserve it? Yes it did. This is a wonderfully made movie, but at the same time, with it being so massive, I really did have a hard time getting involved in the human elements of the movie-maybe there were so many characters in such a small period of time-and yes, with this type of material, seven hours is not a very long time-and the first part especially seemed to drag a bit. I just felt distant from the whole thing, and I have a feeling this will be argued. But the technical achievements are just so incredible that you sometimes just want to forget about plot and forget about following the story, and just put yourself right in the middle of the splendor of the image. I suggest all serious film fans try to get the chance to see this version of "War and Peace" on the big screen, as every shot is something special and beautiful-it's a wonder to behold.

More information at Film Forum.

Things We Lost in the Fire

Things We Lost in the Fire ***

Directed by Susanne Bier
Written by Allan Loeb

Starring:
Halle Berry as Audrey Burke
Benicio Del Toro as Jerry Sunborne
David Duchovny as Steven Burke
Alexis Llewellyn as Harper Burke
Micah Berry as Dory Burke
John Carroll Lynch as Howard Glassman
Alison Lohman as Kelly

117 Minutes(Rated R for drug content and language. )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I never wrote a review for the movie because it was before I even had this website, I remember after seeing 2005's "North Country' saying how the movie was bad and would no doubt be nominated for a slew of award because it managed to pack in as many Academy Award Nominated Cliches as possible. In other words, it was made to win awards, and it showed. Several people did fall under the AANC spell, but I managed to stay clear. In the end, the film didn't win any Academy Awards, but it did get two acting nominations for Charlize Theron and Frances McDormand-the former a female who wants to get rid of bad conditions in the work place, and the latter someone who ends up getting ill later in the movie and does manage to make a compelling courtroom scene even more corny. To this day I don't understand how the movie managed to get high ratings for certain critics. 2007's "Things We Lost in the Fire" seems to certainly take the cake with having as many Academy Award Nominated Cliches as possible, and yet I gave this movie a whole one star greater than the other. Simply because even though this script was trying to get awards, the performance in this movie are so good and so believable, that "Things We Lost in the Fire," despite being cliche and packed too much at times, managed to be a somewhat worthy experience.

Halle Berry-who has finally broken free of her after Oscar-"Catwoman" and "Perfect Stranger. . ." shudder. She plays Audrey Burke, a wife and mother of three whose husband Steven-played by always good David Duchovny-was just killed trying to stop a man from beating up a woman. At the last minute she contacts Steven's old friend and recovering drug addict Jerry Sunborne (Benicio Del Toro in his best work to date). She finds Jerry living in a clinic helping out in exchange for room and board, and she invites him to stay in her somewhat furnished garage. He accepts, but doesn't seem to understand why. He begins bonding with her two children, who seem to think that he is replacing their father somehow, and both Jerry and Audrey begin to heal-and they both realize that they need one another to do just that.

So where to begin-the recovering wife, drug addiction, two kids finding a new father figure, a segment where Jerry succumbs back to drugs. This movie certainly does it's best to cram in as much emotion as possible using all kinds of award winning methods, but if you sometimes disregard the script and look at this as a performance piece, it really is well done. Halle Berry isn't my favorite actress in the world, but here she is giving it her all despite a rather contrived character-and she's extremely believable. This movie is told mostly in flashbacks, beginning after the death and the first forty five minutes are dedicated to showing her marriage to Steven-the good and the bad. In the end, though, it was Benicio Del Toro who managed to blow me away. I haven't seen much with Del Toro over the years-"Traffic," "21 Grams," and "The Hunted." And I always recognized what a good actor he was, but was never able to see him in such a prominent and effective role. Even though they pack in a relapse section of the movie to give him some more screen time, his performance by quite effective despite the contrived moments on the page.

I suppose I am recommending this movie for the acting, and Susanne Bier, who directed "After the Wedding" and "Brothers." This is her first film in America, and while I wish she had a better script to work with-one that doesn't resort to several easy routes-it's a well done movie that manages to be quite heartfelt at times. I was grateful that this didn't turn into a love story between the Berry and Del Toro character, at least not in a physical sense-more on an emotional level. They love each other because at this moment they need someone to love-Berry does have her kids, but its love on a different level than that. Del Toro has my pick for a Best Actor nomination for sure, and Berry maybe Best Actress unless someone better comes along. "Things We Lost in the Fire" is an effective, but obvious drama.

Rendition

Rendition **1/2

Directed by Gavin Hood
Written by Kelley Sane

Starring:
Reese Witherspoon as Isabella Fields El-Ibrahimi
Jake Gyllenhaal as Douglas Freeman
Meryl Streep as Corrine Whitman
Alan Arkin as Senator Hawkins
Aramis Knight as Jeremy El-Ibrahimi
Omar Metwally as Anwar El-Ibrahimi
David Fabrizio as William Dixon
J.K. Simmons as Lee Mayer
Peter Sarsgaard as Alan Smith

120 Minutes(Rated R for torture/violence and language. )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Rendition" reminded me of a line in that Talking Heads song "Psycho Killer." "Say something once, why say it again?" which is exactly how I felt by the end of this film-a political film that has a lot to say, but nothing very new or innovative. I have the sneaking suspicion that the people behind this movie felt they were making something a little more important than it ended up being, and on the whole "Rendition" turned out to be a rather mediocre political thriller-and if your looking for something to test your brain, entertain, and be filled with immense talent on all corners, stick with 'Michael Clayton"-which I'm sure we'll hear from again next January. "Rendition" should, and will, fade into the dust. Billing Reese Witherspoon as the lead star was also a bad idea, as she is in about twenty five percent of the movie. Her last real scene of talking occurs when there is about thirty minutes left, but then again the top billing actor couldn't have been an unknown named Omar Metwally. I have another feeling that the five main stars here are all here because it would have been a hard sell without them.

"Rendition" has Reese as Isabella Fields El-Ibrahimi, a pregnant mother and wife to Anwar El-Ibrahimi, who coming home from a business trip is taken by the United States government while he is leaving the airport, and all his information is deleted from the records. He vanishes. He is in fact a suspect of a terrorist attack, and becomes a victim of "rendition," where the United States ships a person overseas where they could do whatever brutal exercises they wish to get information they need. A CIA analyst named Douglas Freeman, played flat by Jake Gyllenhaal, is having reservations about what they are doing to the man, and when talking to a superior he declares, in the films best line, "Sorry, this is my first torture." Convinced that her husband is still alive, Isabella flies to Washington and asks help from Alan Smith, an old friend and aid to a senator-played by Alan Arkin.

There is also a plot involving someone in the North African country where the terrorist attack ends up taking place, and this seems to be a bit of a random thread, even though by the end it makes sense how it fits into the whole piece. But this storyline seemed to make this movie want to be "Babel," trying to connect several people from all over the world. But instead of actually exerting emotion and being expertly made, "Rendition" really takes its stand on the issue at hand in the most obvious ways possible. There is not a subtle bone in this films body-this movie is telling us it does not agree with American policies all the time. There was a "shape up" message in last months "In the Valley of Elah,' another film that was not subtle about what it wanted to say, but that was bordered by great performances and actually emotion. I could not care about anybody in this movie because everyone was so one dimensional. Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal are two quite good actors usually, but here they are flat. I almost don't blame the actors considering how underdeveloped their characters are in the script-both of them barely given any screen time to make any heads or tails about them. The character played by Meryl Streep is also hardly used, and there is now two sides to her-she is just plain rude and cruel. A better film would have given several sides to her, no matter what the films message is. Alan Arkin is quite good, and I wish there was more of him, and Peter Sarsgaard does some good work, but the problem is there is not enough of them.

The story does start out quite good, but that's before it ends up taking simple turns at every corner. The movie was just too easy, being very "in your face" about the issues at hands. It's underwritten and underdone, and maybe less time on that other story in North Africa, and more time developing the central characters. This is a forgettable Oscar baited film, and it's a shame because director Gavin Hood's last movie was the very good "Tsotsi." Maybe he should stay out of Hollywood. There is a reason why this was given a straight out wide release instead of being built up over the rest of the fall.

Reservation Road

Reservation Road **

Directed by Terry George
Written by Terry George and John Burnham Schwartz, based on the novel by John Burnham Schwartz

Starring:
Joaquin Phoenix as Ethan Learner
Jennifer Connelly as Grace Learner
Mark Ruffalo as Dwight Arno
Mira Sorvino as Ruth Wheldon
Elle Fanning as Emma Learner

102 Minutes(Rated R for language and some disturbing images. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reservation Road" is based on a rather popular and bestselling novel by a man named John Burnham Schwartz. I have not read the book, but over the last few weeks-ever since I first saw an ad for this film-I pondered if I should read it or not. The trailer was slightly ambiguous-not really revealing much about the plot. I decided not to read the book, and to instead let the film tell its story in its own way. And when the credits to the film began to roll, and I left the room, and went up the escalator back to the real world, I was struck with the notion that the film did not give the book justice-and I have not even read the book. But I know that the writing in that novel must have been ten times better than the writing in the film, and at a time where award worthy films are beginning to be released and true Oscar bait comes into the spotlight, I knew that "Reservation Road" was released at the wrong time. And unless you look at this as a performance piece-and even those aren't the greatest works in the world by these talented actors-"Reservation Road" is almost a waste of time.

The film stars Joaquin Phoenix as Ethan Learner, a family man with two children-Emma and Josh-and a beautiful wife Grace, played by the talented Jennifer Connelly. We also meet Dwight Armo, played by the by the always welcome Mark Ruffalo, who is taking his son out to a Red Sox game. He only gets his son on some weekends, and is mostly kept on lockdown by his ex-wife Ruth, played by Mira Sorvino. While trying to avoid hitting another car, the speeding Dwight ends up running into Ethan's son, killing him instantly. But scared and confused, Dwight flees, telling his black eyed son that he hit a log. Ethan and Grace go into complete grief mode, and Ethan finds solace on Internet chat rooms where the users are people who are suffering loss. Meanwhile Dwight also goes into grief mode, suddenly careful of his surroundings and always worried that he would be caught. Especially when two (unforgivable) coincidences happen to him-Ethan's daughter is piano student and Ruth is her teacher, and Ethan ends up going to Dwight-who happens to be a lawyer-for legal advice on finding the guy who did it. And when nobody seems to be able to help him, Ethan decides to bring justice into his own hands.

The script relies too much on contrived coincidences, and the several connections between Dwight and Ethan, emotionally and socially, end up being more used as plot devices to get to the unsatisfying conclusion, than actually being something believable. I can probably understand what direction the novel takes in telling this story. The film is littered with connections between Ethan and Dwight, trying to highlight the point that victim and suspect are able to be on the same emotional level when it comes to tragic circumstances. We would see a shot of Ethan laying in a bed, with tears in his eyes, and then the very next shot will be Dwight in the same, or similar, position. This makes us never feel like Ethan or Dwight is a main character, but they are really two aspects of the same person. The tragedy ends up being a palindrome between the two. It begins nor ends with either one of them. I imagine that the novel really gets into these characters heads, something that is hard to do on the screen. And in the end, the film suffers because the script just seems so unbelievable-so impossible-and so easy.

The actors really do try to resonate a certain level of emotion that just isn't there on the page. And the best performance in the whole piece is definitely Mark Ruffalo, who at times I actually believed, especially during a climatic scene on the shores of a lake. I was disappointed in Joaquin Phoenix, whose stoic and rather distant behavior should make sense in the grief his character is feeling, but most of the time he just looked disinterested and bored. Jennifer Connelly also tries her best, but rather lame dialogue also makes it hard to take her seriously. Mira Sovino is just awful, and from her first scene where she is fighting with Ruffalo, with the cliche new husband by her side, I knew that her role in the piece would be just useless. Mark Islam's score goes over the top at times, especially during the opening credits. And I'm really upset with writer/director Terry George, who wrote such a powerful screenplay with "Hotel Rwanda," that this material should have come much better instead of being such a mediocre outing. "Reservation Road" reeks of false promise-what could have been a strong film ends up being more of a puff piece. Ruffalo is almost a good enough reason to go, and if they promoted him for Best Supporting Actor he might have a shot.

Now Playing At:
Lincoln Plaza Cinemas
Landmark Sunshine Cinemas

30 Days of Night

30 Days of Night **1/2

Directed by David Slade
Written by Steve Niles, Stuart Beattie, and Brian Nelson ,based on the graphic novel by Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith

Starring:
Josh Hartnett as Eben Oleson
Melissa George as Stella Oleson
Danny Huston as Marlow
Ben Foster as The Stranger
Mark Boone Junior as Beau Brower
Mark Rendall as Jake Oleson
Amber Sainsbury as Denise

113 Minutes(Rated R for strong horror violence and language. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was refreshing to finally actually see another mainstream horror movie that was filled with legitimate gore and brutality. That isn't to say that we haven't had gore and brutality, but the "Saw" and "Hostel" movies certainly don't use blood in a legitimate way-and by that I mean through plot. At least "30 Days of Night" tried to tell a story in between as the violence, and that means that we are taking some kind of step forward in the horror genre. Maybe it's not dead after all. . .not just yet. In addition, this might be the first real horror film in a while to get the golden R rating, steering well clear of the PG-13 that Hollywood seems to love. But like every modern horror film-even the ones that are almost good-the movie is littered with bad acting, one dimensional carbon characters, and quite an insane plot. And the ending is a bit too easy-at least one aspect of it.

Taking place in Alaska, where for one month a year the sun doesn't rise at all, this small town is emptying out for the month. Some people stay of course, and one of those is Eben Oleson-played by Josh Harnett, not a huge step above his work in "The Black Dahlia" acting wise-the town sheriff. He's been having problems with his wife, now separated, Stella Oleson-played by Melissa George-who is in town visiting on work detail. When she misses her flight and prepares to spend thirty days in town, spending time with her husband is the least of her worries. The town is really being invaded by blood sucker vampires-led by, of all actors, Danny Huston-who have realized what a great idea it is to be here-they can't take the sun, and the sun isn't coming out any time soon. They begin their bloodbath, and Eben, Stella, and a large group of others in town begin to find shelter to hide from the vampires until they could get sun again.

I often don't like when movies, especially ones like this, try to have a script with character conflict beyond the fact that vampires are after them. For example, the reasons for Josh Harnett and Melissa George having been separated just seem like a waste of time-and trying to inject drama into such cardboard cutouts of real people makes me feel like the screenwriters felt they had something more on their hands than a B-horror movie. If they didn't pretend they were more important than they were, and focused more on horror and scares we could have had something better. Because when it comes to horror and scares and brutality, "30 Days of Night" really doesn't take any prisoners. These vampires are ruthless murderers, and not suave and sophisticated beings like some vampire films try to make them out to be. While Harnett and George are quite bad here-with Melissa George at times trying to sound like Frances McDormand from "Fargo"-it's Danny Huston that seems to shine. Huston has always been quite an oddball, and I though he delivered good work in films like "Silver City" and even "Birth," and his wacky cameo in 'Children of Men." But here, even though its something a little different than what I usually see him in, he fits in perfectly as the head vampire-and he always did have that odd creepy look about him-untrustworthy almost. It made me happy to see him abandon the limited release films to do something a little off color, for him.

On the whole, "30 Days of Night" was a decent horror film, at times drifting from its real focus-of horror and gore-and drifting onto character development. But when you're just throwing in character development for the sake of throwing it in, don't bother at all. And when it does try to make these people real, it does a terrible job. The acting is quite poor-especially by side characters-the script is a little hookey-a little girl vampire is seen eating someone at one point and gets up and says "I'm tired of playing with this one. Do you want to play with me now!"-but at times there are some good scares, good gore, and that's all I really expect with mainstream horror. At times, director David Slade, who directed the much better "Hard Candy"-does get a bit stylish, but in a good way. As this is based on a graphic novel he tries to stick with those roots. One scene where a vampire jumps on top of someones car, they speed up the vampire-covered in black shadow-and it provides quite a creepy and even artistic image. I have a feeling Slade was barred from Hollywood to do some other stylish things he would have liked to do-especially after how great "Hard Candy" was visually-but he is a film maker to look out for.

Out of the Blue

Out of the Blue ***

Directed by Robert Sarkies
Written by Robert Sarkies, based on the book by Bill O'Brien

Starring:
Karl Urban as Nick Harvey
Matthew Sunderland as David Gray
Lois Lawn as Helen Dickson
Simon Ferry as Garry Holden
Tandi Wright as Julie-Anne Bryson
Paul Glover as Paul Knox

103 Minutes(Not Rated-Strong Violence and Language)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain to fall under the radar from now until the end of time, "Out of the Blue" is certainly a shocking film, and one that ends up being both tragic and hard to watch and at the same times uplifting. It also leads me to believe that if there wasn't an IFC Center in Manhattan, this film may never have even been brought to the states, and a one theatre opening weekend with only two shows a day is not satisfying. Based on a real life event that occurred for a twenty four hour period on November 13th in a little village in New Zealand called Aramoana, "Out of the Blue" puts you right in the middle of tragic events as they are happening, without the stale victim subplots. This is probably one of the most realistic looks into a mass killing that I have ever seen.

November 13th really started like a day of any other, and for the first twenty minutes of the movie we get introduced to various people in the town. There is Garry Holden, who is planning to move in with his long time girlfriend with two children-this is probably the most information to get about a character before the event. We meet an old man and his son living together, and a group of young people starting a barbecue. We then get introduced to David Gray, a rather eccentric gun collector who lives by himself amongst large piles of books. Everybody knows him, but don't really like to involve themselves with him, even though there are brief snippets of dialogue that suggest he was not always so by himself. After an incident in a bank he retreats to his home, and after the next little thing that happens he loads himself up and begins to shoot people all around him. The Massacre ended with thirteen people being killed as many of them ran away or began to hide. Gray seemed to only be killing the people that were right in sight, even setting his house on fire. Eventually police men get involved, including Nick Harvey-played by Karl Urban, who never gets the right roles in American films-and after twenty four hours Gray is finally shot by police.

Like I said, after about the twenty minute mark, Gray begins his release of anger, and from that point on we watch as many get slaughtered, try to escape, help others, etc. What I liked most about this movie was that it didn't get into stale characters. We don't know much about the people in the town except for a few little things to make them seem three dimensional. But writer/director Robert Sarkies did not have it in mind to create a melodrama of the people before, during, and after the attack-he wanted to recreate the incident as it happened. And it makes for a fascinating film. Of all the minor stories of hero's, the best has to be about Helen Dickson-played by first time actress Lois Lawn. Dickson has to be in her seventies, and recently has hip surgery. When she sees a man get shot, she crawls back to her home on her stomach, calls the police, crawls back to let the man know, and then retreats back to her house where she sits by the phone on the floor and waits, carefully answering the rather loud phone and speaking in a very low voice. During on screen text right before the end credits, it made me happy to see that she won a medal from the Queen for such acts of bravery.

"Out of the Blue" is certainly a powerful and extremely well made movie, putting you in the very center of this tragic incident as it happened. I was impressed by the realism handled perfectly by Sarkies, and in lesser hands this could have been twisted into something all wrong. I'm also curious to learn more about the event, and plan on looking for the book "Aramoana" by Bill O'Brien, to which this film is based on. Sadly "Out of the Blue" will never reach a very large audience, and we can only hope that the IFC channel and DVD will give it the audience it deserves. For New York audiences who have the chance to see it, I urge you to go. It's well worth the effort.

Now Playing:
IFC Center

Also Opening This Week. . .

Two more films in limited release this weekend that I both saw at the Toronto Film Festival.

The first is Lars and the Real Girl, with actor Ryan Gosling playing a rather disturbed and lonely young man that ends up falling in love with a dummy, which he names Bianca. A cast that includes Emily Mortimer and Patricia Clarkson adds to this very sweet and effective off-kilter romance film. I gave the film ***1/2 out of ****, and the full review can be found by clicking right HERE!

Lars and the Real Girl is opening at the Angelika Film Center, and the Paris.
----------------------------------

The other film is Sleuth, with Michael Caine and Jude Law. Caine plays an aging mystery writer living in a country estate, whose wife is having a known affair with Law, an amateur actor. The two spend the whole film-about 85 minutes-playing mind games with one another, leading to a rather anticlimatic ending. I liked the film to an extent-the acting is very good and the direction is lively-but the script lacks any real surprises or empathy. The original from 1972-also starring Caine-is much better in every way. I rated the film a **1/2 of ****, and the full review can be found by clicking the link HERE!

Sleuth is opening at the Landmark Sunshine Cinemas and the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas.

Control

Control ***

Directed by Anton Corbijn
Written by Matt Greenhalgh

Starring:
Sam Riley as Ian Curtis
Samantha Morton as Deborah Curtis
Craig Parkinson as Tony Wilson
Alexandra Maria Lara as Annik Honoré

121 Minutes(Rated R for language and brief sexuality. )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll be honest from the start. I really know very little about the band Joy Division-the band whose singer Ian Curtis is depicted in this film. In fact, I know very little about the entire punk scene as it is-I prefer somewhat quieter music than this or "The Ramones." Nothing against them, it just isn't my thing. And not surprising, the life of Ian Curtis was not really any more interesting than the life of Ray Charles, the life of Johnny Cash, or the life of Hector Lavoe. At least, not on film. I'm sure those three people had quite amazing lives, and they could tell us stories up the wazoo if they were alive. But on film, those three people, and now Curtis' lives are depicted in the same way, and "Control' is nothing different. But I have always said, even in a story of formula if it is told right than it certainly has things that make it worthwhile, and their names are Sam Riley (unknown to me) and Samantha Morton (not so unknown to me.)

Sam Riley plays Ian Curtis, who skyrocketed to fame and ended up killing himself all before the age of 23. "Control" focuses on the last seven years in his life, the years that held any significance. Curtis was influenced by David Bowie, and early scenes show him laying on his bed, listening to Bowie, and smoking cigarettes. When he meets Deborah, he hastily marries her and wants to have a baby. (Oddly enough the real life Deborah Curtis, who wrote the book that this film was based on, actually produced the film as well.) He also begins to be a singer for a band that his friends are in, and they eventually become Joy Division. But life on the road has its normal effects on a rock star, especially when Curtis is diagnosed with epilepsy. "Be sure to stay away from alcohol. . " says his doctors. Yeah, right. Curtis becomes depressed about family, he meets and begins to fall in love with another woman-Annik Honoré-and he is constantly questioning how good a parent he could possibly be, all leading up to his eventual hanging at the age of 23.

Even though this movie follows the same trend of rock star biopics-the fame, the drugs, the fooling around, the death-there are two really terrific performance in the film-Riley and Morton. Morton, who in the script seems more like a cardboard cutout than a character, really manages to make someone extremely real out of the "true and faithful and suffering housewife of the rich and famous." She makes the last shot of this movie something memorable and even a bit haunting, and her earlier scenes are her at her finest. She is an oddly attractive young woman, and there is something mysterious about her that makes her special in everything she does-even her brief stint in "Elizabeth-The Golden Age" made me want more. I also liked the choice to shoot the whole movie in black and white, making Manchester seem like a dreary place at the time. We never get a glorifying view of the punk scene, and this film is clearly stating that Curtis made the wrong choices in his life. We never actually get a sense that he is happy with anything he does, and there are hardly any light scenes-except for at the start, where you actually do laugh a lot. The third act is quite tense, and not a pleasant experience, but it never drags to the point where we are waiting for Curtis to kill himself. "Control" is a well made film in a way that we've seen before, but it's a good prelude to what should be the most exciting biopic of the year, "I'm Not There."

Now Playing At:
Film Forum

Canvas

Canvas ***

Directed by Joseph Greco
Written by Joseph Greco

Starring:
Joe Pantoliano as John Marino
Marcia Gay Harden as Mary Marino
Devon Gearhart as Chris Marino
Sophia Bairley as Dawn
Marcus Johns as Sam
Antony Del Rio as Gregg

101 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for mature thematic elements. )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Canvas" is proof that good things could happen on a small scale. This film is the definition of an indie picture-two semi-big stars, autobiographical tale, rather corny music, somewhat slow pacing-and while it isn't a perfect movie, there is enough here to really make it a well done picture, all founded on a brilliant performance by Joe Pantoliano, and honestly this is a bit out of character for him. Usually playing rather tough characters, I was struck by how well he played this real life guy, tortured by tragedy and having a difficult time not being able to do anything while his life falls apart around him. And the script, written by director Joseph Greco, is based on true incidents that he went through as a child, and its this personal touch, as well as Pantoliano's acting, that takes the movie out of the tired old family drama cliches, and turns it into something rather heartwarming, and simple to take in.

Pantoliano plays John Marino, a simple father and husband whose wife Mary, played in a sometimes over the top performance by Marcia Gay Harden (more on that later), was just released from a mental hospital. Their son Chris-a debut performance by Devon Gearhart-is happy to have his mother back, but after an incident where her insanity happens in front of his friends, he realizes how sick she really is. Eventually she finds herself back in the hospital after her son is minorly hurt, and Chris and John are alone again. John takes his sick vacation-which adds up to almost eight and a half weeks-and in the time where his son really needs him, he instead begins to build a sailboat-Mary loved sailing when she was younger, and it's supposed to be a surprise for her. Meanwhile Chris begins to grow up, going through typical amounts of young adult love with a girl in school, and at the same time is worried about his mother and her problem, etc.

Pantoliano is really at the top of his game here. Here is a man who just wants to help his family. He works very hard, watching as his boss tells him reasons why he can't give him a raise and then drives away on a giant motor boat painted wild colors. And he watches as his wife changes from the women he fell in love with to something completely different. And he watches his son live through all of it. Marcia Gay Harden is good in the film at times, but occasionally, especially during the scenes where her mental illness really comes into play, she drifts from believably sick to over the top. It's during these scenes where Greco really tries to amp the emotions, but they just made me wince a little bit and not because he wanted us too. In addition some of the scenes with the kids in school are hard to watch, mainly because several of the child actors are quite bad-excluding our hero. A subplot involving Chris selling old shirts with sewed on patches all over them is a little unbelievable, especially when people pay him nearly forty dollars to do it. Where do the kids get that kind of money? And a subplot involving Chris and a bully is never exactly given an ending-I don't care if that ended happily or not, but just some kind of closure over what we got.

But all in all "Canvas" is an indie film with few flaws-not perfect, but certainly emotionally honest and true, and very well acted by the man sometimes known as Joey Pants. This is a well made film, and a great debut for Greco, who had just made short films in the past.

Now Playing:
Regal Union Square

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Elizabeth: The Golden Age **

Directed by Shekhar Kapur
Written by William Nicholson and Michael Hirst

Starring:
Cate Blanchett as Queen Elizabeth I
Geoffrey Rush as Sir Francis Walsingham
Clive Owen as Sir Walter Raleigh
Samantha Morton as Mary Stuart
Rhys Ifans as Robert Reston
Eddie Redmayne as Thomas Babington

114 Minutes(Rated PG-13 for violence, some sexuality and nudity. )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've always thought that period dramas were the hardest genre to do after comedy. It's hard enough to make people laugh, but its even harder to make people interested in a historical film without them feeling like they are sitting through a boring high school class. The first film in this series-"Elizabeth"-an Oscar nominee that was released in 1998, managed to tell a history story and make it extremely interesting. It was also well acted and pretty to look at to boot, and well directed. And it also took characters and made them interesting. Sadly the sequel, with has a quite well made and intense trailer, is nothing like the first film. One thing that is needed to make a period drama work is to inject some energy into it-something of interest. The actors here all walk around as if they are reading from cards around the sets. Any interesting things that were put into them in the first film seems to have vanished. This is one of the most forgettable films in recent memory, and also a film that was clearly made to try and score some Oscars.Come on-the formula is there-Cate Blanchett, period film, costumes.

Cate Blanchett does reprise her role as Queen Elizabeth-the role that really seemed to skyrocket her to the top nearly a decade ago. She is faced with the constant threat of the Spanish who wish to end her reign and spread Catholicism around Europe. She is also faced with the seemingly constant thread of assassination, especially by the woman who would get the throne next, Mary Stuart-played by Samantha Morton in almost a cameo. The Queen's most trusted advisor Sir Francis Walsingham-played again by Geoffrey Rush-tells her that she should produce an heir to keep the throne in her bloodline. She doesn't find any suitors that she would like to marry, except for Sir Walter Raleigh-played by Clive Owen-who treats the Queen well because he needs money to finance an expedition. He also seems to fancy another close advisor, Elizabeth "Bess" Throckmorton, who is assigned to keep a watch on him, as the Spanish threat comes nearer and nearer, and England's position of power seems to be in danger.

Period dramas seem to always end up getting a reserved two star rating, because as dull as some of them end up being or as much as some seem like a lecture, there is no doubt about it that many of them look beautiful, especially if you pay careful attention to detail-for example Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" may seem to drag at times, but there is constantly something to look at on the screen. Kubrick literally paints a picture with every single shot of that movie. Here there is always something to see-interesting costumes, paintings in the background, set designs. The best scene in the whole movie is at the start, when Elizabeth is getting various men to come to her throne to present proposals-and we see the interesting gifts, the outfits, and at that point you kind of get into the swing of it all-the fun from the first film seems to scatter into this. But then once the plot begins to emerge you loose interest. All of the interesting elements from the first film characters are missing here. The Queen even looks different. And Geoffrey Rush, who in the first film was filled with mystery-complete with thick black eyeliner under his eyes-is resorted to a simple role as her advisor and nothing more. Side characters played by Morten and Rhys Ifans are so brief and quick that you hardly have time to savor them being in it, and to digest their participation in the story. And this certainly contains the worst battle scene in film history-as tension mounts and mounts for half the film, and then the battle is told in a few brief images of violence. This movie also does have a PG-13 and the last had an R, but you shouldn't promise a huge epic scene-including Cate Blanchett in Mel Gibson in "Braveheart" mode, giving a big speech before the fight-and then just gloss over it.

"Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is a rather pointless bit of Oscar bait this award season, obviously made to try and cop a few Gold Statues instead of actually trying to make an effort of love like the first film was, and it certainly does show in the material.

Michael Clayton

Michael Clayton ****

Directed by Tony Gilroy
Written by Tony Gilroy

Starring:
George Clooney as Michael Clayton
Tom Wilkinson as Arthur Edens
Tilda Swinton as Karen Crowder
Sydney Pollack as Marty Bach
Michael O'Keefe as Barry Grissom
Ken Howard as Don Jefferies

120 Minutes(Rated R for language including some sexual dialogue. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every year, there is that "smart movie" that comes out-a thriller that has a screenplay with so much brain, that it could outsmart you on a game show. Usually the "smart movie" of the year goes over my head, and I leave the theatre disappointed that I couldn't understand it all. In 2005 that film was "Syriana," a film that I appreciated but didn't really like, mainly because I couldn't figure out what the hell was going on. This year there is a difference-the film is "Michael Clayton" and I was able to get it all. Maybe it's because I'm two years older, or maybe because its just a better movie. Either way, this is one of the best movies I've seen all year, and certainly the best film I've seen during this fall Oscar season-which has had some winners and some major disappointments-kind of like every year.

George Clooney is a lock for a Best Actor nomination in the title role as Michael Clayton. Michael is a "fixer" for a very successful law firm, and has worked with them for seventeen years and still hasn't been made a partner. When we first meet him he is down on his luck, playing poker in a warehouse poker game, when he gets a call from a co-worker in a jam. One of his clients was involved in a hit and run accident and he needs Michael to "take care of it." Obviously wore and not interested, we go back in time four days earlier and learn what has been bothering Michael Clayton. With a family that he lost, a restaurant business that failed, and a brother that has a drug problem, Michael has enough on his plate even when he learns that Arthur Edens, a defense lawyer in the middle of a huge case in support of a company called U North, stripped naked in the middle of a conference and ran in a parking lot, claiming that the company is really a killer. What follows is a massive conspiracy and web of corruption as Michael learns what Arthur has been collecting, and at the same time tries to practice the loyalty to his company by doing his job like he's been asked.

It's quite hard to come up with a concrete plot summary for the film, and whenever somebody asks me what it is about, I just basically tell them that it's a "talking legal thriller." The film is complex, but never complicated-many scenes go on with long fancy words and descriptions, but its easy to follow and get the main idea. And the script is magnificently written, and the acting is supreme. Clooney is good, but supporting actor Tom Wilkinson gets such a meaty role. His opening monologue at the very beginning of the film is so good that it hooks you in from the start. Wilkinson is one of my favorite actors, but usually he is reduced to supporting work where he is the voice of reason-"The Last Kiss" and even this summer's "Dedication" were blase films, but he managed to hold them together during his scenes. He even made "Black Knight," with Martin Lawrence, tolerable. Here he actually has a three dimensional character-a scene where he treats Clayton as an alley, and then quickly turns against him, is expertly done. Tilda Swinton is good in her little role here, and Sydney Pollack is pretty much coasting his way through, but I've always found him better behind the camera than in front of it-except for his turn in "Husbands and Wives."

When we get to the final thirty minutes, we revisit scenes that happened in the first thirty minutes, only now we have different information, more context, and we can understand it more. And even though we know the outcome of this event, director and writer Tony Gilroy manages to make so much tension occur, and this is the first film that he wrote and direct. And yet I can see him getting nominations for both script and direction. It really is that good. We also get a rather interesting character study of this man, and you are so caught up in the story and the direction that you seem to forget that this film is called "Michael Clayton" and he really is the focal point, up until the very last shot that goes into the credits, which made me say that I need to see it again and look at it from a different perspective. "Michael Clayton" is a perfect legal thriller-never dull, never forced, and has a real whammy of an ending. I loved this movie.

Now Playing:
Area Theatres

We Own the Night

We Own the Night **1/2

Directed by James Gray
Written by James Gray

Starring:
Joaquin Phoenix as Bobby Green
Eva Mendes as Amada Juarez
Mark Wahlberg as Joseph Grusinsky
Robert Duvall as Burt Grusinsky
Oleg Taktarov as Pavel Lubyarsky
Alex Veadov as Vadim Nezhinski

117 Minutes(Rated R for strong violence, drug material, language, some sexual content and brief nudity. )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What becomes the downfall of "We Own the Night" is that it never seems to be trying to find it's own voice. The movie is clearly trying to get some success after the massive hit of last year "The Departed,"-and this similarity can be found in the television commercials which show the title in almost the same font as the Scorsese film, as well as using one of the same actors, and even trying to have a mix of philosophy and violence. In the end, it just doesn't really work, and despite being well acted and even well directed at times, it ends up being quite a contrived story of cops and robbers, and even one that has one of the most unbelievably convenient screenplays. This isn't one of the worst movies of the year, but with the talent in front of the camera it should be more than just forgettable.

Actors Joaquin Phoenix and Mark Wahlberg have done some fine work in the past, and they are almost the only things holding this film together, as two brothers on the opposite side of the law. Phoenix plays Bobby Green, a popular Brooklyn nightclub owner in 1988, who is approached by his brother Joseph Grusinsky, who is a very successful cop working under his Captain father Burt-played by Robert Duvall-to inform over some bad men that spend a lot of time in Bobby's club. Bobby refuses, saying that it'll hurt his chances to go into Manhattan for business, so Joseph goes the difficult route and ends up raiding the club one night. Because Bobby is using his mother's last name for business reasons, the men that Joseph ended up capturing do not realize that there is a family connection, and a hatred for cops on their part-Russian mafia men-end up with them shooting Joseph and leaving him in the hospital. And at this point Bobby begins to realize that there are loyalties far greater than business, and he begins to turn over a new leaf to make sure the rest of his family is not harmed.

The script, by director James Gray, is clearly trying to be two things. The first is an exciting cobs and robbers story, but it is far from exciting and at times is even quite dull, simply because we've seen this before and we've seen it done better. The best directed scene in the whole piece is the finale, where Gray actually has some tricks up his sleeves, and the final shoot-out is quite well done-and there is even a surprise or two for you there. The second thing he is trying to do, and this is the biggie, is be a character study of Bobby Green. It's even clearer that this is what the biggest aim was, but it fails on many levels because Bobby is just not believable. His transformation comes too easily-one minute he is one way and the next he is another. His change is more of a plot device than an actual switch, and so we could never care about what happens to him-or anyone else int he film-distancing the viewer from sympathy. A character played by Eva Mendes who I didn't mention in the plot summary-she is Bobby's girlfriend-is so underused and when she is on the screen she is just the nagging girlfriend in the middle of hell. A mention of her during the last minute is equally ridiculous. I lay most of the blame on Gray's script.

But there are some positives. Phoenix and Wahlberg are both quite good, and Duvall is shaping up after his rather scary turn in "Kicking and Screaming" from 2005. I said that parts of it were directed well-I just wish that Gray would have tried to distance himself from other movies of this nature that have been coming out-"The Departed" and even next month's "American Gangster," and just tried to make something a little more original. Instead "We Own the Night" is a sometimes tedious and repeated excursion, and pretty much instantly forgettable.

Now Playing At:
Area Theatres

The Good Night

The Good Night ***

Directed by Jake Paltrow
Written by Jake Paltrow

Starring:
Penélope Cruz as Anna
Martin Freeman as Gary
Gwyneth Paltrow as Dora
Simon Pegg as Paul
Danny DeVito as Mel

93 Minutes(Rated R for language and some sexual content. )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Good Night" is an interesting, entertaining, bleak, and entirely well acted little movie, the writing/directing big screen feature for Jake Paltrow-the brother of the more famous Gwyneth Paltrow. But its a film with an interesting premise, and its well written, and it ends up being a quite intriguing trip to the theatre, even though it's sure to be destroyed by bigger films like "Michael Clayton," "Lust, Caution," and "The Darjeeling Limited." But its often little known films that end up being the most interesting, and that is exactly what 'The Good Night" is.

Paltrow's film is about Gary-played by the usually underused Martin Freeman, a once rising rock star that has now resorted to writing scores for commercials. His friend and business partner Paul, played by the hilarious Simon Pegg, tells him about his work "It's too good. Make it bad for television." He lives with his girlfriend, the snobbish Dora-played by a brunette Gwyneth Paltrow. The two of them have a dismal relationship-when brushing their teeth together you see annoyance in their eyes, and when the lights go out she manages a brief "Love you," and he delivers a dull 'Love You too." The only time Gary seems to be happy is when he is asleep, and he has constant dreams about a beautiful woman named Anna-played by Penelope Cruz. He wants to continue sleeping-and goes to measures to soundproof his room, take sleeping pills, and find ways to control his dreams with the help of a dream expert named Mel-played by the always interesting Danny DeVito.

I thought all five central performances-Cruz, Freeman, DeVito, Paltrow, and Pegg-are all perfect in their roles, and they mix a very good balance of comedy and drama-especially the Pegg character who is always known for his laugh out loud comedy. Freeman works well in a rare lead role, and DeVito should actually be in every movie, if not for a minute. He always manages to find a rather interesting perspective to play in his characters, and this is no exception. And Jake Paltrow's directing is very good at capturing the mood of what is going on on the screen-the beginning is slow paced, even a little dull, perfect for capturing the dull and uneventful life of Gary and Dora. And the mixture of reality and dreams, and the importance of actually living compared to the importance to dreams, works well with the overall message of the movie-one shown in an ironic and bleak way in the films final shot. "The Good Night" is an enjoyable, well made and acted, and interesting little movie-not one that will be remembered in the years to come, but one that's certainly worth checking out at some point.

Now Playing At:
Angelika Film Center