|
Reviews
Here are the
show's weekly reviews of theatrical releases and DVD picks. The
films are listed alphabetically by title. Titles beginning with
numerical values (i.e. 16 Blocks) are listed in the Numbers
section. Foreign films are listed according to the American title
under which they were marketed.
I
I
Am Legend
Directed by: Francis Lawrence
Premise: After a plague wipes out
civilization and turns the human race into vampire-like zombies, a lone
scientist (Will Smith) tries to develop a cure while surviving in the
post-apocalyptic world.
What Works: I am Legend is shot and
edited very smartly. The scenes of familiar New York landmarks like Time
Square have a haunting beauty to them and the filmmakers allow the art
design of the wasteland speak for itself, creating the atmosphere and
using it to sell the premise of the film. The story structure works
well, spending most of its time in the post-apocalyptic world and
telling the viewer what he or she needs to know through short and
effective flashbacks. I Am Legend features strong acting by Will
Smith, some of the best of his career. Although this is another science
fiction film for Smith, his performance in this film is much more like
his work in The
Pursuit of Happyness and Enemy
of the State than I,
Robot or Men
in Black. The seriousness with which Smith approaches the
material is welcome and gives the film and the character a lot of
credibility. The role has some of the same requirements of Smith that
were placed on Tom Hanks in Cast
Away, making him the only human actor for much of the film, but I
am Legend is far superior to Cast Away. The film addresses
the basics of human survival, the character’s loneliness, and his
change to the new realities of life in much smarter and economical way.
It also allows Smith’s character to get involved with a non-human.
Instead of a volleyball, I am Legend co-stars Smith with a German
Shepherd and the connection between these two living beings becomes as
wrenching as any man-canine relationship since Old
Yeller. The story uses this relationship to maximum effect,
putting more at stake in Smith’s scientific work and in his daily
life.
What Doesn’t: The film is a little low on
substance. It does not squander a brilliant idea the way I, Robot did,
but it does not raise the subject up to it highest level either and the
film’s conclusion disappoints. The character’s final epiphany is not
as profound as a viewer would hope for, especially given the excellence
that precedes it.
Bottom Line: Although similar (and not
quite as good) as last year’s Children
of Men, I am Legend is a very good sci-fi and horror
film. It demonstrates the kind of complexity and sophistication the
genres can achieve while also satisfying audience expectations.
Note: I am Legend is adapted from a
book by Richard Matheson and was previously seen as The
Omega Man staring Charlton Heston and The
Last Man on Earth starting Vincent Price.
BACK TO THE TOP
I
Heart Huckabees
Directed by: David O’Russell
Premise: Two existential
detectives (Dustin Hoffman and Lilly Tomlin) come to the aid of a nature
preservation activist (Jason Schwartzman) who is going through an
identity crisis.
What Works: This is a
very thoughtful and idiosyncratic comedy. The filmmakers follow the
pattern of the junkie-recovery genre, but they use philosophy in place
of drugs and create a funny and unusual world. There are some really
great characters in the film, including Isabelle Huppert as a nihilistic
French philosopher and Mark Wahlberg as a client going through an
ethical crisis.
What Doesn’t: Viewers
who don’t know anything about philosophy will be lost. Much of the
film’s humor is like an inside joke for philosophy students or those
who have a basic understanding of existential issues.
DVD extras: The single
disc edition features two commentary tracks. The two-disc special
edition release has commentary tracks, featurettes, extended and deleted
scenes, commercials, photos, a music video, and a Charlie Rose
interview.
Bottom Line: I Heart
Huckabees is a film for philosophy students or at least those with
some familiarity with philosophical issues. Viewers who do not
completely understand these issues may still find the film enjoyable for
its fast story and unusual characters.
BACK TO THE TOP
I
Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
Directed by: Dennis Dugan
Premise: Two straight firefighters, Chuck,
a ladies man (Adam Sandler), and Larry, a widower with two children
(Kevin James), pose as a gay couple and enter into a civil union so that
Kevin’s children can be the beneficiaries of his life insurance. The
state suspects fraud and begins to investigate the validity of their
marriage, forcing Chuck and Larry to role play their lie.
What Works: After suffering through a first
half that is riddled with homophobic references, I Now Pronounce You
Chuck and Larry has a much smarter second half that allows for our
characters to enter into some funny scenarios that play with audience
expectations of male gender roles and gives the characters space to move
and grow, especially Sandler’s role as Chuck. The two men, but
especially Chuck, are painted as homophobic, and when their partnership
is scrutinized under very public conditions, the homophobia that these
two men encounter makes them champions for the gay rights crowd. At this
point, the film is able to put a fair amount at stake in Larry and
Chuck’s relationship, including the pension, jail time for fraud, and
larger social implications from their legal case. The film also includes
a subplot as Chuck begins a relationship with his attorney (Jessica Biel)
in which he has genuine romantic feelings but she opens up to him
because she believes that he is a gay man. Although the relationship is
hard to believe at times, it sets up an interesting problem that adds
weight to the climax and the film finds a resolution to the story that
is actually pretty smart and not too forced.
What Doesn’t: I Now Pronounce You
Chuck and Larry is a movie that is confused about its message. The
first half of the film is difficult to sit through as it relies so much
on homophobic humor, most of which comes out of Chuck’s mouth.
Although there is a reversal in the second half, the film is still
conflicted. On the one hand taking a stand against homophobia and on the
other hand continuously using homophobia as a source of humor. Even as
Chuck comes to understand the hurtful power of words and both men learn
a lesson about dignity for people of other sexual orientations, the film
continues to make jokes at the expense of the gay community. On top of
all that, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry is just is not that
funny. The gay jokes get very repetitive and the film does not reach out
beyond that.
Bottom Line: I Now Pronounce You Chuck
and Larry will satisfy fans of Adam Sandler’s comedic films, as it
treads familiar Sandler territory. It is an uneven film with a mixed
message but its biggest problem is that the humor is tired and the
filmmakers were apparently too lazy to dig deeper for fresher comedic
observations.
BACK TO THE TOP
I,
Robot
Directed by: Alex Proyas
Premise: In the future,
robots have become a servant class. On the eve of a giant distribution
of the newest model, the suicide of one of the robots designers involves
a techno-phobic detective named Spooner (Will Smith) in an investigation
that questions the stability of these machines and reveals a potential
threat to mankind.
What Works: The film’s
murder mystery is well drawn out and the action sequences are a lot of
fun, but the best parts of I, Robot are in its film noir
influence and the characterization of the robot Sonny (Alan Tudyk).
What Doesn’t: The film
starts out with a strong metaphor as Spooner physically arrests a robot
for purse snatching only to find out that the robot was bringing it to
its owner, who accuses Spooner of racism against the robots. The
implications of this have great potential, but the film abandons them
after the first half. Also, Will Smith relies on his old Fresh
Prince tricks instead of trying to grow as he did in Enemy
of the State or Ali.
Bottom Line: There is
some depth to I, Robot and fans of Will Smith should have fun at
the film. Although the film does not go far beyond what has been done in
other films in the genre, Sonny's humanity and the well-drawn
mystery makes the picture worth the price of admission.
BACK
TO THE TOP
I
Think I Love My Wife
Directed by: Chris Rock
Premise: A remake of the French film Chloe
in the Afternoon. Chris Rock plays Richard, a
married banker who meets Nikki, an old female friend (Kerry Washington),
and begins to socialize with her. The single woman ignites restlessness
in Richard’s life and he considers having an affair.
What Works: In its best moments, I Think
I Love My Wife exposes the everyday grind of suburban and married
life. The content is presented in a way that suggests the reasons for
Richard’s dilemma and toys with its different angles, including how it
affects his home life and his job. More than other films, this story of
potential infidelity reaches into the man’s psychology and does not
apologize for his maleness. Rock smartly chooses to put some restraint
on his performance, more so than in many of his other films, and gives a
much more real performance than anything he has done before.
What Doesn’t: The better qualities of I
Think I Love My Wife are offset by gags and sequences that are out
of place in this film, namely a Viagra scene and a musical number that
seem as though they were ripped right out of The
40 Year Old Virgin. The film drags on and on in its second act,
not sure where to end because the film is not sure where it is going.
Rock narrates the picture and this gets tiresome because it only states
the obvious and lacks Rock's characteristically sharp humor. The film
would be stronger without it.
Bottom Line: I Think I Love My Wife
is an uneven film. The themes of the picture have been seen a lot lately
and were done better in films like The
Last Kiss and as the subject of Rock’s
stand up routine. It is still interesting and Rock has potential as
an actor. He just needs a collaborator to write with him on a project
like this one.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Ice Harvest
Directed by: Harold Ramis
Premise: Two men (John
Cusack and Billy Bob Thornton) rob a bank over the Christmas holiday and
find themselves involved a murder mystery.
What Works: Oliver Platt
plays a drunkard who is also the current husband of Cusack’s ex-wife.
He is the most interesting character in the story because of his humor
and his frailty.
What Doesn’t: The two
leads are really the flattest and most uninteresting characters in the
story. The film is unable to balance its comedic and serious parts. The
mystery of The Ice Harvest aspires to be a sort of comic noir
thriller, but in its attempt to avoid a cliché formula the film
abandons any familiar structure and is unable to substitute it with
something new or coherent. The twists and turns of the story come from
nowhere and are not the consequence of any narrative effect.
Bottom Line: Despite a
talented cast and an experienced director, The Ice Harvest is a
big disappointment. Its story does not have the necessary structure to
pull off its ambitious aims and the story’s attempts to be funny fall
flat.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Idlewild
Directed by: Bryan Barber
Premise: A musical featuring songs by
Outkast. Set during Prohibition, Percival (Andre Benjamin) and Rooster
(Big Boi) mange and perform a speakeasy until they run afoul of a
gangster (Terrence Howard) out to take over their business. The two find
a possible solution in Angel (Paula Patton), a new performer who begins
to draw crowds to their establishment.
What Works: Idlewild is one of the
most successful musicals in a long time. The combination of the music of
Outkast with the culture of 1920’s urban culture works very well and
captures the sensuality, danger, creativity, and fun of the speakeasy
environment. Where many film musicals get into trouble in their musical
sequences, locking down the camera and recreating a theatrical moment,
Idlewild is able to avoid this by making its content a fusion of the
live music experience and the cinematic apparatus. The style of the
sequences borrows the best elements of music videos and combines it with
traditional narrative to create musical sequences that contribute to the
story and develop the characters and conflicts rather than stopping to
extrapolate on a single idea or emotion. Idlewild’s acting is very
good. Big Boi delivers very funny comic relief and Benjamin gives the
film its emotional ups and downs. The standout performances of Idlewild
are in Patton as Angel, the gifted singer looking for a big break, and
Howard as Trumpy, a very dangerous gangster. Patton demonstrates great
talent for singing and acting and she has a strong screen presence.
Howard is great as the murderous gangster and nearly steals the show. He
gives the story its weight and his performance sells the drama, giving
the narrative a lot of forward motion.
The film also features a very interesting relationship between
Percival and his practical, god-fearing father (Ben Vereen). Although it
is a somewhat stock father-son conflict, the actors pull it off and give
it a great deal of authenticity.
What Doesn’t: Idlewild follows a format
seen in other musicals, most recently in Moulin Rouge! and as a
result the story is fairly predictable.
DVD extras: Deleted scene and a deleted
song, music videos.
Bottom
Line: Idlewild is a great deal of fun and fans of Outkast and
contemporary musicals will want to check it out. Aside of the musical
content, the film does not do much that is new, but it does do it very
well.
BACK
TO THE TOP
In
America
Directed by: Jim Sheridan
Premise: An Irish couple
(Paddy Considine and Samantha Morton) and their two daughters move to
New York City in the early 1980s. There they acclimate to the new
culture and befriend Mateo (Dijmon Hounsou), a man dying of AIDS.
What Works: The film
breathes new life into the traditional Horatio Alger immigrant story. It
presents the story from the perspective of Christy (Sarah Bolger). This
gives the film a unique and innocent, but not stupid, point-of-view. The
portrayal of Mateo is full of mystery and tragedy but also humanity. The
film is filled with varying doses of hope, grief, and humor. The two
girls are especially funny in their adventures in New York.
What Doesn’t: The
ending of the film is a bit too tidy and solves the family’s financial
problems too easily. However, it is a true story of Jim Sheridan's
family and if this is how it happened, then we have to cut the
filmmakers some slack.
DVD extras: Commentary
track, Deleted Scenes, Alternate Ending, Featurette
Bottom Line: In
America is a good film with some very strong performances. It gives
the audience a peak into the lives of people who travel to this country
and leaves the audience with a sense of hope about their lives and their
community.
BACK
TO THE TOP
In
the Valley of Elah
Directed by: Paul Haggis
Premise: The true story of a retired
military police officer (Tommy Lee Jones) who investigates the
disappearance of his son, a soldier who has recently returned from Iraq.
What Works: In the Valley of Elah is
another knockout film for writer and director Haggis, who is on a recent
winning streak with Crash,
Million
Dollar Baby, Casino
Royale, Letters
from Iwo Jima, and Flags
of Our Fathers. But this is actually a better film than most of
those, even superior to Crash in some respects. In the Valley
of Elah is masterfully structured. There is no extraneous material
and each scene drives the story forward on multiple levels. Like Crash
and Flags of Our Fathers, the film deals with what it means to be
an American and how our beliefs and perceptions about ourselves and our
country contrast with reality. This film explores these conflicts
underneath the investigation of the soldier’s disappearance and uses
the twists and turns in the case to unveil how everyday racism and
sexism and vices such as drug use compromise our heroes. Tommy Lee Jones
gives one of the best performances of his career in this film. It’s
not flashy but it is highly controlled and carefully staged, and as a
retired military man Jones’ character embodies the conflicts of a
patriotic man struggling to reconcile his love for his country with
growing evidence that the men in his son’s unit had something to do
with his disappearance. There are some other standout performances in
the film including Charlize Theron as a local police detective and Wes
Chatham as a member of the military squad.
What Doesn’t: Although the film is not
overtly political, it is essentially an anti-war picture, dealing with
what a culture of violence does to human beings. Some audience members
may find this at odds with their own ideas about military service and
the war and it risks cutting some audience members out, although the
whole intent of the film is to question our idealization of military
service.
Bottom Line: In the Valley of Elah
is a terrific and thoughtful film. It is not an easy film to watch for
visceral and ideologically disturbing reasons, but the film’s superior
craft and its willingness to go into taboo territory and to
intelligently question some of our most basic beliefs about ourselves
and our country makes it a great work of subversive cinema.
BACK
TO THE TOP
An
Inconvenient Truth
Directed by: Davis Guggenheim
Premise: Documentary film
of Al Gore’s presentation on global warming.
What Works: The film
makes highly scientific information interesting and presents the complex
ideas in an easily understandable fashion. An Inconvenient Truth
alternates between the lecture and biographical information on Gore’s
life and experiences, seeking to develop pathos appeals in the audience.
These work as a break from the lecture and barrage of information.
What Doesn’t: The
problem with An Inconvenient Truth is in its conception; the film
is a ninety-minute version of Gore’s prepared lecture and does not
stray far from its original source. While the information is interesting
and valuable, as a piece of rhetoric and as a piece of cinema, the film
comes up short. Compared to documentaries by Michael Moore or Errol
Morris, where the ideas and arguments are nestled inside of emotionally
charged images and sequences that are highly crafted, An Inconvenient
Truth is more like a stylized version of C-SPAN.
Bottom Line: An
Inconvenient Truth has very important information that the audience
ought to see. As a filmgoer, I only wish the presentation of that
information was more cinematic.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Incredible Hulk (2008)
Directed by: Louis Leterrier
Premise: An adaptation of the Marvel comic
book hero. After a military science experiment goes bad, Bruce Banner
(Edward Norton) suffers from a condition that turns him into a giant
green monster with anger management problems. Banner flees the military
while trying to find a cure for his condition.
What Works: The Incredible Hulk is
an ambitious reboot of the franchise. Like Iron
Man, The Incredible Hulk differentiates itself from other
comic book films by adding humor and giving the character more human
dimensions both physically and emotionally. Edward Norton does a nice
job as the conflicted Bruce Banner and the film benefits from casting
such a quality actor in the role. The special effects are very well
done, especially in the big finale between The Hulk and Abomination.
Marvel comic book fans will find a lot to enjoy here, as there are
plenty of allusions to other incarnations of The Hulk and to other
Marvel superheroes.
What Doesn’t: The Incredible Hulk
is inherently handicapped by its subject. The Hulk just isn’t that
interesting of a character. He’s big and mean like Godzilla but has
less personality than King Kong; there’s a lot of muscle but very
little soul once Norton is replaced by the computer-generated monster.
The film suffers from first chapter syndrome; it spends a lot of its
time setting up characters and themes that will play out in sequels but
not nearly enough on its own story. The romance between Norton’s
character and a scientist played by Liv Tyler does not put either one of
them through much heartache and the film misses opportunities to link
the rage of the Hulk to Banner’s human identity. When the film finally
gets to its Wrestlemania finale, it’s a lot of property damage similar
to what has been seen in Transformers,
Iron Man, and Spiderman
3 and like those films its all very plastic with very little
narrative or emotional weight.
Bottom Line: The Incredible Hulk is
a mid-range comic book adaptation. The film is certainly not a disaster,
but the story and characters are a little on the thin side and the
conclusion is very cliché.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Incredibles
Directed by: Brad Bird
Premise: A family of
superheroes is called to save the world while dealing with their own
familial problems.
What Works: Many recent
animated films have depended upon intertextual humor and sometimes have
carried this too far. The Incredibles does use this brand of
humor but does not go out of control like Shark
Tale did. There is a warm family center to this story but the
film has a harder action approach, which is a nice new turn for Pixar.
What Doesn’t: As the
film increases its action, it abandons some of the realistic styles and
goes for a more cartoonish look that comes off a little silly, even for
the premise of the story. Not enough time or focus is put on the
domestic plotline and it is resolved pretty easily.
Bottom
Line: The Incredibles is not the best work Pixar has produced
but it does stand up with most of their other work and it takes
animation a slightly different direction. Recommended to fans of Monsters
Inc.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Indiana
Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Premise: Indiana Jones, now considerably
older, teams with a brash, motorcycle riding youth (Shia LaBeouf) to
discover the secrets of a South American pyramid while evading Soviet
Russian spies.
What Works: Indiana Jones and the
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull continues the fun of the original films
and respects its predecessors while staking out its own look. The
casting of the film works very well. Harrison Ford returns as Dr. Jones
but he’s older and plays the character as a man facing a new stage in
his life. Shia LaBeouf plays Mutt Williams, Indiana’s sidekick, and he
is a nice counterpoint to Ford; the film reverses the main character
relationship of Last
Crusade, placing Indiana as the conservative mentor and Mutt as
the rebellious younger man. Overall the picture is lighthearted and out
to have fun, and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull includes a lot of
humor. The McGuffin, the sacred object of the film, takes the series
into a science fiction direction, a place it has never gone before and
this gives the picture a fresh approach to the franchise. The action
scenes hold up with anything in the previous film and the chase scenes
combine stunt work with physical comedy. Coming so many years after Last
Crusade, the regard of this Indiana Jones film toward its subject
represents a change in the series. Raiders
of the Lost Ark was a deliberate act of nostalgia for the
adventure films of the 1940s and Temple
of Doom and Last Crusade deepened the characters and the
mythology around them, carving out a place for the series as a cultural
parenthetical of the 1980s. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is
nostalgic, but for Raiders of the Lost Ark and the early films of
George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. There are lots of references to
previous Indiana Jones adventures as well as other Spielberg and Lucas
productions like American
Graffiti and Star
Wars, which are fun, but also give the sense that the filmmakers
are in a reflective mode. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the
most direct sequel to Raiders and it follows the character work
of Last Crusade, attempting to wrap up the Indiana Jones
character and tie up some loose ends.
What Doesn’t: Although the film is fun,
it does rank least among the Indiana Jones films. The iconic status of Raiders
of the Lost Ark is untouchable and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
cannot compete with the intensity of Temple of Doom or the
father-son relationship of Last Crusade. The film gets bogged
down in some long exposition scenes and at times the dialogue is stilted
and creaky, like an imitation of a Mickey Spillane noir thriller. The
villains of the film are rather weak and underwritten, at least in
comparison to other Indiana Jones heavies, and the story behind the
sacred object is convoluted. Exactly why the crystal skull is precious
and what the implications will be if it falls into the wrong hands are
not concrete. The screenplay ought to have borrowed a page from Temple
of Doom, substituting something equivalent to the plight of the
slave children to provide Indiana’s adventures with something
immediate at stake. This
culminates in the ending which crams in a lot of action but it’s
unclear what is happening or why.
Bottom Line: Indiana Jones and the
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is good but not great. It is a worthy
addition to the franchise, even if it’s a little rusty. The film is
certainly better than Indiana Jones imitators National
Treasure or The
DaVinci Code and like resurrections of other 1980s franchise
such as Rambo,
Rocky
Balboa, or Star
Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, Kingdom of
the Crystal Skull is a fun bit of nostalgia and an interesting
reinterpretation of an iconic character.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Indiana
Jones and the Last Crusade
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Premise: Indiana Jones must rescue his
father (Sean Connery) from the Nazis and then race them to the Holy
Grail.
What Works: Indiana Jones and the Last
Crusade is the most satisfying of the sequels to Raiders
of the Lost Ark, primarily because of the relationship between
Indiana and Henry, his father. Like the three men in the boat in Jaws,
there is no beating the father-son relationship in Last Crusade
and it comes to define the movie. The casting here is perfect with Sean
Connery as Jones senior, and together Connery and Ford play father and
son like the odd couple, mining lots of laughs but also using their
conflicts to explore the character of Indiana Jones and how he came to
be the man he is. Last Crusade also has the most interesting love
interest of the series as Indiana finds himself in a complicated
relationship with archeologist Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody). As an
archeologist with compromised ethics, she is similar to Belloq (Paul
Freeman) of Raiders of the Lost Ark and her love-hate
relationship with Indiana gives their scenes a lot of tension. Between
the father-son relationship, the love interest, and the film’s step
into matters of faith, something avoided by all other entries in the
series, Last Crusade has much more substance to it than any other
Indiana Jones film. This substance informs the action sequences, putting
much more at stake as Indiana develops and mends his relationship with
his father while trying to stop the Nazis. The ending is the strongest
in the series, with Indiana forced to make choices that define him as a
character and bringing his character to a new place spiritually,
emotionally, and intellectually.
What Doesn’t: Last Crusade’s
only viable weaknesses are a middle portion that gets bogged down in
places and the lack of a coherent villain. Julian Glover is not
particularly menacing as an unscrupulous artifact collector and Michael
Byrne does not get enough screen time as a Nazi colonel.
DVD Extras: Photos, featurettes,
storyboards.
Bottom Line: Although it does not have the
manic energy of Temple
of Doom or the novelty of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana
Jones and the Last Crusade does have some of the best scenes in the
series and one of the most memorable father-son relationships on film.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Indiana
Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
See Raiders
of the Lost Ark.
Indiana
Jones and the Temple of Doom
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Premise: Indiana Jones travels to India and
discovers a cult that has stolen magic fertility stones and is using
child slave labor to build an army that will eventually use black magic
to take over the world. With a Chinese boy (Ke Huy Quan) and a spoiled
American lounge singer (Kate Capshaw), Dr. Jones attempts to recover the
stones and free the children.
What Works: The second Indiana Jones film
is a decidedly darker picture than Raiders
of the Lost Ark. Temple of Doom is more violent and
delves into spookier places and it pulls off the darkness very well,
finding a comfortable space between the fun of the original film and the
new, edgier material. Rather than rehashing the first picture, Temple
of Doom is a completely original installment and even though it has
a few nods to the first film, it does present the audience with a fresh
Indiana Jones adventure. Although its story and characters are even
thinner than they were in Raiders, Temple of Doom makes up
for that in its intensity. The action starts with a shootout and car
chase in Shanghai and literally does not stop until the end, only
pausing slightly in the middle to deliver some exposition and get the
heroes into the temple. The action scenes hold up with the first film
and the art direction of Temple of Doom is extremely impressive,
especially in the subterranean lair of the cult. Ke Huy Quan is a lot of
fun to watch as Short Round, Indiana’s young Chinese sidekick, and the
two have an on-screen relationship that is among the best in the series.
By comparison, Amrish Puri plays Mola Ram, the cult leader lead villain;
although he is not given much to do, he does possess more menace than
any other heavy in the series.
What Doesn’t:
The picture’s biggest weakness is its McGuffin; the stones
are not as interesting as the Ark of the Covenant and how they will
enable the villains to take over the world is pretty nebulous. The film
largely sidesteps this problem by using the liberation of the children
to give the audience a goal that is immediate and palatable. In its
initial release many audiences were shocked at the level of violence in
the film and the scenes of human sacrifice and violence against children
are still unsettling; it gives the film some edge but it also risks
alienating fans of the original film. The characters of Temple of
Doom are not as memorable as the other installments. Willie Scott (Capshaw)
is rather obnoxious, although she does provide a new take on the female
lead and provides a lot of humor.
DVD Extras: Photos, featurettes,
storyboards.
Bottom Line: Indiana Jones and the
Temple of Doom is a solid sequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Although it has some notable weaknesses, this is a great piece of
entertainment that still plays well. It is more likely to be enjoyed by
older viewers and those who appreciate it for nostalgic value. It is
also interesting to view Temple of Doom in light of later films
like Peter Jackson’s Lord
of the Rings trilogy, which shows some influence from this
particular film.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Inside
Deep Throat
Directed by: Fenton Bailey and
Randy Barbato.
Premise: A documentary on
the legal and cultural legacy of the pornographic film Deep
Throat.
What Works: The film is
irreverent and fun but also speaks with authority, which makes the
sensitive subject matter accessible. The narrative of the film is solid
and is enhanced by commentators including the cast and crew of Deep
Throat, filmmakers Wes Craven and John Waters, and cultural figures
Gore Vidal, Camille Paglia, and Dr. Ruth Westheimer. This gives the film
a varied and intelligent voice that has a contemporary urgency given the
growing censorship powers of the FCC.
What Doesn’t: The film
is not shy about its political point of view but giving more voice to
the opposing side of the argument would have strengthened the film’s
credibility.
DVD extras: Deleted
scenes, trailers. The film is available in R-rated and NC-17 versions.
Bottom
Line: Inside Deep Throat is a very good example of the new
wave of entertaining and informative documentaries. The film challenges
the audience with its point of view but does not dumb things down or
fall back on the lowest common denominator. This is an important
documentary that deserves to be seen.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Into
the Wild
Directed by: Sean Penn
Premise: The true story of
Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch), a college graduate who gave away
his possessions to travel across North America, eventually ending up in
Alaska.
What Works: Some films are
able to expose observations about our culture by taking us on a journey
through the landscape the way Forest
Gump did, using an episodic structure in which the protagonist
meets fellow travelers on a journey. The result is usually a story that
paints with broad strokes in order to cover its entire canvas. Other
films make commentary through a close focus on a single character like There
Will Be Blood and use a limited scope to pick apart its subject.
Sean Penn's Into the Wild combines these approaches and the
result is a picture that is able to be penetrate deeply into the life of
Christopher McCandless, played wonderfully by Emile Hirsch, while also
sketching the culture he grew up in and eventually rejected, portraying
the link between them. This is an intelligent film, capturing the reason
behind McCandless' journey and treating his rejection of social
expectations with equal parts respect and criticism. The picture does
not ridicule him but its does show how erratic and sometimes dangerous
his choices became due to McCandless' naiveté and misanthropic
tendencies, and how those flaws contributed to his journey as much as
his enthusiasm and education. This film also captures the sheer
adventure of the journey and even an agoraphobic would be awed by
McCandless' travels through the gorgeous landscape. While the
protagonist meets many different characters in his travels, Into the
Wild has the distinction of filling its story with many fully
realized characters with real histories and personalities. In the
process, the film allows the supporting characters lives of their own
and conveys ideas that further McCandless' own convictions and builds
toward the isolated and heartbreaking finale. Into the Wild is a
learned film, one that uses the literary sources who influenced
McCandless, such as Jack London, Mark Twain, and Henry David Thoreau, to
give his unconventional life some credibility and embed the story within
an American tradition of explorers and independent thinkers. Into the
Wild translates this into the cinematic form successfully, using
sound, cinematography, and editing to embed the theory into the
practice.
What Doesn't: Some viewers
might find Into the Wild too slow moving or they may have
difficulty understanding or appreciating McCandless' point of view.
Also, the one area where the film could do more is in the family dynamic
and McCandless' relationship to his father.
Bottom Line: Into the Wild
presents viewers with a portrait of someone who found love for his
fellow man by leaving society. What Penn's film does so incredibly well
is to use the life of Christopher McCandless to present us with the most
sobering, intelligent, critical, and insightful view of our own culture
on film this year.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Invasion
Directed by: Oliver Hirschbiegel
Premise: A remake of Invasion
of the Body Snatchers. In this version, an alien virus
transmitted through bodily fluids takes a hold of people’s
consciousness when they fall to sleep. A psychiatrist (Nicole Kidman)
tries to get herself and her son (Jackson Bond) out of the city when the
virus becomes an epidemic.
What Works: The Invasion features
some interesting editing techniques, using jump cuts to convey the
stress of the characters and cross cutting between moments of action and
moments of exposition, similar to the power plant sequence in The
Matrix: Reloaded, which allows the film to tell its story more
economically.
What Doesn’t: While the cross cutting
makes the film leaner, it also underscores the main problem with The
Invasion. The picture has no sense of pacing. It slows down in the
scenes that ought to be brief and runs through the moments that ought to
be staged carefully. The film is so anxious to get where its going, be
it car chases or on-foot pursuits through the city streets, that it
reduces the dramatic build up or drops it altogether. The Invasion
spends a great deal of its first act with the characters sitting around
talking rather than doing anything together or separately that would
develop character. As the virus spreads, the cast figures things out way
too fast and make huge leaps in reasoning. At the same time, the
characters explain the ins-and-outs of the alien virus using advanced
scientific jargon that does not mean anything to audience and has little
relevance to the story. The characters and their relationships are stock
and incomplete. There is a hint of an interesting romantic relationship
between Kidman’s character and a doctor played by Daniel Craig, but it
does not go anywhere. This is indicative of a larger problem of the
film. The picture does not spend any time establishing what is so great
about the status quo before putting it at risk of being lost. Instead, The
Invasion goes the other way, characterizing human existence as
violent and insufferable. As the alien virus takes over the human race,
people become docile and humane to each other. To put it another way,
the virus makes humanity better. This is a huge problem that the film
never addresses.
Bottom Line: The Invasion is a
pretty terrible picture. It’s not very scary, the exposition is
confusing, and the characters are flat and uninteresting. Audiences
would be better off viewing the original Invasion of the Body
Snatchers or the
remake from 1978.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Invincible
Directed by: Ericson Core
Premise: True story of
Vince Papale, a Philadelphia Eagles fan who made the team during an open
tryouts call in the 1970s.
What Works: Invincible
is a well put together sports film. The scenes of drills and plays
capture the speed and athleticism of those who play it. Director Core
seems to have studied Leni Riefenstahl’s Olympia;
there are many visual references to Riefenstahl’s film in the slow
motion sequences of Papale running and catching the ball and the
grandiose photography of the Eagle's stadium. Off the field there are
some really nice sequences between Papale and his father (Kevin Conway)
and the film is able to capture the look of 1970s Philadelphia in ways
that have not been seen since the original Rocky.
Running concurrent with Papale’s story is a plotline of Dick Vermeil
(Greg Kinnear), the Eagles Head Coach, whose uphill battle to fix the
lackluster team mirrors Papale’s own challenges. This adds some added
texture and tension to the story.
What Doesn’t: The
potential of the Vermeil plotline is never fully realized. There is a
hint of tension between Vermeil and the rest of the team, but the film
drops most of this to focus on Papale. As an entry in the sports film
genre, Invincible is fairly by the numbers and it does not add
very much to the genre, although it does do the formula pretty well.
Bottom Line: Invincible
is fun and satisfying. As a sports film it has a solid execution and
some well-done athletic sequences. Although not as innovative or
interesting as Friday
Night Lights, it is a good film and worth the price of
admission.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Iron
Man (2008)
Directed by: Jon Favreau
Premise: An adaptation of the Marvel comic
book character. A wealthy industrialist who has made his fortune off of
weapons sales has a change of heart after surviving a terrorist attack
and witnessing the fruits of his labor. He builds an armored suit and
begins to use his technology to fight evil.
What Works: Iron Man includes themes
and story elements seen other films such as the origin mythos of Batman
Begins, the satire of Robocop,
and the political perspective of Lord
of War. The combination works and the elements coalesce together
nicely. The success of many superhero films largely depends on the
casting of the hero, and Iron Man scores a homerun with Robert
Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. Downey makes the character a
fast-talking, womanizing, egomaniac and the screenplay gives him a
credible character arc as Stark develops a sense of responsibility. One
of the fatal flaws of many comic book adaptations is their tendency to
take themselves far too seriously but Iron Man avoids this by
adding a lot of humor, largely through Robert Downey Jr. The film’s
sense of fun differentiates it from other comic book films, as does its
sense of relevance. Iron Man’s inclusion of contemporary issues
like terrorism and war profiteering make it much more interesting and
gives it some depth and a little bite, much more so than the average
comic book adaptation.
What Doesn’t: The biggest flaw of Iron
Man is its villain, played by Jeff Bridges. The actor does a good
job with what the script gives him to work with, but the writing is flat
and the final conflict between the villain and the hero looks more like
an outtake from last year’s Transformers
and is inconsistent with the more interesting and socially relevant
action scenes earlier in the film.
Bottom Line: Iron Man ranks with Batman
Begins, The
Crow,
and Superman:
The Movie among the upper tier of comic book films. The humor
saves the movie from some of its sillier moments and Robert Downey Jr.
creates one of the most unique and enjoyable superheroes on film.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Island
(2005)
Directed by: Michael Bay
Premise: Two people (Ewan
McGregor and Scarlett Johansson) living in a controlled, utopian future
end up on the run after they discover that they are clones intended as
spare body parts for rich and powerful people.
What Works: The film is a
throwback to the Orwell influenced science fiction films of the 1970s
such as THX-1138
and Logan’s
Run. Like those films, The Island references
philosophical constructs such as Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and uses
them as a template to create the world of the film. The Island is
able to take advantage of the contemporary special effects tools and
delivers as piece of solid action entertainment.
What Doesn’t: As an
homage to the films of the 1970s, The Island fails to add
anything new to the formula, aside from some protracted action
sequences. Beyond the obvious reference to Plato, the film does not take
the next step of using it to make a substantive argument. There are
hints about it, but the film does not develop them enough. There are
some moments in the chase sequences that are too futuristic and feel out
of place in this film.
Bottom Line: The
Island is better than we have come to expect from Michael Bay,
who’s directing career can be best described as uneven. It has all the
hallmarks of a Bay film and so fans of his other work should enjoy The
Island. It’s also a film to be enjoyed by fans of Orwellian
science fiction despite its short comings.
BACK
TO THE TOP
|