|
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.
S
Sahara
Directed by: Breck Eisner
Premise: Matthew
McConaughey and Steve Zahn play treasure hunters who team up with a
member of the World Health Organization (Penelope Cruz) to solve a
mysterious plague in Africa.
What Works: The film is a
lot of fun. McConaughey and Zahn play well off each other in the
familiar hero and sidekick roles. The film’s story is convoluted but
it moves along along at a brisk enough pace to allow for massive
improbabilities to slide. The action sequences are pretty standard but
exciting.
What Doesn’t: This is
not brilliant filmmaking. The basic premise of the story, that an
American Civil War ship somehow ran aground in the middle of the African
desert, demands such a suspension of disbelief that it is hard to take Sahara
seriously. The ending does not help, as it makes some pretty big leaps in the logic.
Bottom Line: Sahara
makes for good popcorn entertainment. It aspires to be Raiders
of the Lost Ark. The film falls short of that goal but it should
be fun for those who enjoyed National
Treasure.
BACK TO THE TOP
The
Savages (2008)
Directed by: Tamara Jenkins
Premise: A pair of middle aged siblings
(Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman) face their familial
responsibilities when their father (Phillip Bosco) suffers from
dementia.
What Works: Like Juno,
The Savages carves its own niche in between comedy and drama,
finding the humor in deeply serious circumstances. While this film falls
more heavily on the dramatic side, it uses humor to lighten the mood.
Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman are terrific in their roles as a
pair of siblings trying to reconcile their responsibilities to their
ailing father. Linney gets the better material as the sibling with the
biggest trouble with her love life and the most inner conflict over
placing her father in a nursing home. The script links the personal and
professional problems of these siblings to their strained relationship
with their father; Linney’s character has a romantic relationship with
a married man and Hoffman’s character has a slovenly lifestyle and as
each of them confronts their father they are forced to reevaluate their
lives. The dialogue of the film is sharp and gives the characters an
intelligence and world-weariness that plays well. The picture takes on
the themes maturation and middle age without falling into traps of
sentimentality or cliché.
What Doesn’t: The Savages is more
somber than expected and a few of the narrative strands are left
unresolved, namely the love life of Linney’s character. This actually
helps the film, making it more like Garden
State, but some viewers may be frustrated by the lack of a
resolution.
Bottom Line: The Savages is a solid
film that does not easily fit into dramatic or comedic categories, but
its place between the two niches makes it more honest and unique than if
it were completely somber.
BACK TO THE TOP
Saved!
Directed by: Brian Dannelly
Premise: Mary (Jena
Malone), a student attending an exclusive private Christian school, is
socially ostracized when she becomes pregnant while trying to cure her
boyfriend of his homosexuality by giving up her virginity to him.
What Works: Satire is
tricky and this film walks the line between drama and parody. The crisis
of faith and the social ostracism that Mary endures is well structured
and creates a great degree of empathy for her. The humor is very sharp
and ironic, the way satire should be, but does not feel self conscious
or overly cynical. Characters like Mandy Moore’s pious overachiever
have been seen in other high school films, but rarely with the humor and
humanity that Saved! allows her.
What Doesn’t: The
ending of the film feels clichéd and a little too
after-school-special-like. This dampens some of the intelligence that is
demonstrated in the film up to that point.
DVD extras: Two
commentary tracks, deleted scenes, bloopers, outtakes, and a featurette.
Bottom Line: While Saved!
is a criticism of some of more rightwing Christian groups, it does not
damn Christianity outright. It is a smart and funny film that casts a
criticism on the overly pious and raises important issues about love,
faith, and friendship.
BACK TO THE TOP
Saw
Directed by: James Wan
Premise: A serial killer
sets up two men in an elaborate puzzle that can only be solved if one of
the men kills the other.
What Works: From start to
finish this is a very tight thriller. Its story construction works very
well, establishing the conflict right away and then flipping between the
back story and the main plotline. The film is shot in a dark, gritty
style that gives it a lot of character.
What Doesn’t: Saw
moves along so fast that actual character depth does not come until the
very end. However the ambiguity of the characters adds to the suspense
and pays off in the last act.
Bottom Line: Saw
mixes the storytelling craft of Hitchcock, the visceral nature of films by
Mario Bava, and the look of contemporary thrillers like Se7en.
It's very frightening but also very smart and a great new entry in the
horror genre.
BACK TO THE TOP
Saw
III
Directed by: Darren Lynn Bousman
Premise: The third film in the Saw
franchise. Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) and his assistant Amanda (Shawnee Smith)
kidnap a doctor (Bahar Soomekh) to keep Jigsaw alive while he engages in
one final game with Jeff (Angus McFadyen), a father mourning the loss of
his son.
What Works: This is most complex narrative
of the three Saw films. By now audiences will be looking for the
twists and so this film relies more on allowing characters to determine
the course of the action rather than gimmicks. This is a smart move and
as a result Saw III avoids some of the trickery and deception
that the previous films relied on. The film does not take anything for
granted and the storyline between Jigsaw and Amanda is very strong. The
film has its share of gore but in this Saw film there is less of
an emphasis on gore for gore’s sake and the torture devices in
Jeff’s game are more inventive than in the previous films.
What Doesn’t: While the tortures are
inventive, the film does not properly give the sense of Jeff’s
personal odyssey. His story and the change he goes through are
underdeveloped and as a result the climax does not have as much weight
as it could possess. The previous Saw pictures had an underlit,
gritty look but this lighting and cinematography of this film crosses
from being moody into being shoddy. Characters and action are difficult
to make out at times in ways that hurt the storytelling rather than
giving it atmosphere.
Bottom Line: For all its faults, this is a
satisfying wrap up to the Saw saga, if in fact, that is what the
film is. I worry that Saw III’s twist ending is a transition
into another installment that will lead the series to a path of self
destruction the way the Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the
13th franchises turned their frightening antagonists into
a running joke.
BACK TO THE TOP
Saw
IV
Directed by: Darren Lynn Bousman
Premise: The fourth film in the Saw
franchise follows a SWAT officer (Lyriq Bent) who is put into the final
game left by Jigsaw before his death in the
previous film. At the same time, a pair of FBI profilers (Scott
Patterson and Athena Karkanis) follows clues that suggest someone has
taken Jigsaw’s place.
What Works: Saw IV is pretty well
made film. The editing, especially between scenes, is very well done and
the art direction is very impressive. The film actually improves on the
previous installment with better cinematography and a more coherent
story. Saw IV adds some interesting new components to the
familiar mix of psychological and physical torture. This film builds on
the background given in Saw
II and tells the back-story of Jigsaw and how his psychosis
developed. This is done very well and by nestling it within this story,
Jigsaw is kept relevant to the plot despite being deceased. It also has
the distinction of taking Jigsaw in the direction of a tragic figure and
the back-story turns Jigsaw into a man rather than a monster. By the end
of this film, Tobin Bell’s character emerges as one of the best horror
villains since Pinhead of the Hellraiser
series. The story of Saw IV is also able to elevate the
challenges presented to the hero. The puzzles Bent’s character faces
are very interesting and carry more weight to them than some of the
tortures seen in the previous Saw films because they are designed
not only to test him, but to recruit the character and turn him into
another disciple.
What Doesn’t: The story of Saw IV
is more complex than any of the other entries in the series and it jerks
the audience around between various storylines. While it edits between
them fairly well, it relies on a lot of coincidences and with so many
characters in such a small story, the film is missing a lot of the
character development that made the original Saw
so frightening.
Bottom Line: For a horror series in its
fourth installment, Saw IV is certainly shooting ahead of the
curve. The surprise of the original film is not to be topped but Saw
IV does manage to carve out its own place and seals Jigsaw’s place
among the great horror villains.
BACK TO THE TOP
Say
Anything
Directed by: Cameron Crowe
Premise: Two high school students, one an
underachiever with no direction (John Cusack) and another the school
valedictorian (Ione Skye), fall in love the summer after their
graduation.
What Works: Years after its original
release, what separates Say Anything from the rest of the 1980s
teen romance genre is the film’s characters. Say Anything
features teens who have real lives and relationships that are far more
interesting and complex than what is often presented in the genre. The
relationship between Diane (Skye) and her father (John Mahoney) is one
of the most interesting in the film because of its ups and downs. As a
story this film is very tight, its pacing is fun, and film plays up the
fear of the unknown as these two lovers move into the uncharted future.
This is Cameron Crowe’s first directorial outing, and the film
features Crowe’s characteristic music selections, but in this film
music serves much more narrative purpose than it does in some of his
later work. The image of Cusack holding a stereo over his head playing
“In Your Eyes” by Peter Gabriel has become an iconic bit of popular
culture.
What Doesn’t: This is a 1980s teen
romance and it does follow the basic outline of its genre. As a result,
the narrative it is rather predictable.
DVD extras: Deleted and extended scenes,
featurette.
Bottom Line: Say Anything is still
one of Cameron Crowe’s best films because of its narrative simplicity.
The film moves along so well and its characters are so well rendered
that it easily overcomes the conventions of the formula and stands as a
great cultural parenthetical from the 1980s and a very well done teen
romance.
BACK TO THE TOP
Scarface
(1932)
Directed by: Howard Hawks
Premise: The classic gangster film follows
the rise and fall of Tony Camonte (Paul Muni) in 1930s Chicago.
What Works: Scarface is an example
of classic moviemaking. The structure of the story is very solid, with a
clearly defined three act structure and brisk storytelling. For a film
that is seventy-five years old, its chases and shootouts are very
exciting. The film’s portrayal of the gang war is effective and gets
the point across in a concise way. The film also includes a great
performance by Paul Muni as the antihero of the film and it stands with
Marlon Brando in The
Godfather as one of the quintessential film gangsters. He is
able to be brooding at one moment and turn into a lighthearted jokester
the next in ways that keep the character engaging and strangely likable,
but also warn of the trouble to come. There are some subtle but well
shot scenes in this Scarface that comply with the content rules
of classic Hollywood but are so well staged that they use the
restrictions to their advantage, such as Tony’s revenge on his
employer (Osgood Perkins). Part of the fun of screening this film is in
comparing it to Brian
DePalma’s film and there are plenty of parallels to be found
between the two. One of these parallels is in Tony’s relationship to
his love interest, played by Karen Morley, and to his sister, played by
Ann Dvorak. Dvorak is sultry but naïve and watching how Tony’s
lawlessness infects his sister in this film is in some ways superior to
the remake.
What Doesn’t: Those expecting a film
identical to the 1983 film may be disappointed in that the violence is
not as excessive and the film’s line between cops and criminals is
clearly defined in this picture. While blurring this line has been the
subject of the contemporary gangster film, these older pictures were
produced under the Hays Code and such discrepancies would have been
impossible.
DVD extras: Turner Classic Movies
introduction, alternate ending.
Bottom Line:
Howard Hawks version of Scarface is worth viewing by fans of
Brian DePalma’s remake, The
Untouchables, and the crime genre in general. Its energy and
classic characters make it an important film that ought to be more
widely appreciated.
BACK TO THE TOP
Scotland,
PA
Directed by: Billy Morrissette
Premise: An adaptation of Shakespeare’s Macbeth.
In this version, Macbeth and his wife kill the owner of a restaurant
chain.
What Works: The film is a surprisingly fun
adaptation of one of Shakespeare’s darkest plays. It makes the story
its own through humor and the film is able to successfully modernize the
material. The film’s primary
strength is in its cast, including Maura Tierney as Mrs. Pat Macbeth and
Christopher Walken as police Lieutenant McDuff. Although the film starts
rather light it does get more intense as the MacBeth's plight becomes
darker.
What Doesn’t: The trick with these kinds
of adaptations is to take elements of original text and integrate them
naturally into the news film’s storyline. Scotland, PA is
mostly successful at this although some important elements of
Shakespeare's play are not transferred as well.
DVD extras: Commentary track, insider’s
guide.
Bottom Line: Scotland, PA is both a
fun adaptation of MacBeth and an entertaining murder mystery in its own
right. Fans of modernized Shakespeare adaptations like 10
Things I Hate About You or of idiosyncratic humor will enjoy
this film.
BACK TO THE TOP
Se7en
Directed by: David Fincher
Premise: Mills (Brad Pitt), a police
detective new to the city beat, trains with Somerset (Morgan Freedman),
a detective days away from retirement, when a serial killer begins a
week-long spree, choosing and executing victims based on the seven
deadly sins of the Catholic tradition.
What Works: Se7en is a great take on
the serial killer film both for its artistry and for thoughtful
commentary on society and the serial killer genre. The film sets up a
fascinating dynamic between its three leads: Somerset wants to get out
of the city because he is so disgusted with the violence and apathy
around him, Mills wants in and still possesses the idealism and
commitment to justice that Somerset once had, and John Doe, the serial
killer expertly played by Kevin Spacey, is as disgusted with the city as
Somerset but has committed himself to act in ways that make him similar
to Mills. Doe’s sense of justice makes him a unique serial killer, one
who is motivated by an odd sense of justice, and it blurs the line
between cop and criminal in ways that are more complex and more
interesting than other police procedural pictures. The film’s style
borrows a lot from Alfred Hitchcock and a bit from Michael Mann,
especially Manhunter,
and Se7en uses cinematography and art direction to give the sense
that we have seen a lot more gore and violence than has actually taken
place on screen. The film uses the carnage of the murderer and the
authorities attempts to capture him to comment on how our obsessions
with serial killers, and by extension the serial killer film, uniquely
fit into our contemporary society.
What Doesn’t: Some may find Se7en
just too unrelentingly bleak for their taste. This is not an easy film
and it is unsettling from the pre-credit opening to its now famous
finale. It is an exquisitely made film and its artistic qualities are
not to be diminished, but some audience members may have to file the
film under the “It’s good but I don’t have to like it” category.
DVD extras: The New Line Platinum Series
edition includes multiple commentary tracks, explorations of the opening
sequence, storyboards, deleted scenes, alternate endings, a photo
gallery, trailers, and DVD-ROM features.
Bottom Line: Se7en
is one of Fincher’s two serial killer films, the other being Zodiac,
both of which stand with Henry:
Portrait of a Serial Killer and The
Silence of the Lambs as some of the great serial killer films of
all time.
BACK TO THE TOP
Sea
Monsters: A Prehistoric Adventure
Directed by: Sean MacLeod Phillips
Premise: A 3-D documentary from National
Geographic that explores large aquatic creatures that inhabited the
world’s oceans during the late Cretaceous period, recreating them with
computer graphics and simulating realistically shot nature footage.
What Works: The 3-D effects of Sea
Monsters are very impressive and this really is the primary reason
to see the film. Sea Monsters uses the technology to give a sense
of the size and weight of these creatures and the detail involved is
very good. The film is enthralled by nature and its complexity and uses
cross cutting between the ancient seas and contemporary paleontologists
to convey that sense of wonder.
What Doesn’t: As a nature documentary, Sea
Monsters lacks new material. The film does not do much to inform the
audience and most of its facts about prehistoric creatures are covered
in any elementary-level book on the subject. Echoing Finding
Nemo, the film attempts to create a narrative around two newborn
dolichorynchops starting out into the dangerous world of the ancient
seas and encountering predators that try to eat them, but the story is
not the main thrust the documentary. Unlike The
March of the Penguins, Sea Monsters remains too distant
from its subject and the picture remains more like a hundred other
dinosaur documentaries featured on educational television channels. This
is disappointing because other documentaries have managed to create
narratives with all animal casts, and since the story of Sea Monsters
is completely CGI the filmmakers had a chance to conceive and craft an
exciting and engaging story but failed to seize on that opportunity.
Bottom Line: Sea Monsters is stuck
in a dilemma. On one hand, the film is very short, less than an hour
long, and it is hard to justify purchasing a full price theater ticket
to such a short picture. On the other hand, if the film were any longer
it would probably start to drag because it lacks any narrative for the
audience to grab onto for the duration of the picture. Ultimately, Sea
Monsters is worth a matinee admission if only to experience the 3-D
effects.
BACK TO THE TOP
Secretary
(2002)
Directed by: Steven Shainberg
Premise: A shy young woman (Maggie
Gyllenhaal) takes a secretarial position with a demanding attorney
(James Spader). Their relationship evolves from a strict
employee-employer relationship into a sexual, dominant-submissive one.
What Works: Secretary takes on the
subject of sadomasochism in a very forthright and interesting way. The
film does not simplify the subject to an expose of depraved or mentally
ill individuals nor does it use the sexuality in exploitative ways.
Instead, Secretary displays sexual desire and gratification as a
product of character. The sexual awakening of Maggie Gyllenhall’s
character is paired with her growth an assertive, independent woman and
the relationship between her and Spader’s attorney, although
dominant-submissive, is not perpetrator-victim. The S&M scenes of Secretary
are shot with great restraint, which makes them far more intense, and
they keep the focus on the characters and the evolving relationship
between them. Maggie Gyllenhaal is terrific as an awkward young woman
who finds a release for her daily anxieties by living a
dominant-submissive lifestyle and the screenplay and her performance
make her character a dignified individual who is not an out-of-control
sex maniac but a whole person looking for satisfaction but also for
love. Spader has a similar journey to go through, opening himself up and
breaking down barriers that he has set up between himself and the world.
The actor has subtle work to do here, but it is effectively carried out.
The courtship between the two characters is interesting and, like the
S&M scenes, it is done in ways that are consistent with character.
What Doesn’t: The ending of the film
follows a lot of conventions of the typical love story. It gives the
relationship a happy ending and the way the love story is ultimately
resolved is consistent with the rest of the picture, although it steps
away from the more intense scenes earlier in the picture.
DVD extras: Commentary track, photo
gallery, and a featurette.
Bottom Line: Secretary
is a very good romance, albeit an unusual one. Aside from the S&M
content, the film is unique in that it connects this woman’s search
for love with other demons in her life and treats her as a mature,
complete character. Secretary may not be a romance for everyone,
but is a very well made picture.
BACK TO THE TOP
See
No Evil (2006)
Directed by: Gregory Dark
Premise: A group of
juvenile convicts is sent to an abandoned hotel and are soon stalked by
a large killer (Kane).
What Works: The art
direction and cinematography of See No Evil are pretty well
designed. The scenes are dark but lit well enough to see the action and
the sets have some great detail to them. Some members of the young cast
are promising, particularly Samantha Nobel, who is able to bring some
sophistication and emotion to her role.
What Doesn’t: Not much
else works in this film. The premise of the story is completely
unbelievable, even within the context that this story takes place in,
and the opening sequence does nothing to set up or explain the discovery
at the end of the film. Characters are eliminated too quickly and the
film cuts between the various victims too irregularly. The teens, if
that is what they are supposed to be, look more like they just got out
of a Banana Republic photo shoot instead of a corrections facility and
the dynamics between the characters are stock teen angst. One of the
most maddening things about See No Evil is the film’s many
wasted opportunities. There is a nub of story here, with some
potentially interesting characters, but the film feels as though someone
took an outline of a script and shot it without ever actually finishing
the screenplay.
Bottom
Line: See No Evil is a debacle of a film. It is gory but not
scary. It dabbles in madness but in ways that make it incoherent rather
than frightening. It is a Hostel
and Saw
imitation that is a shadow of its predecessors.
BACK TO THE TOP
The
Seeker: The Dark Is Rising
Directed by: David L. Cunningham
Premise: Will, a teenage boy (Alexander
Ludwig) finds that he is a warrior chosen by fate and by bloodline to
defend the Earth by locating six magical amulets and using their
combined power to combat the forces of darkness.
What Works: In its best moments, The
Seeker combines fantasy with coming-of-age scenarios like family
conflicts and adolescent anxiety. The highlights of the film are found
mostly in its lead actor, Alexander Ludwig. He does his best to make the
character believable and scattered throughout the film are small moments
where Ludwig is able to add humor and some intelligence to the role. The
film is also successful in conceiving some of its fantasy visuals, using
unusual camera set ups and other cinematic tricks to create a unique
visual style.
What Doesn’t: The Seeker falls
into the same traps as other mediocre fantasy films such as repeating
dialogue and scenarios and substituting that for character growth. The
Seeker constantly repeats itself with Ludwig’s adolescent warrior
doubting he can complete his mission, then being prompted on by his
mentor (Ian McShane) while being subject to empty threats by the evil
Rider (Christopher Eccleston). While this pattern repeats, Will does not
grow as a leader and a lot of what should be heroic action is minimized
by a lack of volition. He is always thrown into the situation rather
than consciously choosing to go on this quest, and Will is often either
bailed out of his situation by one his mentor figures or he discovers
one of the amulets when they fall in front of his face. A lot of the
dialogue of the film is stock fantasy garble, with talk of obligations
and rites, but The Seeker never gets down to anything palatable.
There are strands in the film that could lead to something that would
add weight and jeopardy to Will’s journey such as his relationship
with his brothers and father (John Benjamin Hickey) and his lust over a
local girl (Amelia Warner) who may be more than she seems. But The
Seeker lets this all go in favor of jerking the audience from
repetitious fantasy sequence to another. The film is further hurt by the
underwritten villain who never really comes into conflict with the hero
until the very end and by then it’s too late.
Bottom Line: The Seeker: The Dark is
Rising is better than a lot of the recent fantasy films like Dragon
Wars or Eragon
but it's not at all exceptional. Actor Alexander Ludwig shows
promise but hopefully he didn’t sign a sequel clause in his contract
for this film.
BACK TO THE TOP
Semi-Pro
Directed by: Kent Alterman
Premise: In the 1970s, a low ranking ABA
basketball team rallies under a goofy owner and head coach (Will
Ferrell) to save their season before the league is merged into the NBA.
What Works: The film alternates between
standard sports film scenarios, in which the team of underdogs comes
together under the leadership of a former NBA player (Woody Harrelson),
and stunts the owner and coach puts on to promote the team, such as
wrestling a bear. The story written for Woody Harrelson’s character is
fairly compelling and he is given the best scenes in the film. The
stunts by Ferrell’s character are funny in and of themselves and will
elicit a few laughs.
What Doesn’t: The fatal flaw of Semi-Pro
is its inability to reconcile these two elements. The promotions put on
by Ferrell’s character are only relevant for the moment they appear on
screen; the scenes do not connect to anything else in the story and just
become excuses for Ferrell to act like an idiot. These stunts divert
attention from the cliché riddled basketball story, which relies on
scenarios that have been done before and done better in a million other
movies. Although Harrelson gets some interesting moments in the film,
they don’t add up to anything. The humor of the movie is very
scattershot, with the filmmakers leaning on Ferrell to pull out his
likable moron routine whenever they need a laugh. But it’s not enough
to save Semi-Pro, and the entire film has a lazy feel about it;
apparently no effort went into the story, the jokes, the characters, the
acting, or the basketball choreography and that lack of effort is
painfully obvious on screen.
Bottom Line: Semi-Pro is a film
about minor league basketball, but the title might as well describe the
efforts put forth by the filmmakers. It’s a lazy picture that
cynically believes that its star power will distract from the film’s
absence of effort.
BACK TO THE TOP
The
Sentinel
Directed by: Clark Johnson
Premise: Veteran Secret
Service agent Pete Garrison (Michael Douglass) gets caught in the middle
of a plot to assassinate the president.
What Works: The
Sentinel is a part of a well-established subgenre of spy thrillers.
It respects the elements of its genre and the performances by Douglass
and Kiefer Sutherland, playing the agent investigating the assassination
plot, work pretty well.
What Doesn't: Part of the
joy of this genre is in the tension of the plotting and unfortunately The
Sentinel gets stuck with too many plot holes for it to work. The
film attempts to shake up the thriller formula by adding elements that
do not work as well as they should. Subplots involving an affair between
Garrison and the first lady (Kim Basinger) and a fallen relationship
between Douglass and Sutherland are incomplete and do not come to any
satisfactory conclusion. Stylistically, The Sentinel uses non-digetic
voiceovers, wipes, and artsy composite shots intended to make the film
edgy but they come off as silly and distracting.
Bottom Line: The
Sentinel is like a made for TV movie staring A-list actors. It
aspires to be The
Bourne Identity or In
the Line of Fire. While it is not as well crafted as those
films, The Sentinel makes for decent afternoon matinee
entertainment.
BACK TO THE TOP
Sex
and the City (2008)
Directed by: Michael Patrick King
Premise: A feature length adaptation of the
HBO television series. Carrie (Sarah Jessica Paker), a New York life
and culture columnist, prepares to get married. After her fiancé (Chris
Noth) leaves her at the altar, Carrie and her friends (Cynthia Nixon,
Kristin Davis, Kim Cattrall) confront complications in their love lives
as they transition into late middle age.
What Works: Sex and the City is a
very good adaptation of a television program in that it captures much of
what worked best about the show while elevating the story to the next
level. The film is primarily about the transition into late middle age
and how romantic priorities change after the women have their Cinderella
moment. Nearly all of the main characters are given a major curveball in
their lives that forces them to reevaluate their priorities and leads
them down the path of epiphany. Of the four this is done best with
Miranda (Cynthia Nixon), who is given by far the best material and who
delivers the best performance. Her story is smartly tied in with
Carrie’s and two plots mirror each other like a pair of shoes. Like
the show, there is plenty of sharp dialogue and wide-eyed ogling over
designer labels but the motion picture attempts to cut a little deeper
into the characters, drawing out the conflicts and giving the various
plots greater highs and lows.
What Doesn’t: This feature length version
of Sex and the City inflates some of the weaknesses of the
television series. Many have praised the four lead female characters as
modern independent women, but that is hardly true at all. These women
are incredibly high maintenance drama queens who are mostly traditional
in their portrayal, obsessing over materialistic trifles, treating
gossip as though it were philosophy, and expecting Prince Charming to
ride up and sweep them off their feet. While Carrie and company are fun
to spend a couple of hours with on screen, in real life such a person
would be intolerable. Where the show made headway was in its frank
dramatization of sexuality and contemporary courtship. The film and its
characters show maturation with the transition away from sex and into
love, but in the process it traverses from novelty and into cliché.
Carrie’s drama with Mr. Big (Noth) manages to hit a lot of familiar
notes of the romantic comedy subgenre and it lacks any irony or
innovation that marked the rest of the series.
Bottom Line: Sex and the City will
satisfy fans of the television show. Obviously viewers who did not like
the show will not like the film, but it is a mostly successful
adaptation of a television program, bringing its characters and their
world of romance and fashion faithfully to the screen.
BACK TO THE TOP
Shark
Tale
Directed by: Bibo Bergeron, Vicky
Jenson, Rob Letterman
Premise: Oscar (Will
Smith), a small fish, forms a pact with a shark named Lenny (Jack Black)
to con a reef community.
What Works: This is a fairly
funny movie. Like Shrek,
a lot of the humor is intertextual, meaning that it makes a lot of pop
culture references. There is a healthy mix of juvenile and mature humor,
but the adult jokes are not so mature that parents will be embarrassed
to bring their children to the theater.
What Doesn’t: As funny as it
is, the film is a bit shallow and uses snappy humor to cover for its
lack of the more complex characterization seen in films like Toy
Story and Finding
Nemo. The plot is extremely unoriginal and the design of the
aquatic fantasy world is very gaudy and distracting, making Shark
Tale rather obnoxious to look at.
Bottom Line: Shark Tale
demonstrates once again that animation is on the forefront of cinematic
entertainment but it needs to break out of the mold that the genre has
found itself in. Shark Tale is an enjoyable film for fans of Ice
Age and Finding Nemo.
BACK TO THE TOP
Shattered
Glass
Directed by: Billy Ray
Premise: A dramatization
of the fall of Stephen Glass (Hayden Christensen), a writer for The
New Republic who was caught falsifying his stories.
What Works: There are
some very strong performances in the film, among them Hayden
Christiansen as Stephen Glass and Peter Sarsgaard as New Republic
editor Charles Lane. Christiansen’s performance has a vulnerable
quality to it that captures Glass’ sophistication and allows for
empathy even as he digs himself further into a hole. Sarsgaard has an
equally challenging role as his character seeks to balance management
decisions and loyalty to his staff. The film is also able to shed some
light on the life of columnists and makes for an engaging portrayal of
the industry.
What Doesn’t: A subplot
about Charles Lane’s family is started but it never goes anywhere.
DVD extras: Commentary
track and a 60 Minutes interview with Stephen Glass.
Bottom Line: Shattered
Glass is first-rate entertainment. It is a quiet story but it has
strong impact and is very intense as it follows Glass’ breakdown.
Definitely recommended for fans of All
the President’s Men.
BACK TO THE TOP
Shaun
of the Dead
Directed by: Edgar Wright
Premise: Shaun (Simon
Pegg) reconciles his relationship with his girlfriend (Kate Ashfield)
while battling a hoard of cannibalistic zombies.
What Works: This film
proves what horror film aficionados have known for years: the zombie
film is a form of slapstick comedy and a successful combination of the
two genres could result in a very successful film. Sean of the Dead
is at its best early in the picture as the growing menace of the zombies
grows, hilariously, just out of sight. The film is driven by Simon Pegg,
who shows a comic timing and delivery that ought to make Sean of the
Dead a breakout film for him.
What Doesn’t: In the
end the film loses some of its energy as the comedy takes a back seat to
more serious scenes. However, the film is able to use this part of the
film to give it a dramatic credibility that makes it more endearing.
DVD extras: Outtakes,
deleted scenes, casting tapes, Simon Pegg’s video diary, and a
commentary track.
Bottom Line: The
horror-comedy is a difficult genre to do correctly, but this film
achieves very high marks, and is probably the best entry in that
subgenre since Ghostbusters.
Definitely for fans of the zombie film, but there is enough humor here
to appeal to a much wider audience.
BACK TO THE TOP
Shoot
'Em Up
Directed by: Michael Davis
Premise: A former special-ops soldier
(Clive Owen) unwittingly becomes the protector of a newborn when he
witnesses the mother’s death by a team of assassins. With the help of
a recently pregnant prostitute (Monica Bellucci) he defends the baby and
tries to deliver the boy to safety.
What Works: Shoot ‘Em Up is a lot
of fun. From beginning to end the film is crammed with shootout and
stunts, pausing every now and then for a one liner from Clive Owen, the
child’s protector, or Paul Giamatti, the leader of the death squad.
Many of the stunts and scenarios cross the line from reality to
exaggeration, but Shoot ‘Em Up borders on being a satire of
action films like those made by Arnold Schwarzenegger throughout the
1980s and the films of Steven Segal, Chuck Norris, or Jean-Claude Van
Damme. The film has such a sense of humor about what it is doing that
the violence takes on the quality of a Warner Brothers cartoon. Paul
Giamatti and Clive Owen are very good, and casting these talented and
respected actors in their roles helps lift the film out of what might
otherwise have been a dull exercise in gunfights. Owen radiates
action-film-cool, film and he turns the character into a contemporary
John Wayne-like figure. Giamatti delivers a sinister but very humorous
performance as an antagonist who is much smarter than the stock villains
that usually populate this kind of film.
What Doesn’t: Shoot ‘Em Up is
not brilliant storytelling. Although the film picks up and amplifies the
fun elements of other action films, it also picks up their weaknesses.
Plot holes abound, characters appear in places for no particular reason,
gravity spontaneously suspends itself, and police are nowhere to be
seen. The one liners by Owen and Giamatti are not as funny as they could
be and Monica Bellucci's character does not do much in the story except
what Owen’s character tells her to do. A lot of the stunts and
characters of Shoot ‘Em Up have been seen in other places. The
chase scenes are lifted from The
Bourne Supremacy and the airplane and parachute sequence is
right out Eraser,
for example.
Bottom Line: Shoot ‘Em Up knows
that it is dumb, but not stupid, and plays up the outrageousness of the
situation. For that self-awareness, the film delivers an entertaining
popcorn film. It is, for lack of a better term, a guy movie, and it is
easy to envision a roomful of college age men enjoying Shoot ‘Em Up
on a double bill with 300,
cheering on the film in between keg stands.
BACK TO THE TOP
Shopgirl
Directed by: Anand Tucker
Premise: Based on Steve
Martin’s novella. After separating from a lethargic man her own age
(Jason Schwartzman), Mirabelle (Claire Danes) begins a long-term
relationship with Ray (Steve Martin), an older man, in which the love is
ultimately one-sided.
What Works: This a very
subtle but beautiful story in which characters are finely drawn and
their relationships are complex. The film is extremely well cast. Claire
Danes’ performance captures the vulnerability and femininity of her
character but also maintains her dignity and her integrity. Neither she
nor the script reduce the role to a weepy, love sick stereotype. Steve
Martin is also very good as Ray. He is cruel but not intentionally. It
is a fabulous performance and a reminder of how good of an actor Martin
is. The film puts the anatomy of Mirablelle’s simultaneous attraction
and heartbreak on display, how it happens and why it happens. Director
Tucker has got serious talent for revealing subtext and using the
cinematic form to reveal character.
What Doesn’t: From our
privileged view as spectators, it is easy for the audience to keep
wishing that Danes’ character would just wake up to the reality of her
relationship with Ray, but that is the journey for her to take.
DVD extras: Deleted
scenes, featurette.
Bottom Line: Shopgirl
is a fine film, a love story that truly avoids clichés and uses humor
to lighten up what is otherwise a heartbreaking tale. While it will
certainly appeal to fans of the romance genre, Shopgirl should
have much wider appeal.
BACK TO THE TOP
Shrek
2
Directed by: Andrew Adamson, Kelly Asbury, Conrad Vernon
Premise: Sequel to
the 2001 film. Shrek and Fiona travel to see Fiona’s parents, who
are unaware that the two of them are now ogres.
What Works: Like the
original, there are a lot of intertextual references that are played for
big laughs. These jokes are probably the funniest bits in the film. The
mature humor is also there, but it is not so mature that parents will be
embarrassed to watch it with their children. Also, like the original,
the themes of the film deal with the issues of identity and acceptance.
The engine of the first film is reversed, as Shrek attempts a physical
change for Fiona.
What Doesn’t: The
ending of Shrek 2 is a little problematic. There is a musical
number that goes on a bit long and the ending is a little too
tidy. The original picture played on the stereotypes of fairy tales and
Disney films; Shrek 2 does that for awhile, but the ending
coheres with these conventions.
Bottom Line: Those who
liked the original ought to be satisfied with this film. It does not
break much new ground but it does justice to the original.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Shrek
the Third
Directed by: Chris Miller and Raman Hui
Premise: The third film in the Shrek
franchise. When King Harold (voice of John Cleese) dies, Shrek (voice of
Mike Myers), Donkey (voice of Eddie Murphy), and Puss (voice of Antonio
Banderas) travel across Far, Far Away to find the future King Arthur
(voice of Justin Timberlake). At the same time, Prince Charming (voice
of Rupert Everett) leads the villains of the fairy tale world in an
attempt to take over the kingdom.
What Works: As a computer animated film,
this Shrek film jettisons a lot of the pop culture references
that have been plaguing this particular genre. They are still present,
but most are presented in the background and support the humor,
characters, and story in the foreground of the film rather than existing
as an endless string of obnoxious inter-textual jokes, as they did in Shrek
2. This film is closer to the
original in its tone and yet it is able to go into different areas.
Where the second film took the engine of the first film and reversed it,
thus rehashing old conflicts with (some) new jokes, Shrek the Third
takes a new narrative approach and forces Shrek as a character into some
newer territory.
What Doesn’t: Despite some new elements,
much of this Shrek film feels largely rehashed from the pervious
installments. Despite having a baby on the way, Shrek the Third
does not do much with the relationship between Princess Fiona (voice of
Cameron Diaz) and Shrek. Donkey and Puss go through the motions of their
sidekick roles with no changes. Arthur, the only new addition to the
core cast, does not really do anything and does not take any action to
assert his heroism as Shrek did in the first film. The story has an
inherent problem in that Shrek is attempting to avoid taking the role of
King from his father in law, and so the whole story revolves around our
hero trying to avoid responsibility rather than learning to accept it or
cope with it. That is a difficult sell for the audience and the film
never overcomes this tension. As a comedy, Shrek the Third just
isn’t very funny. This is in part because, after two films, the ironic
twists on traditional fairy tales have run their course and what was
original, hip, and even subversive in the original Shrek is now
passé and cliché.
Bottom Line: Overall, Shrek the Third
is underwhelming. It is not bad and children will probably enjoy it, but
the franchise has simply run out of steam.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Sicko
Directed by: Michael Moore
Premise: A documentary about the health
care industry, comparing the private system in the United States to the
public systems available in Europe and Canada and compiling the horror
stories of people who have suffered from the U.S. system.
What Works: Sicko is another great
documentary from Moore, a director whose filmography is filled with
examples of presenting expository information in an entertaining and
dramatically satisfying way. This film is structured and focused more
like Bowling
for Columbine than Fahrenheit
9/11 or Roger
and Me in that Sicko is focused on the broader picture,
making Americans not only look at the inner workings of an industry, but
using that industry to make Americans look at themselves as a people.
Still, Sicko is a bit different from some of other films by
Moore, as it is tempered by more compassion and less zealotry and
directs the audience toward a specific goal, stating it outright in the
film. The picture is expertly edited, juxtaposing talking points through
exposition and narration and then illustrating them with personal
testimonials, and allows the argument to unfold, leading the audience
toward Moore’s desired end.
What Doesn’t: Although the film is funny
in appropriate moments, the film is missing some of the characteristic
Moore shenanigans that made him famous. This film does not have a big
buzz moment, like Charlton Heston's interview in Bowling for
Columbine or the footage of President Bush sitting in a classroom in
Fahrenheit 9/11. The techniques in this film are more nuanced,
and those looking for Moore the practical joker may be a bit let down by
the more somber approach in Sicko.
Bottom Line: Sicko is one of Michael
Moore’s best works, on par with Bowling for Columbine. The
picture takes a step back from the choir preaching in his other work and
reaches out toward those who may have found him too partisan in the
past. Sicko is another knockout film for Moore and the
documentary genre.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Sideways
Directed by: Alexander Payne
Premise: Miles and Jack
(Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church) take a road trip before Jack's
wedding and hook up with a couple of single women (Sandra Oh and
Virginia Madsen).
What Works: Despite its
heavy premise, Sideways is very funny. Giamatti is very good as a
middle school teacher and aspiring writer paired with a has-been
television actor played by Church. The two characters have a mismatched
friendship and very opposite priorities and values. Watching them
interact and struggle in their week together makes for interesting
viewing. The story is constructed so that the men’s actions constantly
inform and change each other’s situations. This successfully
complicates the drama and continually heightens the conflict.
What Doesn’t: Sideways
meanders through some parts, especially the ending, and we have to
wonder what the point of all this was. That is part of the film’s
intent, but some viewers may struggle with the lack of conclusion.
DVD extras: Commentary
track with Giamatti and Church, deleted scenes, behind the scenes
featurette, Easter eggs.
Bottom Line: Sideways
is a film about people whose lives have not lived up to their
expectations as a result of their own faults and from forces outside of
their control. The film is about second chances and moving on and in
that way Sideways is very satisfying.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Simpsons Movie
Directed by: David Silverman
Premise: A feature length adaptation of the
animated television series. Homer Simpson (voice of Dan Castellaneta)
creates a natural disaster in Lake Springfield and the EPA responds by
dropping a huge dome over the town, isolating it from the rest of the
world. The people of Springfield turn on the Simpson family and it is up
to Homer to take responsibility for his actions and save the city.
What Works: The Simpsons Movie is an
exceptional comedy. As an animated film adapted from a television show,
the picture realizes one of its inherent dilemmas: it is required by
necessity to take The Simpsons to a bigger level but it also has
to keep the story and the characters recognizably close to the look,
style, and humor of the television series. The filmmakers have
successfully walked this line and delivered a film that is recognizable
as The Simpsons but has more impressive animation than the
television show and includes story and comedic elements that fit the
feature length presentation. The Simpsons Movie pushes boundaries
that the television program never could, including satire of racial and
religious issues, spoofs on other animated films, and sexual innuendo
that is still PG-13 but beyond the limits of network television. The
result is a film that is literally funny from beginning to end. The film
bombards the viewer with joke after joke, either in Homer’s idiotic
reasoning, a background gag, or a self conscious bit of satire, and
often time these elements work in tandem to create scenes that are very
rich with fun. One of the more admirable qualities about The Simpsons
television show, especially when it started in the late 1980s, is its
ability to be subversive. In the years following, the subversive and
boundary pushing qualities of the show were diminished by familiarity
and by more outrageous competition from shows like South
Park and Family
Guy. The Simpsons Movie is able to return to that initial
daring and the film reminds audiences why this show has been as
successful as it has.
What Doesn’t: The film does not use many
of the supporting characters of the Simpsons universe and instead
crams nearly every possible character into the background of the film or
includes them in a brief walk-on. While it is nice to see to see that
the film stays with the Simpson family and uses them to create a solid
storyline, enthusiasts of the show might be disappointed that the rich
universe of the show has largely been ignored.
Bottom Line: After years of rumors, The
Simpsons Movie finally delivers the goods both for hardcore fans of
the series and for passive viewers, capitalizing on the best elements of
the television show. Unlike many feature adaptations of television
programs, this film is more than a longer version of the weekly episodes
and is takes The Simpsons to a new level.
BACK TO THE TOP
Sin
City
Directed by: Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, and Quentin
Tarantino
Premise: An adaptation of
Frank Miller’s series of graphic novels. The film is comprised of
three short stories that take place in the crime ridden, urban
landscape.
What Works: Sin City
is a gorgeous film but in a very gritty and grotesque way. This really
is a true comic adaptation in the sense that it blurs the line between
animation and live action. This is also a very violent film but the
violence is part of the grotesque beauty of the picture and is
reminiscent of the films of Mario Bava and other Italian horror films of
the 1960s and 70s. The film's parts, although created by different
directors, do have a unified look and tone that makes each story
distinct and yet stylistically part of a cohesive whole.
What Doesn’t: Although
the three parts are unified in their look and location, the stories do
not connect together very strongly and so the film lacks a unity and
cohesiveness that would have strengthened the juxtaposition of these
stories.
Bottom
Line: Sin City is a landmark film. Watching this is like
watching Tim Burton’s Batman
or the original Matrix.
There is a sense that this is something truly original and
artistic.
BACK
TO THE TOP
The
Skeleton Key
Directed by: Iain Softley
Premise: A young woman
(Kate Hudson) who cares for an invalid man (John Hurt) in the swamps of
New Orleans begins to suspect that supernatural causes are at the root
of the man’s illness.
What Works: The film is
sufficiently creepy and has some very well conceived sequences. The real
ploy of the film is in the way it keeps the audience guessing at whether
the supernatural elements are real or if they are just in the
character’s heads. Screenwriter Ehren Kruger, whose other work
includes The
Ring and Arlington
Road, has made a surprisingly mature film that, despite being
PG-13, manages to capture the horror of the environment by combining the
dark elements of America’s history with contemporary sensibilities.
What Doesn’t: There is
a flashback sequence that is not well conceived because of lousy editing
and cinematography. One of the reversals in the third act is rather
predictable, but there are enough other surprises that it does not drag
the film down.
Bottom Line: The
Skeleton Key is a genuine American ghost story. It is a film that
delivers both jump scares and creates an atmosphere that maintains a
level of dread. Fans of The Ring and other ghost stories will
enjoy it.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Sky
Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Directed by: Kerry Conran
Premise: Joe “Sky
Captain” Sullivan (Jude Law) teams up with reporter Polly Perkins
(Gwyneth Paltrow) when giant machines begin to attack the earth.
What Works: The film
looks great, especially in the first act. The film is designed to be an
homage to the science fiction and adventure serials of the 1940s and
combine that look with contemporary special effects. Jude Law and
Gwyneth Paltrow are well cast in their roles and do a good job with what
they have to work with.
What Doesn’t: Modern
versions of 1940s serials are nothing new; George Lucas and Steven
Spielberg made these famous in the Star Wars and Indiana Jones
films. However, the strength of those pictures was founded on a
strong script and that is exactly where Sky Captain goes awry.
Its story is totally inane. The characters have little to do and the
actions they take do not have much sense of purpose. Despite the
apparent threat to the planet, the film fails to create any sense of
urgency. Angelina Jolie’s character, although interesting, is totally
wasted. Sky Captain enters the genre of the science fiction
serial but then has no regard for basic narrative principles.
Bottom
Line:
This film represents the major problems facing the science fiction and
fantasy genres today. Modern technology has given filmmakers special
effects tools to create anything they can imagine, but then they fail to
demonstrate even the most rudimentary sense of storytelling. Those who
complained about the storytelling faults of Star
Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace have a new whipping boy.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Slither
Directed by: James Gunn
Premise: An alien species
attached to a meteor crashes in the rural town in the American south and
begins to take over the citizens, turning them into zombies.
What Works: Slither
is an effective homage to the alien invasion films of the 1950s and 60s.
Gunn got his start in films by Troma Studios like Tromeo
and Juliet and he has brought that same sensibility of extreme
gore mixed with humor to this film. The mix is fairly even, using the
humor to deflate the terror and set the audience up for a new scare. The
jokes are well placed and well timed and reveal a self-consciousness
that makes the film even funnier. There is also a great, although not
very subtle, sexuality to Slither not seen in science fiction
since the Alien films.
What Doesn’t: In the
last act of the story, the tension gets deflated and the story is
resolved in a way that defies logic, even for this kind of genre film. Slither
occasionally sides with too much humor, making it a little silly and not
allowing the drama to play out.
Bottom Line: Slither
is good, icky fun and it will appeal to fan of the genre. Those who
liked movies such as Tremors,
Evolution,
or Cabin
Fever will want to check this out.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Smokin’
Aces
Directed by: Joe Carnahan
Premise: When a mob informant (Jeremy Piven)
prepares to testify against the mob, a large number of colorful
assassins descend on a Las Vegas hotel, resulting is a shootout between
the assassins and between the assassins and law enforcement.
What Works: Smokin’ Aces has some
great cinematography and the actors get to into some unique roles that
are fun to watch, at least for a while. The final shootout is a great
action sequence and is put together very well.
What Doesn’t: For all of the film’s
flamboyance, Smokin’ Aces is resoundingly empty. The characters
are colorful and there is a fair amount of humor, but the film has no
substance. Where films like Snatch
also featured eccentric characters, the subjects of Smokin’
Aces are not very interesting aside of their peculiarities. They are
not really characters so much as they are live action cartoons. Like Shaun
of the Dead, Smokin’ Aces seems as though it were made
with a degree of consciousness about its genre but the film is not able
to play on or add anything to that genre. The story has little to it
either in character development or in dramatic tension. Smokin’
Aces puts a man’s life at stake but he is a horrible person and an
uninteresting character, and so there is little weight in whether he
lives or dies.
Bottom Line: Smokin’ Aces is a
film that has some interesting characters but its screenplay suffers
from a lack of a central character or a compelling motivation. Where
other films such as Snatch or Shaun of the Dead
successfully combined colorful characters and genre awareness with a
sense of playfulness, Smokin’ Aces comes up short and ends up
with a lot of style with little substance.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Snakes
on a Plane
Directed by: David R. Ellis
Premise: Samuel L.
Jackson stars as an FBI agent escorting a murder witness on a jet, when
hoards of poisonous snakes are unleashed mid-flight.
What Works: The film is
as silly as it sounds and that is the whole point. The dialogue is
laughable, the scenario is ludicrous, and the computer-generated snakes
look terrible. Yet, Snakes on a Plane is more enjoyable that a
lot of the other films released this summer because it has no illusions
about what it is. The film has a lot of laughs, both as gags and as self
deprecating humor, and a lot of well placed jump scares.
What Doesn’t: As silly
as the film is, Snakes on a Plane is not as funny as the premise
would suggest. The thrills and laughs are there, but this is neither Airplane!
nor is it Jaws.
Bottom Line: Snakes on
a Plane is a bad film, but in a self-conscious way that is very
enjoyable. The film has been designed to appeal to the fifteen year old
in all of us and as that, Snakes on a Plane succeeds where so
many of the films this summer have failed.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Snatch
Directed by: Guy Richie
Premise: Two underground boxing promoters
(Jason Statham and Stephen Graham) attempt to resolve their obligations
to crime lord Brick Top (Alan Ford). At the same time, other groups of
criminals attempt to get their hands on a stolen diamond.
What Works: Snatch was one the first
and most prominent films early in this decade to feature a large cast of
colorful characters in split narratives and it still stands as one of
the best of these kinds of stories, combining the comedy of errors,
organized crime, sport, and heist genres with interesting characters and
avant garde filmmaking techniques. What separates Snatch
from imitators such as Lucky
Number Slevin and Smokin’
Aces is its dedication to a coherent narrative. The film locates
its story around Turkish and Tommy, two distinct characters who are
engaging protagonists, and has a clear antagonist (Ford) who cuts across
the different narratives. The performances in the film are very good,
especially by Brad Pitt as Mickey, a bare hands boxing champion from a
gypsy camp. Pitt stretches himself in ways he hasn’t in other
performances and he is a great source of humor and sadness in the film.
What Doesn’t: The film is fundamentally a
British comedy and some may find Snatch obnoxious, especially in
the film’s frantic editing techniques.
DVD extras: The two-disc deluxe edition
features a commentary track, pikey subtitles, documentaries, deleted
scenes, photo gallery, storyboard, booklet, and a deck of playing cards.
Bottom Line: Snatch is a film that
exudes creativity disciplined by wise storytelling decisions. The film
is a great deal of fun, but it is also crafted with a serious sense for
the dramatic, making it more than just an exercise in style. Although
the film is likely to get polarized reactions, with viewers either
loving it or hating it, Snatch remains an admirable piece of
work.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Son
of Rambow
Directed by: Garth Jennings
Premise: In the mid 1980s, a pair of boys
(Will Poulter and Bill Milner), one a rebellious outsider raised by his
brother and the other the well behaved son in a super-religious family,
see the film First
Blood and begin to make a sequel with a home video camera.
What Works: There is a small niche of films
about the joy that cinema can bring for audiences and filmmakers.
Pictures like Sullivan’s
Travels, Adaptation,
and Be
Kind Rewind often satirize Hollywood while casting a loving eye
on the filmmaking process, and others like Scream,
The
Dreamers, and The
Life and Death of Peter Sellers explore the relationship between
the cinema and life. Son of Rambow hits right in between these
two categories and nails it perfectly. Rather than just recapitulating
the original film, Son of Rambow uses First Blood as a
starting point and explores how the film spurs the boy’s imaginations.
Each of the junior filmmaker's creativity is borne out in the process
and each deals with their personal problems through their film. The
relationship between the two boys is as real as any seen between two
prepubescents on film and the development of their friendship is organic
and never feels forced. It’s also very funny in a smart way between
the tomfoolery of the boys, the recreation of the film, and their lives
at school. The story has some great supporting characters, namely a New
Wave foreign exchange student (Jules Sitruk) who is adored by all the
girls at school and the film is able to unify all of its major and
supporting elements. Something else the film does extraordinarily, is to
satirize the clichés of the Hollywood success story seen in a million
other films, sending the boys through the process of being a nobody,
then gaining fame and having success endanger their relationships and
their art, and eventually finding a balance between their success and
their creativity. The technical craft of the film is at a surprisingly
high level. Despite being a modestly scaled film, Son of Rambow
has some terrific cinematography and in spots it uses sound quite
effectively.
What Doesn’t: Those expecting a lot of
references to the film may be disappointed, as the picture is not so
much about recreating the original film as it is about the boys
discovering their creativity and dealing with the real world through
fantasy.
Bottom Line: There have been quite a few
films about the love of cinema and Son of Rambow ranks among the
best. It is a rare gem of a movie that combines high cinematic craft
with meaningful substance, a great story, and an all around good nature
that is very endearing.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Spanglish
Directed by: James L. Brooks
Premise: A single mother
(Paz Vega) emigrates from Mexico to the United States and does housework
for a troubled suburban family.
What Works: This is a
film about relationships within a family and Spanglish uses the
language barrier as a way of exploring the roadblocks to communication.
The plot builds and supports this through the actions of the characters.
The first half of the film is most effective as the characters act and
react to one another. Paz Vega’s performance is very good and she
captures a woman who is out of her element. Her relationship with her
daughter (Victoria Luna) is very amusing and interesting. Two other
stand-out performances are by Adam Sandler, as a pushover husband and
Cloris Leachman as his borderline alcoholic mother-in-law. Tea Leoni
does well with an underwritten part as Sandler’s impatient wife.
What Doesn’t: The
characters and their relationships are very similar to As
Good As It Gets, another Brooks film. The trouble with Spanglish
is that many of the conflicts are internalized and do not show
themselves through action so much as they are spoken in an expository
manner. While there are some nice bits of double-speak dialogue, the
conflicts in Spanglish remain somewhat ambiguous.
DVD extras: Commentary
track, featurette, deleted scenes, “How To Make the World's Greatest
Sandwich" featuring Tomas Keller of the French Laundry.
Bottom Line: Spanglish
is a fun film that explores the intersection between the immigrant
experience and the daily life of established US citizens. Its first rate
acting performances make up for the understated conflict in the
narrative and gives the film a depth and humor it might not have had
otherwise.
BACK
TO THE TOP
Speed
Racer (2008)
Directed by: The Wachowski Brothers
Premise: An adaptation of the Japanese
animation series. In a science fiction fantasy world where car racing is
an elaborate, multimillion-dollar industry, Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch)
emerges as a major talent. When he turns down a contract with a major
corporation in favor of staying with his independent family-based team,
Speed finds himself defending his family against one of the corporations
that controls the races.
What Works: Speed Racer is an
exciting film to watch for its insanely busy racing scenes and colorful
style. This film brings so-called “MTV editing” to a new level, but
rather than flash disposable images at strobe light speed, Speed
Racer uses the style to serve the storytelling, especially in the
first half, using eloquent transitions to jump all over the timeline and
convey large amounts of expository information with complete coherence
and great style. The film has an energy to it that starts from the very
opening and does not let up until the conclusion. As an adaptation of a
Japanese cartoon, Speed Racer translates the style of the cartoon
to live action, although like the Star Wars prequels, the film
begs the question whether it is a live action film with animated
elements or an animated film with live action elements. The distinction
may not be all that important, but it does demonstrate the plasticity of
contemporary film. Aside from all of the eye candy, the story of Speed
Racer has some nice character work between the family members,
especially between Speed and his father, played by John Goodman. They
have some excellent scenes together and their relationship brings flesh
and blood to the computer generated imagery and reality to the fantasy.
Also fun to watch is Paulie Litt as Speed’s younger brother. He pairs
with the family’s pet monkey to provide comic relief and Litt’s
delivery and sense of timing is excellent, especially for such a young
actor. Speed Racer is an interesting entry into the Wachowski's
filmography. Their previous work, including Bound,
The Matrix trilogy, and V
for Vendetta, have generally subverted genre conventions and
crammed countercultural themes and references into the text. Speed
Racer is much more family friendly than any of their previous work
but the political subtext remains, although in a more subtle and less
confrontational way.
What Doesn’t: In adapting the cartoon to
live action, Speed Racer retains some of the physical comedy that
is unique to animation. It does not translate well, especially a goofy
fight scene between the family and a group of ninjas. Fans of the
Wachowski Brother’s other work might find Speed Racer a little
hard to swallow. Despite some underlying criticism of corruption and
corporate influence on sports and culture, the film follows basic sports
genre conventions and does not delve into the kind of subversive
territory of V for Vendetta or The Matrix films.
Bottom Line: Speed Racer is a lot of
fun and it is mostly a successful translation of the animated series.
While it might not have the heavy subtext of the Wachowski’s other
work, it does have some compelling themes, well drawn characters, and
superior technical craft that make it more than just another racing
film.
BACK TO THE TOP
Spiderman
2
Directed by: Sam Raimi
Premise: Spiderman 2 picks up where the
original film left off, with Peter Parker, played by Tobey Maguire,
trying to balance his personal life with his identity as
Spiderman.
What Works: The relationships and conflicts
that were left unresolved at the conclusion of the previous film become
the dramatic thrust of Spiderman 2 and it is obvious that the
filmmakers put effort into making the interpersonal relationships work.
This strengthens the film and gives it a human touch, especially in
Parker's conflict between his desires and responsibility. Another aspect
in which this film surpasses the original is in its lead villain. Where
the Green Goblin was rather hokey and delivered some cheese-filled lines
in the first picture, Doctor Octavious (Alfred Molina) is a much more
human and much more interesting villain. The
special effects in this film also take a step up. In the original
picture, some of the computer work was a bit sloppy, but in this film
the computer-generated Spiderman has a harder, more textured, and better
integrated look.
What Doesn't: As in the first film, the
screenplay sometimes cheapens Parker's dilemma in the end by letting him
have his cake and eat it too. I am not a happy ending grinch, but this
film has set up its narrative tension based on the dilemma that if
Parker fulfills his desires to be with Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) it will
have consequences for the two of them. Spiderman 2 faces a
problem when our hero suddenly has his desire fulfilled without
consequence. But perhaps that will be the plot of Spiderman
3.
Bottom Line: Overall, Spiderman 2 is
an enjoyable popcorn ride that is will satisfy fans of the original but
should also appeal to those who don't normally go to comic book films.
BACK TO THE TOP
Spiderman
3
Directed by: Sam Raimi
Premise: In this third film in the Spiderman franchise, Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) encounters a
extraterrestrial substance that amplifies his aggression and causes him
to act in less than heroic ways. At the same time his relationship to
Mary Jane is disrupted and the city is threatened by three new super
villains.
What Works: Spiderman
3 has the sense of being the ending of the series and the film ties
up many of its loose ends, namely the conflict between Peter
Parker/Spiderman and Harry Osborn/New Goblin (James Franco). Something
unique about Spiderman 3 both within this series and within the comic book genre
is that the story is more about Peter Parker than it is about his
superhero alter ego and this Spiderman film gives Parker more
interesting things to do, pushing into darker areas and questioning what
it means to be a hero. There are some very well done moments between
Parker and Mary Jane that would play well in a straight drama and give Spiderman
3 a level of dramatic authority that is rare in the comic book
genre. The film’s scope is very ambitious and the story is well
unified both within this installment and in relation to the other films
in the series.
What Doesn’t: On the whole this Spiderman installment seems to be repeating a lot of things seen in
the first two pictures. The ups and downs in the relationship with Mary
Jane (Kirsten Dunst), the conflict with Harry, and the various action
sequences come across as rehashes of scenes from the pervious
installments. The action sequences are bigger, the conflicts are louder,
but all in all Spiderman 3 has very little material that is new.
Part of the trouble is that the filmmakers are so busy trying to cram as
much of the Spiderman mythos into the picture as possible that it
becomes bloated with introductions of characters and concepts but it
does not have the space to develop them properly. For instance, Spiderman 3 includes three super villains, Sandman (Thomas Haden
Church), Venom (Topher Grace), and New Goblin, and while the film cuts
between them fairly well, none get much treatment as characters or as
antagonists. As a consequence the film spends a great deal of its time
setting up the new characters rather than ramping up their conflict with
Spiderman into an appropriate climax.
Bottom Line: Spiderman
3 is a middle tier comic book film. In many ways it is better than the
original film but so much is recycled from previous adventures that
this Spiderman feels more like
a trailer than an actual film.
BACK TO THE TOP
The
Squid and the Whale
Directed by: Noah Baumbach
Premise: The story of two
boys (Jesse Eisenberg and Owen Kline) whose parents divorce and begin
joint custody.
What Works: The film is
very even handed between the characters and demonstrates how all react
in the situation. The stories of the two boys are particularly
interesting as the film demonstrates how their relationships with their
parents and with other women are damaged by the divorce. Although the
film is a drama it is also extremely funny and a brave film, taking on
adolescent sexuality in a serious but irreverent way. Jeff Daniels, who
plays the father, proves that he is one of the most versatile actors
working today and this film allows him to demonstrate his comedic and
dramatic acting chops.
What Doesn’t: The story
of Frank (Kline), the youngest brother, may prove uncomfortable for some
viewers as it deals frankly with the sexual development of a thirteen
year old boy.
DVD extras: Commentary
track, featurette, conversation with director Noah Baumbach and film
critic Philip Lopate.
Bottom Line: The Squid
and the Whale is an unflinching but compassionate in its portrayal
of a family going through divorce. The film is tightly scripted and well
acted and overall a gem of a film that deserves to be seen.
BACK TO THE TOP
Stardust
(2007)
Directed by: Matthew Vaughn
Premise: A five-foot stone wall on the
English countryside divides a sleepy English town from a magical world
on the other side. After a star falls to earth, characters from our
world and the fantasy world race to the location of the star including
Tristan, (Charlie Cox) a young Englishman who has promised the star to
his crush in exchange for her hand in marriage, a witch (Michelle
Pfeiffer) who wants the star to restore her youth, and a prince (Mark
Strong) who needs the star to claim kingship over the fantasy world.
What Works: Stardust is a
surprisingly good film in its first and third acts. The story uses
familiar fantasy elements like unicorns, witches, princes, and castles
but reinvents enough of it to make the material fresh. A lot of the
fantasy pictures since The
Lord of the Rings have taken themselves far too seriously,
thinking they are much more important than they actually are (see Eragon
or Pirates
of the Caribbean: At World’s End). Stardust remembers
to have fun and there is a lot of humor to be had in the film. When
Tristan arrives at the star he finds it is actually a young woman named
Yvaine (Claire Danes). The two begin on a journey back to our world
while being pursued by the witch and the prince. The film paces the
chase and the journey pretty well and the development of the
relationship between Tristan and Yvaine is successfully uses humor and
shared peril to bring them together. Tristan gets to grow as a character
throughout the story and although the film follows Joseph Campbell’s
hero journey unwaveringly, the content allows Tristan to earn his status
as a hero. As Yvaine, Claire Danes brings a lot to the film and to her
character, providing her with dignity and more presence and volition
than the character might have had in the hands of a lesser actress. The
star of the show, however, is Michelle Pfeiffer as witch Lamia. Pfeiffer
steals many of the scenes she is and her character’s vanity and
destructiveness are fun and give the film some much-needed jeopardy.
What Doesn’t: The middle of the film
drags a bit as Charlie and Yvaine board a pirate ship led by Captain
|