Spiker (2007)

...so you're probably wondering how it came to pass that I would watch a straight-to-DVD horror/supernatural/low-budget mess like SPIKER, and believe me when I tell you that explaining why I saw it will be a lot easier than explaining the movie itself.
The truth is, on the final day of class for one of my film courses at the high school, the one student I had left on that day arrived with the film and told me that it came on a recommendation as being one of the "worst films ever." Despite my snobbery, he all but demanded that we watch it.
We laughed our asses off.
I can imagine the creators of SPIKER sitting around and trying to decide on a unique concept for a horror film:
Director:"Hey, I've got it! How about a mute, albino serial killer who communicates only by slamming the heads of two polished railroad ties together?"
Writer: "That sounds awesome! And he kills people with the spikes he's always slamming together!"
Director: "Totally! We could call him "the Spiker."
Writer: "Oooh, creepy! And let's see...maybe we could have him stumble upon a cabin in the woods filled with isolated and horny teenagers."
Director: "I love it. See, this is why I hired you, man. To come up with these awesome original ideas. Can you throw a ghost in there too, though? I want to make sure that we really scare people!"
And that, in a nutshell, is SPIKER, a film you would only watch if you believe in the entertainment value of "so bad it's good"-types of movies. I think there's an age at which these kinds of films appeal to young men especially, and I'd be lying if I said I never went through that period (though they were always best viewed with alcohol). But I'm fairly certain that this period in my own life is over, and now I try not to waste time on stuff like this.
The series of laughable moments in SPIKER never seems to end, and you can enjoy this hellaciously bad film if you can resist asking too many questions. But therein lies the problem. Because a rational mind will wonder:
What's with the really bad special effects? How does Spiker replenish his supply of spikes when he only seems to have two on him and yet he leaves the spikes in the bodies of the people he kills? What's with the creepy uncle, a cross between Johnny Depp and a professional wrestler? How does one teenager get pinned to a wall by Spiker and then manage to be stabbed my a mysterious third arm holding the spike? Did this director learn the word CONTINUITY in film school?
The answer to that last one is probably, "film school? What film school?"
Before SPIKER ended, my student--who had made a horror film of his own for a class project--said, "I think my movie is better than this." Indeed, Charlie. Indeed.
Heinous acting. Time/space continuity errors in the story. Laughably bad and unmotivated frame composition. A whiff of a strory idea gone senselessly awry. SPIKER.
The scariest part of the movie? The prospect of a sequel.

0.5 out of 4 (only because I was entertained)

Trouble the Water (2008)

TROUBLE THE WATER goes inside the Hurricane Katrina nightmare like no news report ever did, and it's for this reason alone that the film is a must-view. Having said that, I found myself to be strangely detatched from certain elements and wanting more from the film. I had to remind myself that some of what I was looking for in the film was not what the film was trying to accomplish.

I would have liked to have seen more individual stories of hurricane victims, but instead, we are given only one story -- that of Kimberly Rivers Roberts. This is because the majority of the documentary's footage is Kimberly's own. (Never mind the fact that I wondered for long periods of time how it was that she came in possession of a video camera, how she paid for the tapes, and how she kept the footage from being destroyed.) Because this large-scale disaster is only shown through the viewpoint of one person, it is similar to a "Night"-like approach to the Holocaust in that its humanity lies in focusing a huge tragedy down to the personal touch of witnessing one person's experience with it.

Personally, I wanted more than just Kimberly's story, as compelling as it was. For this reason, I much preferred Spike Lee's more expansive look at Hurricane Katrina for HBO, "When the Levees Broke."

TROUBLE THE WATER was nominated for Best Documentary Feature this year and was considered to be a sentimental favorite, though it lost to the much better (if you ask me) "Man on Wire." I think people should watch this film to really understand the situation from a zoomed-in point of view. But my brain wanted to tackle the politics of the debacle, the scope of the chaos and the heartbreak of the devesation with more expanse that this film aimed to provide. All of this is to say that for what it was, TROUBLE THE WATER was very good. I struggled because of what it wasn't that I was looking for instead.

2.5 out of 4

Monsters vs. Aliens (2009)

It's obvious that the makers of MONSTERS VS. ALIENS put so much time into creating a 3-D spectacle that they forgot to write jokes, much less a script. When you can take Seth Rogen, one of the funniest guys in film today, and make him not funny, you have really elevated mediocrity to a new level. Such is MONSTERS VS. ALIENS, a film that truly exists only as a showcase for technology that I am not a big fan of to begin with.

I will give credit where credit is due. Roger Ebert said it best (and I'm paraphrasing) that 3-D is nothing better than a distraction. We have, for a century, been able to imagine three dimentional universes out of the films we've seen our entire lives. And we never had to wear stupid glasses to do that, and we never got headaches from taking off the stupid glasses. And the stupid glasses cause us to not be able to see that the kids we are with are misbehaving down the row and then we don't notice that they're throwing popcorn until another dad taps you on the shoulder and complains and... I digress.

Like "Snakes on a Plane" before it, the one stroke of genius about this film is that its entire plot is present in its title. The only reason now to pay money to see it is for the 3-D part. There is no more depth to the story than what the title has conveyed. Hence the need for 3-D: to give the film some depth.

To make matters worse, the idiots who wrote this film decided that on all of the planet Earth, there would only be FIVE monsters, and that these five monsters would be locked away in a huge warehouse/prison fit to hold hundreds of monsters. Matter of fact, one of the five monsters isn't even really a "monster," per se, unless a "bridezilla" is a monster (and some men and even a few women might agree that this IS the case).

The film opens with Susan, a bride on her wedding day, finding out that her dream honeymoon will be pre-empted in favor of her soon-to-be-husband's opportunity for job advancement. She wimpily acquieses and then proceeds to get leveled by a meteor, which she then miraculously crawls out from under and then proceeds to grow to a height that is just shy of 50 feet tall because apparently the copyright on "50 foot woman" has yet to expire. She is soon apprehended Guliver-style and taken to a warehouse where she meets the other four monsters in America. They are released from their prison when the president of the United States (played by Stephen Colbert in a stroke-of-genius casting move) decides by the end of a witty Dr. Strangelove-spoofing sequence that they are our only hope against an impending alien invasion.

I'm still stuck on the fact that there are only five monsters. WHY? I have successfully suspended my disbelief that this world HAS monsters in it, so why not a Justice League of them? Fill up that warehouse! Instead, the attention is placed on only five of them. And even with that small number, the film manages to completely waste the talent of some mega voiceover talent, from Rogen to Reese Witherspoon to Hugh Laurie.

The aforementioned Dr. Strangelove spoof scene is one of the films two or three high points. In fact, all of the bright spots were moments when the film would reference something from the pop culture era of the adults in the audience. My other favorite moment was when the President climbed a towering staircase to make contact with the alien ship and began by playing John Williams' theme from "Close Encounters" on a Casio keyboard and then proceeded to break into "Axel F" from "Beverly Hills Cop" before nearly being destroyed. That was hilarious.

Unfortunately, not much else was funny. And how was the 3-D? Meh. It worked like it was supposed to. It was fine. And as I've said before, the only thing that made that 3-D necessary to begin with is the fact that the film really held no other special attraction.

I hope that if there's a "Monsters vs. Aliens 2" (and with Dreamworks, you know there will be) that there will be MORE monsters. Oh, and maybe they could hire a screenwriter, too.

1.0 out of 4

W. (2008)

Perhaps the most shocking thing about W. is that shock-grabbing director Oliver Stone has directed with this film a somewhat flat piece that seems better suited for HBO than for the big screen. Once you get over the novelty of the stunt casting of the film, I'm not sure that you have enough left.

Because Stone has not allowed enough time to pass before making W., he isn't able to put the controversial revisionist spin on his retelling of the Bush presidency that he put on "J.F.K." Nor does he have the distance from events to produce a presidential bio-pic with the richness of "Nixon."

Perhaps one of Stone's flaws was, in fact, the timing. He released a film pointing out the flaws of George W. Bush at the height of Bush-bashing mania, and I suspect that this garnered him more favorable reviews by association. Sure, naysayers will point out that the film seems to focus mostly on events that have been documented as fact (which is true) and that Stone presents a surprisingly sympathetic view of the president instead of going for left-wing bashing. But it's tough to overlook the fact that this film rides far more heavily on the kitch of the performances than it does on the story.

It's also worth noting that Stone seems to have ditched elements of his zippy style such as the MTV-style editing that turned "J.F.K" into a first-rate espionage thriller. Aside from his trademark blending of actual archive footage with new footage, there is little to suggest that this is an Oliver Stone film at all.

As for the performances, well, there are some great imitations and a few terrible ones. Brolin is as good at playing Bush as Will Ferrell is, and therein lies the problem. W. feels like a 2 hour SNL skit without the punchlines.

There are many aspects of the Bush backstory that deserve the film treatment. The subject is worthy and the concept relevant. But the timing isn't right, and W. falls flat in its efforts to be rushed onto screens in time to effect the past presidential elections, as if Oliver Stone's services were even necessary in the first place. After all, the Bush years themselves helped to put the Obama train on the tracks to Washington.

I enjoyed spots of W. -- don't get me wrong. But those spots were almost exclusively the moments that explored the president prior to ascending to the office. I can't help but throwing on to the end of my review the fact that W. is not quite as "non-biased" and "objective" as liberals think it is, either. Sure, Bush's own bad choices are incriminating enough, but Stone mocks religious conviction and highlights family drama almost better than Tyler Perry.

2.0 out of 4

Young at Heart (Young@Heart) (2007)

I'm actually quite on the fence about YOUNG AT HEART, a documentary that actually has some of the key ingredients to satisfy me but that, I fear, ends up manipulating me too much in the process.

I am a huge fan of having music in one's life. I truly believe that music enriches our lives. It nurtures our souls. And I can't imagine living a day without it. I also like stories that uplift us, and I believe that each human being has a story to tell. We ARE stories. Those two elements are both very present in YOUNG AT HEART.

Director Stephen Walker follows a chorus of 70 and 80-somethings as the work with madman choir director Bob Cilman on a concert of unexpected material: contemporary popular music that runs the gamut of funk to punk to alternative rock. I'm talking James Brown, Coldplay, The Ramones. Given the premise, there's virtually no way you don't have fun watching the film and watching these old folks perform.

But here's my concern: are we laughing WITH them or AT them? I'm not so sure. I think there's an "aw, look at the cute old people" factor that the film works up, and it might be more condescending than genuine.

The other issue regarding the way the film is constructed is that its uplifting message of geriatrics reclaiming their youth is intercut with the very real drama of the mortality of the choir members, some of whom die during rehearsals, leaving the songs they were to lead vocal in limbo to be fixed for performance or forgotten completely. It's terribly sad, but also a bit manipulative. It doesn't help that the director puts the choir in front of prisoners for a performance, a move that is as obviously manipulative as it is dramatically powerful.

And yet it's hard not to get a little choked up to see an old man hooked up to an oxygen tank sing Coldplay's "Fix You" with a deep, Johnny Cash-like vibrato. In fact, the song takes on new meaning. I can imaging Chris Martin watching this and sobbing.

In the end, I think YOUNG AT HEART was a passable attempt at a documentary film, but might have benefitted more in better hands. Or maybe I'm a cold-hearted prick. I can't decide which.

2.0 out of 4

Madea Goes To Jail (2009)

The big problem with MADEA GOES TO JAIL is actually the bigger problem with Tyler Perry, an astute documentarian of African-American humor and serviceable director who, with this film, demonstrates a complete lack of ambition in doing anything beyond what he's been doing.

With the dollars coming in and big-name stars lining up to appear in his films, Perry seems perfectly content in making what is essentially the same film over and over again. The shame in this is the fact that he seems capable of much more.

MADEA GOES TO JAIL does almost exactly what every Tyler Perry film does. Scenes of the notorious grandma (the only scenes you really WANT to see...just admit it!) are treated as the secondary story and intercut with a main plot that almost always focuses on some type of soapy domestic abuse situation. There's always a wedding, and the wedding never goes as planned because Perry can't pass on an opportunity to go for the full-tilt drama of a room full of people reacting to a wedding broken off right at the altar.

Mixed in with this formula is Perry's standard of having characters invoke God in conversation while few truly live a life that reflects God's true guidance. Not that this isn't the struggle for all of us, and not that the Madea character doesn't exploit this theme to great comedic effect.

I am actually frustrated by Perry's contentment in playing only to his core audience and taking past plays and productions of his and methodically transferring them to feature films purely as a money-making enterprise. These are TV movies of the week and nothing more.

The other problem I have is that although these are artistically vapid works, they are also hilarious -- mainly when Madea is around. I can quote Madea better than most GOOD movies, and I end up enjoying these films more than I have a mind to because of that character alone. That said, I rated the film for what it deserves but admit to enjoying sections of it a lot more than the rating reflects. If I had been watching this on DVD, I would have just skipped to the Madea parts.

1.5 out of 4

Witness From the Balcony of Room 306 (2008)

WITNESS... was nominated for Best Documentary Short at this year's Oscars, and deserves that recognition. It is a moving recounting of the events surrounding the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

This quick, half hour film focuses on Samuel Kyles, a fellow minister who hung out with King in the hour before he was killed and also witnessed his final "mountaintop" speech.

When you watch, you can't help but to feel thankful that someone documented this man's account of what happened while Kyles was still alive to tell his view of the story. If you can get a hold of this, it's worth your time.

4.0 out of 4

Step Brothers (2008)

Okay, fine. So I'm not wasting time with a serious review. My students wanted me to see this, and I obliged.

I laughed more than I thought I would, sometimes even laughed hard. But why does a line have to have the f word in it to be an attempt at humor? And the film was about 15 minutes longer than it needed to be.

My favorite part was the "good brother" in the car with his family singing 4-part acapella to Guns N' Roses. THAT was hilarious!

Not horrible over all. At least I keep up with the kiddies...

1.5 out of 4

Rachel Getting Married (2008)

RACHEL GETTING MARRIED, despite the title, is as much about Rachel getting married as "The Reader" is about the Holocaust. The wedding of Rachel Buchman is merely the backdrop -- the initial incident that brings Kym Buchman, a severely disfunctional recovering addict, back home. And when she's home, she manages to bring out the worst in everyone.

If it's possible to say simultaneously that RACHEL GETTING MARRIED is both a fantastic film and not very enjoyable to watch, that's what I would say about it.

The film is fantastic for a number of reasons, the most high-profile of which is a Princess Diary-shedding bravaura turn by Oscar-nominated Anne Hathaway as Kym. Getting less credit and deserving of equal, however, is the fantastic direction by Jonathan Demme, who continues to make compelling movies but is forever "the director of 'Silence of the Lambs'." It is Demme's decision, after all, to shoot "Rachel..." in cinema verite-style, with hand-held camera work that, at times, resembles the work of an amateur cameraman. The effect is stunning in that we are made to feel as if this is no film at all. Rather, it would appear that a guest at the wedding is documenting the proceedings.

If this feels like a film at all, it feels like a documentary. And this is why the film is often painful and uncomfortable to watch. It is endlessly-engrossing and not too often enjoyable. There are a few scenes in particular that are as downright squirm-inducing as the best scenes in a good horror film, such as when Kym gives a toast at her sister's rehearsal dinner or when Rachel learns at the beauty shop that Kym has been manufacturing stories of her horrible family life to spice up her contributions to group therapy in her 12-step program.

One thing I found interesting was the wedding itself. Demme makes a surprising choice to have no actor in the film utter a word about the culturally-diverse nuptuals. Yes, this is 2009, and the marriage of a white woman to a black man is no big deal. But the wedding itself appears to have been planned by Kofi Annan. Blending African, Indian and Asian elements with New England WASP and hippie white elements, everything from the music to the clothing is quite unusual for a wedding, or at least for the weddings shown in films. Suprisingly, we see two families that, except for Kym, gushingly welcome and accept each other into a cross-continental blend. But maybe this is what makes Kym stand out even more.

3.5 out of 4

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

The first time I saw THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON was in 1994 when, at that time, it was called "Forrest Gump." I liked it a lot better then.

I always got upset when people would rip on "Forrest Gump" because they thought it was too far-reaching of a fable about all of the grand themes of life. They found it, I guess, to be TOO sentimental and argued that it was too obvious about some of the big themes of life. And yet, I still have a soft-spot for the film.

Now, 14 years later, I know exactly what those people were talking about. Despite my love for David Fincher as a director, the excellent acting and the amazing technical elements of this film (most of which were nominated for Oscars), I was bored stiff by BENJAMIN BUTTON. I was shifting in my seat, scratching my skin and pulling on my hair. I think I even slapped myself in the face a few times to try and stay in it. But, sadly, I never connected.

Roger Ebert said something that I disagreed with when I read his review of this film. He complained about the fact that the main character ages in reverse. He said that it felt "simply wrong." But now that I've seen the movie for myself, I agree with him completely. For me, it did not work. Yes, I know the film is fantasy. So was "Crash," if you think about it. A dozen strangers having their lives intersect so perfectly in one day in a huge city like Los Angeles? And yet that one worked for me because of the characters and the true emotion behind it.

Some fantasies work and some do not.

Eric Roth, the screenwriter, must have written this script with an eraser instead of a pencil. It seems to me like there are so many transfers from "Forrest Gump" that he simply changed names. The southern boy born with seemingly insurmountable handicaps and the loving mother who encourages him to defy them. The girl he meets at a young age and falls in love with who inexplicably stays with him (in a roundabout way) throughout his life, whether you believe their connection or not. The guy on a boat who teaches him something and the black friend. Time spent in the military. I could go on.

David Fincher is a fantastic director. He made "Seven," "Fight Club," "Panic Room" and "Zodiac," all of which I thoroughly enjoyed. What, I wonder, did he see of himself in BENJAMIN BUTTON? It's like having Quentin Tarantino filming a Trollope novel.

I don't get it, and I don't get why it worked for so many viewers. I'm sure that those of you who loved THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON found some message about the nature of love, life and death that resonated with you. I'm sure that if any of that had clicked with me, I'd have loved it as well. Sadly, all I got was a beautifully-crafted, fantastically art-directed film with nowhere near the soul befitting the New Orleans setting of the film. A disappointment.

1.5 out of 4

Bolt (2008)

BOLT is a very derivative animated film. If you can ignore the fact that you already had the entire plot in your head the minute you start watching it, you'll enjoy everything about it that's good in a Disney film, including the strong voiceover work, great animation and witty one-liners.

I will confess that I watched this only to fulfill my obligation of seeing as many Oscar-nominated films as possible, and watching BOLT just made me more upset that "Waltz With Bashir" was not nominated in its place for Best Animated Feature.

I don't think a kid will notice how overdone the hero's journey story is in BOLT, however. This is the kind of film that my kids would watch again and again. Cute, slight, unimportant work from the Disney team. It was fun to watch but ranks so far below "Ratatouille" and "Wall-E" that BOLT can't even see them from where it is.

2.0 out of 4

Defiance (2008)

The film DEFIANCE is not as great as the true story behind it, which, in its own way, is as awe-inspiring as Edward Zwick's other military survival film, "Glory."

I was reminded of that earlier (and much better) film on a number of occasions while watching DEFIANCE. I was also reminded of the cinematography of a Terence Malick film. And there was a sequence when one of the married in the forest and the film cross-cuts between the wedding of the younger brother and footage of the middle brother in the middle of a terrifying gun battle that felt much like the baptism scene in "The Godfather."

That was my main problem with DEFIANCE, really. I never fully engaged emotionally because it was so "standard" in so many ways. The dialogue wasn't very inspiring or exceptional, the direction was, as I've pointed out, frequently derivative, and the plot was often predictable (such as when the eldest brother tells the group that no one is to get pregnant...you didn't think that wasn't going to happen, did you?)

Daniel Craig, Liev Schrieber and Jamie Bell are all very good as the Bielski brothers who keep a rag-tag group of Jews together in the Belarussian forest and stand up to both Russian resistance fighters and, more importantly, the Nazis. Schrieber and Bell were particularly good. In fact, there were a number of occassions during the film where I thought the movie was so good that I felt guilty that I wasn't into it much at all in other spots.

I think that given the story and what really happened, I should have been more moved by DEFIANCE than I was, and I have to believe that a part of that is World War II/Holocaust film fatigue. Quite frankly, I've seen enough to last me a few years and hope that filmmakers in 2009 who want to explore war choose from a variety of other conflicts.

And yet, even with that burnout, I know that DEFIANCE was uneven. But it was certainly not bad. And sometimes, it was actually quite good.

2.5 out of 4

Standard Operating Procedure (2008)

Maybe it would upset director Errol Morris, and maybe it wouldn't, but I watched STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE with a cool, emotional detatchment and intellectual curiousity.

I expected this to be an anti-Bush, anti-military, anti-Iraq war piece of left-wing, Liberal Hollywood, biased "documentary." And while there were a few moments where that feeling surfaced, I was pleasantly surprised to find a documentary that, for me, was really about two things more prominently featured than the mistreatments at Abu Ghaib. And that is that STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE is first a documentary about the psychology of photography: why people take photographs and the power they hold. Second, it is a documentary about the rules of war and conduct of the soldiers in battle.

Was there inappropriate behavior on the part of American soldiers working at Abu Ghraib? Absolulely! And yet, I found it difficult to sit in judgment of the soldiers interviewed and discussed who were involved, not because I lack a moral compass, but because I firmly believe that it is easy for us civilians to sit in judgment of their actions when, in fact, we have no idea what that was like.

The quote from the film that haunted me throughout the second half of the documentary and beyond came when one soldier was asked if he didn't know that what they were doing was wrong. Of course it was wrong, he responded, "but in war, the rules change." Only us civilians can sit in judgment on that.

Another key quote for me came towards the end, when another interviewee mentioned that the photographs were "of humilation, not torture" and explained that there was torture, but that the torture happened off-camera. This interview can be linked to a key visual moment in the film when a higher-ranking officer goes through a series of photographs and distinguises between them as to which ones were punishable offences as and which were "standard operating procedure."

I think the audience was meant to be enraged by how many of the moments depicted in the pictures were technically "legal," but my mind stayed focus on the nature of war. Again, I'm not saying I condone all of what took place. And, as a matter of fact, a few of the interviewees come off as unremorseful -- it is hard to feel sympathetic for them. But I keep coming back to the concept that we have no idea what that was like.

Congratulations to you if you think it's wrong for our military to humiliate a prisoner by making him strip naked and put women's panties on his head as a means of getting him to talk. If we were doing that to someone as a means of getting critical information necessary for our safety, it seems justifiable to me. What I liked best about this film was the part that was not political, and that was the philosophical debate over photography itself. I found the most amazing thing about all of this not to be the notorious lapes in moral judgment on the part of the soldiers towards the prisoners, but instead, the empty, reality-TV-inspired lack of consciousness in documenting all of these moments on camera. And not just one camera. Three cameras. WHY?

Why would you take these pictures? Why would you want them? Why do people film themselves having sex? Why do people document their bowel movements on their blogs and expose their every privacy online to complete strangers? STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES doesn't answer that, but it sure makes you think about it.

The biggest criticism I've read about the film is that it's too glossy...there are too many visual effects and cool graphics and stagings that some say take away from the horrors. I actually LIKED many of these moments because, for me, they kept the focus on the concept of photography itself. And for someone who like his documentaries to be a little less politically biased than the typical Hollywood far, this allowed me to enjoy the film more than I might have otherwise. A compelling documentary from an award-winning master of the form.

2.5 out of 4

The Reader (2008)

I've read some mediocre reviews of THE READER and have been surprised by them, because I found the film to be beatifully shot, deeply moving, and as well-acted as "Doubt."

I think people aren't taking it on its own true merits for two reasons. First of all, there have been a LOT of World War II-related films this year (and in the past few years). And second, director Stephen Daldry seems to be continuing to mine the same territory of literary ennui he staked out with "Billy Elliot" and perfected with "The Hours."

The sad thing is, THE READER might suffer as a result of the backlash. But I found the film to be wonderful. In fact, I dare say it bests the novel, which is told in sparse prose and, like the film, allows the reader (no pun intented - or viewer) to connect emotionally on various levels.

THE READER is about many things, the least of which is probably the thing that will bring the movie the most attention, and that is the amount of nudity in the film. It is necessary and artistically done, as a taboo affair develops between a 15-year-old school boy awakening to his sexuality and a woman in her 30s. Is this relationship wrong? Of course. But it doesn't matter here. And for what it's worth, both the boy and the woman demonstrate moments of maturity and immaturity in equal levels.

Age is relative and somewhat irrelevant. What IS relevant is GUILT, and no film aside from the earlier mentioned "Doubt" does as good of a job of addressing it. You can only imagine what it would have been like to be a German in the aftermath of the Holocaust -- and I'm talking about the Germans who were anti-Nazi and "innocent" in all of the war crimes. The closest we come today is being an Illinois resident ashamed of our governor.

I've waited until now to mention Kate Winslet, who plays Hanna, the woman who seduces the boy and then indirectly crosses paths with him years later while on trial for working as a guard at Auschwitz. Winslet has been nominated five times and has never won. She's the youngest actor to have that many nominations, and she has the potential for two more with this film and "Revolutionary Road." But hear me out: this is the best work, the finest performance of her career. She is transcendant in every way. I'm haunted by her. She deserves to win but will likely lose a potential Best Supporting Actress Oscar to a much flashier Penelope Cruz (in "Vicki Cristina Barcelona"). That would be a shame. Let me repeat: the best actress of my generation (30s) gives her best performance to date in THE READER. You need no other reason to see it.

Fortunately, there is plenty that is good in addition to her, not the least of which is David Kross, who's performance as the boy is every bit as daring as Winslet's, if not more so. Winslet is used to being naked in movies, but the young Kross bares it all, too, and not just physically. Ralph Feinnes, as the adult Michael, gives another icy performance (which is fine here), and Lena Olin is a standout supporting player as a Holocaust survivor.

The best compliment I can give about THE READER is that I can't stop thinking about it and I long to discuss its themes with anyone willing to do so. For me, that's a high comliment. This was a moving film.

4.0 out of 4

Vals Im Bashir (Waltz With Bashir) (2008)

The power of WALTZ WITH BASHIR lies in the way its message reinforces a notion articulated even better years ago by Tim O'Brien in his novel/memoir, The Things They Carried. In the story "How to Tell a True War Story," O'Brien proposes that whatever a soldier who saw combat SAYS happened while fighting is TRUE. You don't question the validity of it because war is so horrible and beyond comprehension that its truth is as a soldier remembers it, period. I was always fascinated by that concept, and WALTZ WITH BASHIR picks up with that discussion and explores it further. This was my favorite thing about the film.

The reason, I think, that WALTZ is getting so much attention is that in many respects, there's never been anything like it. Yes, it is an animated film, and yes, the animation is breathtaking, though not nearly as much so as the animation in a Pixar film. Rather, this animation veers closer to the rotoscoping technique used by Richard Linklater and in the AIG commercials. You feel like you are watching "cartoonized actors," though in this case, the people are not known celebrities -- this is a foreign film.

The color palate of grey, gold and brown dominates the film, and it's very interesting to look at.

But that's not where it ends. Because WALTZ WITH BASHIR is ALSO a documentary film. AND it has elements of fictional narrative. It is such a unique mashup of genres in styles that the success of it all working together is striking. Here is a film that, in theory, could be nominated at the Oscars for Best Animated Feature (most likely), Best Foreign Film (most definitely) and Best Documentary Feature (least likely...I don't believe it's on the short list for this one). But that says a lot in itself. It's like no documentary you have ever seen. No cartoon, either.

And yet, despite all of this praise, it didn't blow me away the way it worked on so many critics. I was left more with a strong sense of admiration than anything else. Much of this, I'm afraid, is probably war film fatigue on my part. I think there have been too many war-themed movies this past year, and I'm burning out a little. I wonder if my stock in this film will rise somewhere down the road when I watch it again and don't feel the weight of the like-minded films I've seen this year.

I will say this, though: the ending is as powerful as anything I've seen this year. I want to talk about what director Folman does to end the film but can't bring myself to spoil it. Thematically, it's probably an expected ending, but visually, it is not. It sort of knocked the wind out of me. It was very effective.

WALTZ WITH BAHSIR is stunning, cross-genre filmmaking. But with the exception of the ending, I was only fascinated, not really moved.

3.0 out of 4

In Bruges (2008)

IN BRUGES is NOT a comedy. Why the Hollywood Foreign Press nominated it in the comedy category for Best Picture at the Golden Globes is beyond me. Except for the fact that the film is breathtakingly hilarious in regular intervals throughout.

It's that macho Irish humor delivered with stacatto speed and repetition, and it's even better coming out of the mouth of Colin Farrell, whose talent finally meets up with the right role here. Just as Penelope Cruz will blow you away in her native Spanish (see "Vicki Cristina Barcelona"!), Farrell, is clearly in his element when employing his native brogue. And he charmed the pants off of me. In fact, his performance here is among my favorites of the year.

I liked IN BRUGES as much as any film of its ilk; it's the been-done-before story of a hit man whose job suffers when he develops a conscience. But it's given a lively spin here by director Martin McDonagh, an Oscar-winning director for a short film called "Six Shooter."

IN BRUGES suffers a tad for me because so much of this film is derivative of McDonagh's Oscar-winning short...everything from the pervasive use of the f-word to actor Brendan Gleeson to a midget (or, dwarf, as he'd prefer) is a direct transfer from the director's first short to his first feature. But since few people are likely to have seen the former, they are more free to enjoy the latter.

As I said before, Farrell is a huge chunk of that enjoyment factor, musing at one moment about black and white midgets fighting each other while high on cocaine and insulting American tourists for being too fat to climb a narrow belltower for sight-seeing in Belgium the next, and then proceeding to casually leap and duck around the obese man who quickly grows too tired too quickly to connect a punch with him.

Sitting all alone, I frequently laughed for the benefit of no one but myself. As I said before, though, the film is not really a comedy. If nothing else, it's quite tragic. There is no happy ending to be had here at all. But you'll still enjoy it. Throw in an unexpectedly animated supporting turn by the typically stoic Ralph Feinnes, and you've got yourself a winner.

3.5 out of 4

Man On Wire (2008)

I should stop watching movies for a few weeks because my good fortune has to run out sometime soon. For the second film I've seen in a row, a film starts out to be one thing mediocre and turns into something moving and profound about the human spirit. First for me was Mike Leigh's "Happy-Go-Lucky," and now this.

I saw MAN ON WIRE mainly because of the award buzz it has been receiving. I expected to find it "interesting," particualrly since I had already read the award-winning childrens' book, "The Man Who Walked Between the Towers" (which, by the way, is a cool bonus feature on the DVD narrated by Jake Gyllenhaal.

As it turns out, I got a lot more than I bargained for in MAN ON WIRE. I certainly expected a testament to the triumph of will, a story of mind over matter, and a tale of perserverance. The film, and the man -- Phillipe Petit, is all of these things. But imagine my surprise when MAN ON WIRE also turns out to be the best film about pursuing one's artistic muse and the beauty and passion of the arts that I have seen in a long time.

Petit, a tight-rope walker who has already navigated the space between the two towers of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, follows the construction of the World Trade Center in NYC like a wide-eyed child. He envisions walking the space between these newly-constructed towers as a potential spiritual experience...being up there in the clouds, higher than ever before. But how do you get that set up? There is no way that it would be allowed. What follows is a well-documented account of how Petit and his friends and associates managed to make it happen.

Though non-fiction, the recollections of these proceedings play out like as good of a film thriller as just about any fiction thrillers you'll see this year. I was suprised by the level of suspense!

To see Petit himself as one of the interviewees will come as a bit of a shock for those who don't know how this all turns out. One would assume that the man simply plunged to his death. Instead, he spends a mind-blowing 45 minutes between the two towers.

And an unexpected sense of witnessing true beauty washed over me.

This is the perfect case of what a documentary can do...it can make you care deeply about something that you never had an inclination to care about at all.

One thing that bothered me a little about MAN ON WIRE (and it's my ONLY complaint, really) is that some of the fictionalized recreations are shot in a slightly cheesy manner, calling attention to these ficticious moments of recreation instead of attempting to integrate them more seemlessly with real, non-fiction footage. I can only assume that this was the intent, but I tend to prefer "hardcore" documentaries vs. recreations.

That being said, the last 20 minutes or so of MAN ON WIRE blew me away with its discussion of the philosophy of art.

"Why?" Petit reacts to the #1 question he is asked after performing this feat with an equal sense of curiosity. Why are people asking him why? Why isn't the pursuit of art and beauty enough? What a great discussion. What an excellent documentary!

3.5 out of 4

Happy-Go-Lucky (2008)

Talk about a movie not turning out to be what you expect it to be! What's brilliant about HAPPY-GO-LUCKY is that it starts off like a lightweight British comedy and ends up being one of the most profound meditations on human nature I have seen all year -- or in recent years.

Sure, for sheer moral turmoil one could watch "Doubt," but what crisis of character comes closer to one we all face than the nucleus of HAPPY-GO-LUCKY, which is, at its core, a film about optimism vs. cynicsm/pessimism. And what a profound time to wrestle with this choice!

Sally Hawkins has received rave reviews for playing Poppy, a woman who is so damn chipper that she all but shrugs off the theft of her mode of transportation, her bicycle.

I'm going to be honest -- I wanted to punch her in the face! After the first 15 minutes or so, I thought to myself that I might not make it through the film.

But then something happened to me. I realized that Poppy was anything but a shallow character and this was anything but a shallow film.

Yes, Poppy is a cheerful woman, to a fault. But she is not simple or stupid. And she reminds us that we live in a world where maintaining her attitude is far more difficult than the one that most of us cling to.

What changed my opinion of the film instantly was the introduction of Scott, played so brilliantly by Eddie Marsan that I can't understand why his name isn't on all of the Best Supporting Actor shortlists. Scott is quite literally the inverse of Poppy. A driving instructor hired by Poppy as she casually moves on to more adult transportation, Scott all but channels road rage as he attempts to instruct Poppy. He spews consipracy theories, my favorite of which centers around his disgust of the education system (Poppy is a grade school teacher). And he yells at her for wearing boots while driving. It's not long before you can tell that he yells at her so that he doesn't have to admit that he's found his hardened defences weakened by her.

It's the same thing that happens to us as the audience -- Poppy starts out annoying and soon turns downright charming.

HAPPY-GO-LUCKY has little in the way of cinematic flash, but it is certainly one of the best films by Mike Leigh, a director who has a growing handful of wonderful films (of which "Topsy Turvy" remains my favorite). I am certain that I will be pondering the implications of the story of this film for days and weeks to come. This is the kind of film you would talk about if it happened to be a novel and you were reading it in your book club. It is a profound, beautiful, vividly human film, with stand-out moments too numerous to add here (such as Poppy's visit to Spanish dancing classes or her seemingly out of place chat with a bizarre homeless man).

What a treasure! And the only thing more sad than the way most of us treat the Poppys of the world is the thought that most people I know will never see this film.

3.5 out of 4

Frozen River (2008)

Like "Wendy and Lucy," FROZEN RIVER is a small, quiet indie film about modern poverty. But FROZEN RIVER, I think, is much better.
FROZEN RIVER is a great example of the power of small-budget, independent cinema. It's a powerful story that a lot of people will end up overlooking simply because mainstream media will not make them aware of its existence. There is a chance, however, that an Oscar nomination could be in the cards for Melissa Leo, which could expose this excellent film to a wider audience. Leo plays a mother who is desperate to care for her two sons. She is almost penniless after her husband with a gambling problem takes off with money they'd saved to move into a double-wide trailer. Christmas Eve rolls around and she can't even afford a Hot Wheels track her younger son wants. There is nothing under the tree.
Circumstances put Leo's character in the path of another desperate single mom, a Mohawk Indian living on a reservation in upstate New York. The two women end up in the business of smuggling illegal immigrants over the U.S./Canada border by quickly driving over a frozen river. Each trip over that river was, to me, an exciting moment -- filled with danger and questions.
The relationship between these two completely different women with a common goal is quietly played, tense and fascinating. The actor playing the older son is fantastic as the newly-appointed man of the house. And Melissa Leo is great.
It's a shame that entitled and financially well-off youth couldn't all see this movie to have a genuine appreciation of what so many Americans are facing. FROZEN RIVER is quiet but compelling cinema with elements of suspense and crime thriller. But it is really about poverty and the desperation to get away from it.

3.5 out of 4

The Wrestler (2008)

There's something to be said about a movie that contains vitually every cliche in the book and still moves you (or at least me) the way THE WRESTLER did. The recycled-"Rocky" plot can be spotted from a mile away, and the relationships between many of the characters were also predictictable.
But dammit, I had a lump in my throat many times.
So if a movie this average in structure and story can be so affecting, there has to be some magic in it somewhere. All of the attention brought to this film indicates that the magic lies mostly with Mickey Rourke, and his performance is the comeback everyone claims it is. Rourke gives the most physically demanding performance I've seen this year. And if the Oscars have rewarded other actors for similar work in the past, they'd be making a big mistake not to nominate Rourke this year. Does he deserve to win? I'll be damned if I wouldn't be the least bit upset if he did. He is truly that good.
Also great is Marisa Tomei, who also has a strong chance at a nomination. She's got three things going for her. First, she's won the Supporting Actress category before. Second, she plays a prostitute/stripper, and there's a long-standing tradition of nominating actresses playing these roles. And third, she is shirtless and, basically, pantless for almost all of her onscreen minutes, a performance of confidence and daring that I suspect will have voters saying "um, I couldn't have done THAT."
But in addition to these great performances, director Darren Aronofsky deserves a lot of credit. After three increasingly interesting, daring, and confidently directed films, his work on THE WRESTLER seems like a step back at first. It is so stripped-down, almost documentary-like. But you can still see the deliberate choices of a quality director, such as the not-original but still excellent choice of having the camera so frequently follow Rourke from behind, making us as the audience members of The Ram's adoring fan base...chasing the 80s along with him and hoping to relive our youth as well.
And that's what I did when watching THE WRESTLER, and in a lot of ways. There was a time in my childhood when I watched professional wrestling, and that excitement quickly returned with the great action sequences here. And the scenes where Randy attempts to recreate some sort of relationship with his estranged daughter (Evan Rachel Wood) were painful reminders of the distance I once kept from my own father.
Maybe that's why THE WRESTLER is so much better than it has a right to be. Yes, it's not anything that hasn't been done before, but rarely is it done this good. And amidst every potential movie cliche, everything felt completely REAL.
I cannot tell you how moved I was by this film, from the opening scene straight through to Bruce Springsteen's Oscar-worthy acoustic ballad playing over the closing credits. Pin this one to the mat...this was a slam dunk...or whatever the wrestling term is...a full-nelson? It was great.

3.5 out of 4

Mamma Mia! (2008)

I don't know if MAMMA MIA! is as dreadfully bad as some of my friends have warned me it would be. Maybe the fact that I watched it with my wife -- a HUGE ABBA fan -- and saw how she was enjoying it allowed me to appreciate it a little more.
But I think the fact that I waited this long to see the film (and never saw the stage show) allowed me to take this movie for what it was and expect nothing more. That said, my top criticism of the film is not the fact that half of the actors couldn't sing. There are other musical films ("Everyone Says I Love You" comes to mind) where non-singing actors have been able to "sell it" because the songs were so organically interwoven with the narrative.
What I liked about MAMMA MIA! was how well the existing songs were woven into the story. I think the problem is that the staging and direction screwed that up, turning these musical moments that really fit well into exactly what people who hate musicals hate about them -- these silly breaks in the reality for goofy moments that ruin the mood.
I can see the appeal of the film, and since I saw "Doubt" BEFORE this film (which few will be able to claim), I am only MORE appreciative of what Meryl has done in the past few years, let alone over the course of her career.
But I strongly disliked the dippy use of the townspeople as a ridiculously omnipresent Greek chorus (yeah, Greek chorus...I get it). And I hated the sometimes literal staging (like when Julie Walters sings a line about hanging and she's actually hanging from the side of a building, which would never happen. Maybe the only time this silly camp worked was in Christine Baranski's number, when the old slut played on the beach with the gaggle of shirtless boys and relived her glory days (the main theme of the film in general).
Everything else about MAMMA MIA!, quite frankly, was harmless. And there were even a few moments, such as Meryl's performance of "The Winner Takes It All," that were legitimately moving. In the end, this ranks nowhere near the top of movie musicals for me. But it didn't make me angry, either. It was what I thought it would be. It was alright. Maybe on the bad side of alright, but not as ridiculously bad as some have said.

2.0 out of 4

Revolutionary Road (2008)

It's usually a good thing when I fiinish watching a movie and am conflicted over how I felt about it. I appreciate when a movie sits with me. This is the feeling that I wanted to feel after seeing "Doubt," but didn't.
And yet as I sit here feeling it after seeing REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, I am not as satisfied as usual. I can't decide whether I like it or not. And while my rating here is average, I might be rating it too high...I'm still not sure.
Here's my problem: On the one hand, REVOLUTIONARY ROAD is skillfully (if a little clinically) directed and finely acted. As a matter of fact, this might even be the film to get me over an unfounded distaste for Leonardo DiCaprio, an actor I pretend to dislike but then am always impressed by. I am going to say right here that this is the best work of his career. In fact, it's probably not even close. And Kate Winslet, as always, is so excellent that we take her for granted. You get the feeling that a number of actresses could have pulled off her role, and maybe they could. But Winslet does this stuff so well.
And that leads to the downsides of the film. Winslet recently appeared in "Little Children," playing essentially the same type of character, but set in the present day vapidity of suburbia rather than the 1950s equivalent. And I think "Little Children" was a much better film.
Director Sam Mendes also, I think, did better with with "American Beauty," which is also a very close sibling to this film. Maybe the fact that much has been filmed about suburban ennui and materialstic "grass-is-greener" restlessness lately and it is starting to feel like deja vu. And when you get this feeling, you have a harder time feeling sympathy for Frank and April Wheeler.
At first I couldn't understand why I had a hard time struggling to appreciate what the Wheelers were going through. I'd be lying if I said I couldn't relate at all to their feeling of suburban entrapment and the concept that we only do what we feel we're supposed to do and never really figure out what we truly want. But the problem, and maybe the film's true flaw, is in a screenplay that doesn't give us any backstory on the couple. They are miserable from the moment we first see them. And you just want to yell at the screen: "Why don't you just get a divorce?"
The film's tragic end was something I predicted 30 minutes before it happened. And I left feeling pathetic about myself even, wondering why I ever feel similar feelings because if this is how I'm going to turn out some day, then just shoot me now!
In the end, DiCaprio's work leaves me with a "more favorable than not" feeling about REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, a film that was most likely in no other way revolutionary.

2.5 out of 4

Doubt (2008)

The problem I had with the film version of DOUBT is that I didn't feel as strongly as I did when reading and seeing the stage play that there WAS any "doubt." As an educator, I chalk this experience up as a perfect study in the differences between the mediums of stage and screen. The profound differences between the two are much more obvious with DOUBT, I feel, than with any other stage to screen adaptation I can think of in recent memory. All of this added up to a bit of a let-down for me.
Make no mistake about it, you will not see better acting performancs in any other movie this year than you will see here. It's a wonderful reminder of the fact that special effects are not needed to captivate audiences when you have the likes of Streep, Hoffman, Adams and Davis, all four of whom deserve Oscar nominations.
Rather, the problems with DOUBT the movie are all with regards to the medium of film. In particular, close-up shots provide us with such an intimate look at people's faces that the ambiguity of intentions created by the physical distance between actors on stage and us in the audience is completely erased. Therefore, I didn't get the chance to consider Hoffman's priest as potentially innocent when I saw up close Hoffman's shifty eyes.
John Patrick Shanley deserves praise for expanding his own play to film proportion by adding in some nice moments of humor and not destroying what already existed. The script, as well, is Oscar-worthy.
He errs, however, in direction. And this is DOUBT's greatest flaw. Its direction is Film School 101. It's as if Shanley read a textbook -- not knowing how to direct fot the screen -- and implemented everything he read. Dutch angle shots are anything but subtle, overplayed and held for far too long....oooh! something bad is about to happen! Thunder claps, heavy rain, bursting lightbulbs and a cawing crow are all heavy-handed moments of symbolism. You can't miss them. There is no subtlety here. Angle shots for superiority/inferiority, and so on. The just wasn't any nuance, and I was quite disappointed with that.
DOUBT is TOTALLY worth your time. You should remember that my disappointment is based largely in my extensive familiarity with this piece. I have read it, seen it on stage, directed scenes from it, and now seen the film. So I can tell you that the movie strips the show of some of its power and magic.
And what I missed most here was the lack of moral ambiguity. Streep and Hoffman are such strong actors that, up close, I didn't have as much doubt myself. And without spoiling the film's closing scene, I can only justify Streep's acting choice by assuming that her character's doubts at the end are doubts in the Catholic church. There would be no other viable explanation. With the play, we doubted that Sister Alouicious made the right choice. Here, she conviced in her utter certainty, while Cherry Jones did more to sugest vulnerability. And the sacrifice was the feeling that I had walking out of the play, the feeling after which the story is named.
Fantastically acted, poorly directed. Maybe THAT's the new conflict created in me after seeing this DOUBT.

3.0 out of 4

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

There are two ways you could look at SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE.
One way would be to say (as I have read) that the film is a complete fairy tale and its story is impossible to believe, and that it is a Disney-ized version of a Bollywood film with a cheesy happy ending. I think that whoever feels this way about SLUMDOG has a valuable point.
But there's another way to look at the film, and if you haven't already figured out by my high ranking, it's the way I look at it. This is to say that SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE can be a fantasy if it wants to be, but whatever it is -- it is an uplifting story at a time in the world when we need it, and it is stunning sensory cinema at a time when everyone is running off at the mouth about the merits of movies far less artistic and adventuresome.
I take issue with those who would call this "sappy" or "Disney-like." Um...did you not pay attention to what the main character, Jamal, went through as a boy? What, are those the lost scenes from "Aladdin"? Because that's about as close to Disney as this gets.
On the contrary, the film is energetically edited in a simple way, with the street punk Jamal (played fantastically by Dev Patel) contemplating questions on the Indian version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" while we are exposed to flashbacks of his treacherous life, which often provides seemingly fate-driven connections to the answers to his questions on the show.
I will grant you, the structure is simple. But it works. Damn...it works really well!
Danny Boyle gives his film the kind of energy that I found missing from a few of this year's other excellent films (and touted potential Best Picture co-nominees) like "Milk" and "Frost/Nixon." There is artistry in the camera work and stunning visuals that are paramount to the storytelling. There is also a funky, contemporary, kinetic, memorable score...one of the first this year that has really just grabbed me by the neck. I read somewhere that Boyle told his composer that he didn't want "any damned cellos," and I think this is exactly why the film is not as cheesy as it could have been...it got the right director to give it the street edge the story called for. Heartbreaking, heartwarming, exciting, stunning...all of the adjectives work. And if this bunch of no-names ends up hitting the Oscar podium in a few months, it might just be because the film so deftly straddles multiple time-honored film genres.
It's a coming of age story, it's Dickensian, it's a drama, it has comedic moments, it's a gangster film. And, to top it off, it's probably mainstream America's first true taste of India -- and the films from that region are a whole other can of worms with many delights to be had. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE was fantastic!

4.0 out of 4

Cadillac Records (2008)

I think CADILLAC RECORDS needs to be taken to task -- as good as it looks and sounds -- for some of its many oversights.
You would think that with all that has been written about the early days of rock and roll that a film about Chess Records could dive deeper than what we get here. I teach a media class and we cover the history of rock. And there is little in CADILLAC RECORDS that my students wouldn't already know from a few days worth of lessons and video clips.
Most egregious of all is the complete omission of Leonard Chess' brother, Phil. How do you not include him?
With all of this said, you'd be hard pressed to find a mediocre, run-of-the-mill biopic that sounds this good. I loved watching Mos Def as Chuck Berry in particular, and Beyonce is great as a potty-mouthed Etta James.
Given my passion for music, I only wish that this had been treated more carefully.
The story runs all over the place...it's like Spark Notes for the birth of rock.
And Adrien Brody has ZERO charisma as Chess...you can't even tell if he cares about the music, or just the money...or both?
Until they make a proper film about this worthy subject, I'd say that CADILLAC RECORDS is worth your time for the spot-on imitations of some of our history's founders of popular music. But that's about it.

2.0 out of 4

Burn After Reading (2008)

At first, BURN AFTER READING comes off as a silly trifle of a movie, a shot of film levity after the heavy (and brilliant) Best Picture-winner "No Country For Old Men." (And I STILL can't believe a movie so dark was given the Oscar!)
But about 45 minutes into the film, you start to notice that BURN AFTER READING is a sibling to "Fargo," and not just because Frances McDormand, a stallwart actress in her husband's films, comes closest to an encore of her "Fargo" performance here.
All of a sudden, the screwball comedy of this film turns on a dime and you find yourself gasping in shock as much as you were laughing before. And then BURN AFTER READING isn't such a trifle, after all. It's as serious as any other Coen Brother film -- comedy or drama.
The plot has been well-publicized. A dim-witted gym employee (a fantastic, dippy Brad Pitt) finds a disc in a locker. He thinks it's filled with "top secret shit"/intelligence of some kind. His co-worker (McDormand) gets excited at his idea of holding the disc for reward money because her insurance won't cover the liposuction she wants. So far, your typical Coen Brothers slapstic. But there's another typical Coen element at play here as well. Like basically the rest of their films, we watch the dim-witted, the unknowing and the innocent get mowed down in this film. There are victims and criminals, but no upstanding, heroic figures. And those with the most heroic qualities are too timid to act on them, thus looking them into the category of the innocent who are mowed down.
This might sound confusing...if it does, you need to have a Coen Brothers DVD marathon. You'll know exactly what I'm talking about. There's something brilliant about these guys that you can laugh your ass off and then be left not with the taste of humor in your mouth but with a dense meloncholy. When you're done with BURN AFTER READING, it feels a little heavier, and maybe a little more significant, than the film started out. I suspect this is going to look like a throwaway film after winning the big Oscar. But while it's not as perfect as that film, it's not a throwaway, either.

3.0 out of 4

Seven Pounds (2008)

The last 20 minutes of SEVEN POUNDS are so sweepingly emotional that they would send you into convulsive sobs, if it weren't for the fact that the 90 minutes leading up to that are so ridiculously unintelligible that you won't give a crap when you do get to the end.
The title of the film is vague, and Sony Pictures has done a lot of hard work to keep critics, ads and previews from divulging too much information about SEVEN POUNDS. And you might think this is meant to keep the surprise from being spoiled. But now that I've seen the film, it might just be that critics are so freaking confused that they don't know what to say. (Check out A.O. Scott's review...it's hilarious!)
Will Smith plays Ben Thomas (I think). If you have a high level of patience, you won't mind waiting until the 20 minute mark (I kept track) to find out who the hell he is. At that point, it's only another short five minutes until you get a flicker of understanding as to why Ben is in such a sour mood. And it will take another 20 minutes after that (and now you are closing in on the hour mark) before you really start to figure out what is going on.
Whether you will care at this point is up to you.
I cared about Ben in the opening scene and the closing moments. Given that the film is constructed in loopy flashbacks--like "Citizen Kane" meets "The Matrix"--I guess I didn't care much about anything but "the present."
What gets me is that Gabriele Muccino, the film's director, thinks we are going to be willing to go along for the ride like this for so long. We are kept in the dark and strung along, and I found it all to be quite ballsy and arrogant on the part of the director. He uses confusion and the magnetism of Will Smith himself (and he's as good as usual) to force me to squirm through to the end. Hell, if I've invested almost an hour to figure out what the hell is happening (somewhat), than he's got me for the next hour to see how it all comes together.
I won't spoil anything, either. I will say that the film's climax and the resolution of what is going on truly does make for compelling theatre, even if it's sappy and melodramatic.
The good news is that by the end, what Ben is trying to do WILL make sense, and it's powerful. But SHAME ON the journey that gets you to there! I'll take a Hitchcockian structure over this crap any day! Let me know right up front who did what...let me see it.
And let ME make the decision for myself that I'm still interested in following the story because I actually CARE about the character! SEVEN POUNDS refers to how much heavier you will feel when you're done watching this movie.

1.5 out of 4

Wendy and Lucy (2008)

WENDY AND LUCY is so drably lit, uncreatively shot and cinema verite-styled that, were it not for Michelle Williams, it would've been rendered flat-out boring. And although that sounds like a statement worthy of a zero or one star review, such a rating would not be fair, either.
For me, WENDY AND LUCY had some worthy ideas to explore but just did not do so in a way that truly affected me.
Willams is Wendy, a poor drifter heading toward Alaska, where she hopes to find steady work. Frustratingly, we do not know anything about what led her to this point, and we see her make decisions that lead us to believe that at least half of her hardship was brought upon by herself. The only two signs of responsibility Wendy seems to show are a journal in which she keeps track of her expenses and her dog, Lucy -- her travel companion for who she is constantly concerned. Things get completely bleak for Wendy when she is detained for shoplifting and Lucy goes missing.
I won't spoil the ending, but it made me angry, if for no other reason than the fact that I felt that it robbed me of hope, which is not something you like to have happen to you.
As for the rest of the film, it was very "un-artful." I'm sure that was intentional and it's just not my style. At only 80 minutes long and so slightly directed, the film feels like a trifle of a short story, more or less capturing a mood than an actual plot (though one does exist).
The timing of WENDY AND LUCY is right, though, and I think that's one of the film's benefits. There are so many people who are down and out in our country right now, that the question of to whom one can turn for just a little decency and human kindness in more relevant than ever. And this film contains one such scene -- where a meager gesture on the part of a relative stranger provides WENDY AND LUCY with perhaps its only moment of hope.
If you like movies that feel like movies, you won't like this one. But that doesn't make it completely worthless.

2.0 out of 4

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)

Woody Allen has taken heat for having such a fluctuation in the quality of his films, but most critics feel like this is one of his stronger periods. And VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA has to be in his top five films of the past 20 years.
What I appreciate most about Allen is that he makes films for adults. Not adult films, but films for adults. I can't imagine that too many young people would find this movie very exciting.
But in truth, this film is a riveting meditation on love and the transient nature of attraction and desire, both in a romantic sense as well as with regards to life fulfillment.
Not to mention that this film was probably Allen's most erotic! Damn, this thing was HOT! Bardem, Cruz, Johannsan and Hall are all beautful and sexy in the film.
And while I don't speak Spanish, there was something very pleasing to the ears to hear Allen's trademark banter being flipped around between Bardem and Cruz in the language.
The more I think about VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA, the more I appreciate its depth. Like a lot of things, the film is beautiful to look at on the surface and its love triangle plot registers like an old film cliche. But only a well-made film sticks to your sides like this one does.
And the beauty is an artifice to mask some profound life confusions.
And the sprightly humor and genuine comedy dissipates to meloncholy.
And Woody Allen is at it again.

3.5 out of 4

Milk (2008)

The obvious oddity about MILK is that, in many ways, it is Gus Van Sant's least mainstream story since his other major gay-themed film, "My Own Private Idaho," and yet, at the same time, it is by far his most conventionally-directed and mainstream film.
Maybe that's the point, as Harvey Milk was a courageous man and should be honored as a human rights activist by the "mainstream" and not sidelined as the infamous Proposition 6 intended in the 1970s.
It is impossible to watch MILK without wondering if it should have been released before last month's election in some attempt to defeat Proposition 8, which passed. One would think this would have been a good idea -- to make this film about an activist into a message of current activism. And yet, for me, the delay of this film until the aftermath of what amounts to a civil rights defeat in 2008 California in the eyes of many further cements in my mind that MILK doesn't have ENOUGH of an activist's edge.
It simply comes off as a very standard bio-pic that tries a little harder to mainstream gay rights than it does galvanize audiences in respect of Harvey Milk himself, who comes off as no mythical hero here. (Again, given Van Sant's talents, this might have been the intent, too.)
Sean Penn is magnetic here...it was weird to see him smile so much! He will get an Oscar nomination for this and he will have deserved it.
But the film itself is just good. It's not great. Harvey Milk himself was great. I suspect that those who are going ga-ga over this movie are confusing the two.

3.0 out of 4

Gran Torino (2008)

After watching GRAN TORINO, I had to fight to be objective about rating it because my gut tells me that there are a few moments in the script that get preachy and the ending is a little predictable, which is disappointing in the fact that one of the movie's strongest suits is a refreshing lack of predictability.
But then, there's what my heart thinks about GRAN TORINO. And my heart says that Clint Eastwood's Walt Kowalski reminds me of my grandfather. My heart also marvels at the fact that just when I had decided that this was the best post-9/11 film about racism since "Crash," it turned into the best film about what it means to be a man since, well, since I don't know when. Once I wiped myself off the floor at the end of this one, I knew in an instant that it would be joining the list of films I teach in my film class.
GRAN TORINO has more thematic and symbolic depth that a great novel. It's about ignorance, respect, racism, ageism, lonliness, stubbornness, and about ten other things. And this isn't even a good review of the film...maybe some day I will write one that is more thoughtful and complete, but right now, I'm just overwhelmed by it all.
I can assure you that I will watch GRAN TORINO again and again. First "Changeling" and now this!? How can this man be for real?
And, I failed to mention, GRAN TORINO is as funny as it is serious. Somehow, Eastwood's heavy hand lightened just enough here to showcase his typical non-flashy directorial decisions and dry humor.
Most of the criticism I've read about this film surrounds Eastwood's decision to cast amateurs in the supporting roles. Their horrible acting ruins the movie, they say. But I think it says something that someone like myself, who cares so much about the acting, didn't seem to notice this problem. If you're transfixed by the supporting performances (which came across to me as muted but "natural"), then you aren't getting much more out of the film. Apparently, other things were more important to me.
This is a ridiculously good movie. Not perfect, but damn close.

4.0 out of 4

Frost/Nixon (2008)

As the cameras prepare to roll on David Frost's first taped interview with Richard Nixon, the disgraced former president secures a provision to be allowed regular opportunities to dab his upper lip with a hankerchief off-camera. "You're probably aware of my history with perspiration," Nixon teases, a clear reference to the infamous televised debate that all but secured Kennedy's victory over Nixon in 1960.
As viewers of Ron Howard's latest film, an adaptation of Peter Morgan's award-winning stage play, FROST/NIXON, we are reminded in that moment once again that television was, perhaps, the true nemesis of Richard Nixon, an otherwise brilliant, cultured and dryly witty man who appeared to lack one key skill needed by every politician from that point on: the ability to manipulate the media.
Any yet, as the cameras roll for the first in their interviews, it quickly becomes apparent that Nixon learned something from his mistakes. As tainted as his presidency may have been, this was not a man who was about to allow a British talk show host to bring him down. And so, Nixon wins round one by essentially fillibustering the two-hour long interview with long, rambling responses that lacked aggression, rendering Frost all but mute. Game on.
I was captivated by FROST/NIXON. I daresay that this might be Ron Howard's best film. If it's not, it's up there. Not since Oliver Stone's JFK has history been so swiftly engaging on a movie screen.
It's an amusing coincidence that I saw this film on the same day that Illinois Governor Rod BloGo(however you spell it) was arrested on corruption charges. Complete with its own wire-tapping, the current situation brings the Nixon era to mind in uncanny ways.
But back to FROST/NIXON, a classic cinematic cat-and-mouse exchange between the scrappy underdog (Frost) and the world-weary heavyweight (Nixon). There is no reason to believe that Frost, a lightweight journalist prior to scoring the Nixon interviews, is up to the challenge of taking on "Tricky Dick." Nor is there reason to believe that Nixon will be able to do anything to appear presidential or dignified in the wake of his public shame.
And yet both men clearly rise to the occassion, and the performances by Michael Sheen and, especially, Frank Langella, convey these facts with exciting clarity. The barbs, jabs and exchanges between the two men are constantly engaging -- from the moment Nixon offends Frost with a comment about his "effeminant," laceless Italian shoes with seconds to go before the camera rolls, to Frost's immediate and on-camera return volley of asking Nixon why he didn't destroy "the tapes" as his first question, a violation of the terms of the interviews.
And so it goes, back and forth. And it escalates in intensity. And Howard expands the intimacy of the stage play only slightly, by adding archival footage and surrounding the lead performers with strong supporting performances by Sam Rockwell, Kevin Bacon and Oliver Platt.
I haven't seen "W." yet, but Bush-haters criticized Oliver Stone for doing the unthinkable for a liberal director and allowing audiences to feel sympathy for the president. Howard doesn't exactly do the same, but he does something equally important and relevant; he makes Nixon as intelligent and clever as he is desperate and manipulative.
Taking a cue from Stone's JFK, Howard builds to the "Zapruder film moment" of FROST/NIXON when Frost confronts Nixon on camera specifically for a confession and apology. If you know your history, you know what happens. But that does not make the moment, or any other in FROST/NIXON, any less compelling to watch.

3.5 out of 4

The Visitor (2008)

I admired THE VISITOR in the same way that I would admire a beautiful novel, moreso than a film. This is not meant as an insult, just a clarification. As filmmaking, THE VISITOR is a very quiet, subtle, and unpretentious work. And truly, what makes you say you enjoy the film is going to be the four main acting performances and the message of the story itself.
I found myself to be quite moved by Richard Jenkins' work here as an emotionally-frozen college professor who has clearly failed to recover from his wife's death. To keep her spirit alive, he attempts to learn to play the piano (an instrument on which she was a virtuoso). He sucks at it. He is also starting to suck at being a college professor, coldly rejecting late work from students without explanation and "updating" his course syllabi with whiteout to change the dates on it. The guy is checked out.
Checked out until music comes into his life again, or at least that's how I interpret it. You could say that this film is all about, as the tagline suggests, how it only takes one person on this planet of over six billion people to change your life. But what this one person, a stranger who was misled into a shady subletting deal that finds him and his girlfriend in the professor's rarely-occupied New York apartment, brings to Jenkins' character is music. It comes in the form of an African drum, and the moments involving the two men and the drum are rich with heartwarming, life-affirming symbolism and reminders of the healing power of music.
THE VISITOR has strong and liberal political overtones that some have found to be heavyhanded or the film's Achilles heel. I don't believe either of those things are true. Without giving too much away, I believe that, as the professor lets his emotional guard down and begins to build the new version of himself that is needed to carry on in the world, the politically-charged by-products of the film that the character encounters (which include racial profiling in a post-9/11 world and illegal immigration) are tests of his new-found open-mindedness.
What a wonderful little film THE VISITOR is!
It's by no means a perfect movie. It's sometimes slow. It sometimes lacks visual punch. But, as I said before, it stays with you like a good book. And as a music lover, I haven't seen anything lately that has so perfectly romanticized the power of music. For that reason alone, I'd watch this film again and recommend it to friends.

3.5 out of 4

Tropic Thunder (2008)

During the opening scene of TROPIC THUNDER, I was already starting to get angry about the offensiveness and lack of sensitivity of the material. This is no time to make fun of war! The visual gags and one-liners were just inappropriate.
And then, from the moment Steve Coogan's head blew off, I decided to let my guard down. And to hell with political correctness and what is proper. Not soon thereafter, I understood that TROPIC THUNDER would eventually offend just about everyone at one moment or another, and therein probably lies the point. And once I figured this out, I had a freaking blast watching the film.
Robert Downey, Jr. is, dare I say, Oscar-worthy here. And that hurts to type...this is a Ben Stiller film. But he's that good. I am not willing to give Stiller credit for how good Downey is (or Tom Cruise for that matter, where did THAT come from?) but I will give credit where it's due. I almost ALWAYS hate both Ben Stiller and Jack Black in everything they do. I avoid both of them in movies like the plague, unless they are doing animated voice-over work. And yet here they both are and not only did I tolerate them, I enjoyed them.
I think I added an extra star to my rating for that alone! So ridiculous and nutty was this film that I am unable to write a coherent review of the thing. But why get academic, anyway? This was some funny you-know-what.

3.0 out of 4

Changeling (2008)

I'm a little surprised by all of the luke-warm reviews for CHANGELING, the latest Clint Eastwood film and the first of two for the year from a director who should, in theory, be enjoying retirement but is instead, and for the second time in three years, pulling double duty during the award season.
I could go off on a tangent about how Eastwood has become one of my all-time favorite directors and how I haven't seen a clunker from him in a solid decade, but that would be time diverted from conversation about this particular film, which eschews Eastwood's recent trend towards modern, urban landscapes in favor of a meticulously-recreated period piece.
Based on a true story, CHANGELING stars a spectacular and award-worthy Angelina Jolie as a mother who's son is missing when she comes home from work. The police, ultimately in an effort to cover up a bungled search operation, return to her a boy that she knows is not her real son. Desperate to repair an all-but-shattered public image due to unruly corruption, the police use the mother as a pawn and have her institutionalized for being crazy. Needless to say, the film chronicles her journey to proving that she's not while, at the same time, pursuing the truth of what really happened and, ultimately, bringing closure to this shocking cover-up.
One thing I can tell you for sure about CHANGELING is that I have never felt such rage as I did in the movie theatre while watching this film. I literally sat with my fists clenched, irate at the mistreatment of this woman, aghast and in awe of what she went through.
Eastwood's film is long and slow and tormenting and beautiful. And it's right up there with the other stellar films he's made in recent years.

4.0 out of 4

High School Musical 3: Senior Year (2008)

This is going to sound wishy-washy, but HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL 3 is both really, really good and really, really bad.
For some reason, I find myself unable to combine those two scores and come up with a summative analysis of the film. I have to look at these things separately.
So, for the record...
THE BAD (always start with the bad, right?):
Being a high school teacher and the father of a Zac Efron-worshiping almost-7-year-old, it is infuriating how this film--even worse than the two before--builds up a ridiculous image of high school life. Almost nothing that happens in the film is ever going to happen to any of our kids. They won't have a yearbook office that looks like the offices of Vanity Fair or a rooftop garden accessible for students to make out (well, dance...Gabriella is the biggest cock-blocker in film history!) in the pouring rain.
The most popular girl, frustrating as she will be to the other girls, will never be given a double-wide locker painted in her signature color and a personal assistant who is handed her lunch on an already-prepared tray with a rose in a vase included with it.
No high school anywhere will allow the students to write said musical, talented as they might be. And the list goes on.
The myth of high school life created by these films is well-intentioned but I am worried about its real-life damage. I'm lucky I can tell my daughter the truth, and other parents should do the same.
The other major let-down with HSM3 is the dizzying lack of logic and timing in the film. Anyone who hates musicals for the sheer fact that characters randomly burst into song and set pieces fly in at just the right moment will despise this film. That is exactly what happens for an hour and a half. Rain pours at just the right time, basketballs fall from the sky in perfect position to be high-kicked and punched, and half of the numbers jump cut from the two-character reality they start in to a full-cast, hyper-costumed extravaganza.
Having said this, the worst scene in the film is also one of the best, and herein lies my dilemma. Troy and Chad drive Troy's nearly-dead pickup truck to a junkyard and commence with a best bud's hip-hop throwdown after the owner of the junkyard tells two 17-year-olds "I'm leaving, but take what you want and lock up for me when you leave," which would NEVER HAPPEN. You know what else would never happen? Two rich kids like Troy and Chad would never know where to FIND a junkyard, much less be driving a truck like that. When you see the Bolton house, complete with a dream treehouse, you laugh out loud to see Troy's beater of a truck. Anyway...back to the junkyard where, mid-song, out jumps a bevy of cool dude dancers to throw down with them, only to magically disappear under car parts at the end of the number. Yes...this is a musical for fans of musicals only!
THE GOOD:
And yet, crabby as I am about the implausibilities at every turn, the choreography is ridiculously good, and the young cast is great at executing it. Say what you want about Efron, but he's great at what he does. He deserves credit for holding this thing together...remember that they didn't even let him SING the part of Troy in the first film! He's come so far.
And even if the sentiment is over the top and the songs are carbon copies of songs from the last two films (almost at 1-to-1 ratio!) there is still a great message in this movie, too.
Maybe the best thing about HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL 3 is watching the kids watching the movie and knowing that musicals are back in movie theatres and receiving the kind of love they got so many decades ago. You can pick holes in logic and criticize plausibilty all you want, but there's nothing wrong with that.

2.5 out of 4

Hamlet 2 (2008)

HAMLET 2 is REALLY funny in places. I covered my mouth to stop drawing attention to myself, rocked in my seat and even clapped at one point.
But my laughter was tempered by the knowledge that it was my school theatre background that allowed me to find it so funny. When I put my film teacher hat on, all I could see was a wildly uneven film with a script that jumped around and changed tones at random and the promise of something great hanging for dear life onto a skeleton of something good.
The quickest way to describe HAMLET 2 is to say that it is the high school theatre version of the community theatre film "Waiting for Guffman," with the added bonus of outrageousness. Both films feature clueless "artiste" directors and warped theatrical visions, but HAMLET 2 avoids being subtle about it. In either case, the viewer who "knows these people" is going to laugh a little harder.
A word about the offensive material...it was not a big deal. When I heard about the song "Rock Me, Sexy Jesus," I expected to be offended by the film. I wasn't. In fact, I laughed my ass off at that number. The supposedly-offensive material all works in the context of the story, and I hope people get that.
Steve Coogan is a riot as the drama teacher staging a ridiculous sequel to Hamlet in an attempt to save his school's cut drama program. The film is funny as hell, and it's a shame that it couldn't have been placed in the hands of a better writer.
Regardless, I was able to thoroughly enjoy it while simultaneously being critical of its flaws.

2.5 out of 4

John Adams (miniseries, 2008)

Wow, did I think this was fantastic! I'm not sure I can write a coherent review of this! I have too many thoughts going in too many directions.
So I will just say that this deserves its Emmy nominations and Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney give Oscar-worthy performances on the small screen. They are equally stunning, as is the attention to detail here.
Since I couldn't keep up with this while it originally aired on HBO, I watched it on DVD. And lucky for me! You can activate a feature that adds periodic pop-up facts to the screen to clarify and expand on the story. I was in history-geek heaven for the past three nights, staying up past midnight to watch these amazing episodes.
This is as stunning an achievement as "Roots." Do yourself a favor and watch it!

4.0 out of 4