“The beauty of American arrogance is that they can’t imagine a world where they’re not a step ahead.”

Rated PG-13.  Out on DVD.  Directed by Pete Travis.  Written by Barry Levy.  Starring Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, Forest Whitaker, Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt, Bruce McGill, Eduardo Noriega, Edgar Ramirez, Said Taghmaoui, Ayelet Zurer and Zoe Saldana.

.

When I first saw the trailer for Vantage Point it seemed like it could be a decent action movie with an interesting (and unoriginal, but that’s okay) narrative device — one event, in this case the assassination of the President — told from multiple viewpoints.  Not to mention a pretty solid cast with a number of acclaimed actors — Oscar winners and nominees and others who I happen to like.  However, a really, really shitty script filled with plot holes, stilted dialogue, lame, predictable twists and one hell of a cheesy ending absolutely torpedoes a promising idea.

The opening sequence was not particularly compelling, thanks in part to haphazard direction and truly horrendous line reading from both Sigourney Weaver and an atrocious awful Zoe Saldana as part of a news team covering an international summit on terrorism in Spain.  We see the assassination (it’s not much of a spoiler to reveal this, it happens about 3 minutes in) from their point of view before it switches.  From there, we get a number of different perspectives, with each revealing a little more of the story.

We get the stories from the point of view of the Secret Service agents (Quaid & Fox), the American tourist (Whitaker), the President (Hurt), the shady Spanish cop (Noriega, from Abre Los Ojos) amongst others.  There are a couple of parts where the concept is used to further the story, but mostly it serves as a distraction to a fairly straightforward plot.  All it does is highlight the extremely inconsistent timing (and some huge, glaring plot holes that come with it) and ridiculous coincidences that leave all the characters in the same area for the climax.

For such a strong cast, the best performance is Quaid’s, only because it’s not that obvious that he’s phoning it in.  The rest range from wasted (Noriega) to bad (Fox…oh, Jack, pick your movies better) to embarrassing (Whitaker, you just won a Oscar, for fuck’s sake) in what little screen time each character has.  None of the characters gets much of a back story and there is no real motivation shown for their actions.  The direction is sloppy and jump-cuts and close-ups don’t mask the lack of suspense.

There was also a twist that was revealed in the trailer which is pretty annoying — not that the movie would have been saved by me not knowing it, but it would have been a little surprise, I suppose.

Two more rants — first, for some strange reason, there’s no blood or even bulletholes during either the assassination or a flashback to Quaid’s character taking a bullet a year earlier.  You know, PG-13 movies can show blood….it made no sense and made it seem like a 70s TV show, where the bullets fly, people pretend to get hit and there’s never any blood.  Second, there’s an annoying little girl who is just absolutely fucking brutal in every possible way who a major part of the plot revolves around.

The only saving graces are its length (84 minutes of a shitty movie is better than 2 1/2 hours of one) and the fact that they tried something reasonably fresh for the genre.  It didn’t work, but at least they tried.

Grade: D-

.

If you liked this article, please subscribe to my blog, using the RSS feed or subscribe via e-mail using FeedBlitz or RSSFWD.

Stumble It!

.

<<HOME

In Theaters.  Rated G. Written and Directed by Andrew Stanton.  With Fred Willard and the voices of Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Jeff Garlin, John Ratzenberger, Kathy Najimy & Sigourney Weaver.

.

At this point, I would go to see any movie Pixar makes without any idea of what it’s about (and judging by the fact that all their movies have made boatloads of money, I’m far from the only one).  They’ve raised the stakes with the last two, as movies about a rat chef or a robot living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland don’t seem particularly commercial.  And though Wall-E isn’t quite as good as Ratatouille, it’s another strong showing in the impressive Pixar portfolio.

Wall-E is a story about the last working robot on Earth hundreds of years after humans have abandoned it, going about his work compacting the trash we’ve left behind.  However, Wall-E has taken it upon himself to collect artifacts he’s interested in, and along with his cockroach buddy, has managed to make a nice living space.  He is particularly taken with a tape of Hello, Dolly! (which I had to look up, I did not recognize it at all) and the idea of finding someone to hold hands with.  Hey, it’s a kid’s movie, what do you want?

His world all changes when a spaceship lands, dropping off another robot, Eve, whose directive is “classified.”  Wall-E follows her around trying to ingratiate himself, and when she goes back home, he follows on a quest that takes him to a spaceship where humans are now living.

As you might be able to tell, it’s definitely much more of a kids’ movie (despite the sort of adult theme of a barren Earth) than Brad Bird’s two entries, The Incredibles and Ratatouille.  Stanton is responsible for Finding Nemo and Monsters, Inc. and this fits in the same type of mold, though with a romantic theme.  As a result, though I really liked it and enjoyed watching it, it doesn’t carry the same resonance as Bird’s.

What does make Wall-Edifferent from any of the other Pixar films is the opening sequence, which is almost entirely visual, and that the two main characters have barely any dialogue.  Up until the final act, there’s very little dialogue overall (hence the lack of a quote above the picture), and there aren’t many action sequences.  Despite this I was never bored and I felt like the movie breezed by.

Wall-E is such a great main character and it’s amazing how they can make a rusty box robot into a lovable cute character.  It just proves that it’s all in the eyes — and Wall-E has wonderfully expressive eyes.  Eve looks kind of like an egg-shaped IPod or something else slick Apple would make but Stanton eventually gives her enough of a personality that you root for Wall-E to end up with her.

I wasn’t a huge fan of using live-action in the movie (all in video form) — I thought it was a little out of place.  Also, the secondary conflict which drove the plot and created the antagonists wasn’t too interesting and took away from the Wall-E/Eve storyline which was far superior.  Not to mention, the scenes with all the fat people were not particularly appealing.

Wall-E is a very cute movie and up to the usual Pixar production standards.  It’s a great family or date movie, but I certainly wouldn’t go see it with my guy friends.  It’s just not that type of movie at all, which I guess I could say for all the non-Brad Bird Pixar films.  Just for the hell of it, here’s a off-the-cuff ranking of all the Pixar movies…the #1 is well above the rest and the bottom 2 are a level below the middle 6, though I like all of them.

1. The Incredibles
2. Ratatouille
3. Toy Story
4. Monsters, Inc.
5. Wall-E
6. Finding Nemo
7. Toy Story 2
8. Cars
9. A Bug’s Life

Grade: B+

.

If you liked this article, please subscribe to my blog, using the RSS feed or subscribe via e-mail using FeedBlitz or RSSFWD.

Stumble It!

.

<<HOME

“If there’s trouble, all us freaks have is each other.”

2004.  Rated PG-13. Written and Directed by Guillermo Del Toro.  Based on the comic by Mike Mignola.  Starring Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, Rubert Evans, Jeffrey Tambor, John Hurt, Karel Roden and the voice of David Hyde Pierce.

.

Before I saw a preview for the first movie, I had never heard of Hellboy, perhaps the most obscure comic book character to be given not just one, but now two big-budget action movies.  I had no interest in seeing it, but it was on TV tonight, and I figured, what the hell, why not see if it might actually be as good as some people say and then go out and see the sequel.  Well, let’s just say I won’t be rushing to the theaters this weekend to see Hellboy 2.

The movie opens with a scene explaining the origins of Hellboy (Perlman) – some crazy Nazi scientist teamed with Rasputin (Roden) – yes, that Rasputin — engage in some magic mumbo-jumbo bullshit and open up a portal to Hell, I guess, to get some demons to help destroy the Allies.  The plot gets no less ridiculous from there, but it’s a comic book movie, so that’s fine, I suppose.  Anyway, a team of American soldiers led by a young Professor Broom (the older version played by Hurt) disrupt the mission but not before a little cute infant demon sneaks through the portal.  Rather than destroy it, Broom adopts it.

Flash to the present, where FBI newbie John Myers (Evans) is recruited for a secret division of the government, the BPRD, where he basically gets to act as Hellboy’s babysitter.  Through Myers, we learn most of the history of Hellboy and the BPRD and meet the other members of the team, an aquatic human thing, Abe Sapien (voiced by Hyde Pierce) and a firestarter girl (Blair) who can’t control her powers.  And of course, eventually, some weird creatures pop up and they have to fight them and save the world and all that.

Perlman is great and redeems an otherwise subpar film – it’s amazing that buried beneath that much makeup and prosthetics that Perlman can outact the shit out of everyone else in the movie.  Blair and Evans are both blank slates, which totally kills the romance subplot.  You feel for Hellboy and you can see how important Blair’s character is to him, but she’s not good enough to show us why.  Nor is Evans effective as an audience proxy.  Totally off-topic, but I feel like John Hurt has been in everything I’ve seen recently.  Also, Jeffrey Tambor shows up to annoy the crap out of everyone playing the stereotypical head of the unit, who has to have a conflict with the loose-cannon detective, or demon, in this case.

Now, I guess I understand why some critics wet themselves over Del Toro’s vision, etc — and I never saw Pan’s Labyrinthso it’s unfair to judge it based on the trailer alone — but I find his visual style too cartoony for my tastes.  The monsters and the creatures, I dunno, they looked too fake, rubbery and were not in the least bit frightening.  I think it’s telling that the freakiest and most bad-ass villain was the Nazi assassin wearing a simple gas mask.  And other than a really effective sequence in the middle of the movie, I was not impressed by the direction.  The final action scene was a total waste.

Essentially, the movie is one awesome character surrounded by some lame supporting characters and one cool villain (not even the main one) surrounded by pretty lame ones.  The visuals aren’t strong enough to carry a weak script with a large helping of really corny dialogue.  I didn’t mind the old, “what makes a man a man” theme, but they didn’t really explore the idea of whether a demon can truly be good because he was loved.  It was never really in doubt which side Hellboy is on.

Would I see the sequel?  I’m not going to make a point of it.  Most likely, I’ll catch it when it’s on FX a couple of years from now in the week before Hellboy 3 comes out.

Grade: C

.

If you liked this article, please subscribe to my blog, using the RSS feed or subscribe via e-mail using FeedBlitz or RSSFWD.

Stumble It!

.

<<HOME

Okay, so I didn’t end up seeing Wanted, so that’s why I didn’t review it.  I suppose I could have reviewed Get Smart instead, which I saw a few weeks ago.  But it didn’t really lend itself to a full review — it’s a C/C- movie, not funny enough for a comedy, not exciting enough as an action movie, but not entirely awful.  Steve Carrell is okay, Anne Hathaway is mousy, The Rock can actually act decently and the plot was entirely too predictable.  It’s a total mindless diversion and nothing more.

And instead of regaling everyone with why Superman Returns is one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen (don’t worry, I will write about it soon enough), I decided to go with something slightly more timely (also, I watched it tonight on TV) and review the original Hellboy on the day the sequel comes out.  I will be doing the same next Friday with a review of Batman Begins on the the day The Dark Knight (sweet) comes out.

“If I had grown up on a farm, and was retarded, Bruges might impress me.  But I didn’t, so it doesn’t.”

2008.  Rated R.  Out on DVD.  Written and Directed by Martin McDonagh.  Starring Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Ralph Fiennes, Clemence Poesy, Jordan Prentice and Thekla Reuten.

.

Not that the genre of quirky dark comedies about criminals needed another entry, but earlier this year In Bruges was released to very little fanfare despite some star power and generally decent reviews.  It has the requisite laundry list of ridiculous characters — suicidal hitman, crime boss family man, racist midget, Dutch prostitute, angry Canadian, etc – and takes place and was entirely shot in Bruges, the medieval Belgian city.  Essentially, all you need to know plot-wise is that two hitmen (Farrell & Gleeson) are sent to Bruges to lay low by their boss (Fiennes) after a job gone wrong in London.  Hijinks, and lots of midget jokes ensue.

Farrell & Gleeson have good chemistry, and it’s nice to see Farrell once again show that he can actually act, like he did so long ago in the underrated Tigerland.  Gleeson inhabits his role as usual, and is so likable that it’s tough to buy him ever being a hitman.  It’s weird to hear Ralph Fiennes do a non-posh accent, but he’s actually really good in a departure from his signature roles.  Prentice, as the aforementioned racist midget, is given a thankless role but is actually not bad.  Poesy does an excellent job of being hot.

The characters are pretty well-defined and the dialogue is consistently sharp and witty and essentially is what makes the film work in the limited way it does.  After the first 15 minutes or so, the film’s pace picks up, and McDonagh does a good job of using the location of Bruges.  It’s not a great directing job, especially in the action parts and the closing sequence, but it’s competent.

However, the strengths of the film don’t completely overshadow the multiple weaknesses — the plot is very predictable and it takes awhile to get going.  The ending is absolutely fucking ridiculous (which knocks it down at least a grade) and worse than that it’s so totally telegraphed that I would surprised if most of the audience didn’t see it coming.  There’s also the whole token beautiful girl falls for main character for absolutely no reason subplot.  Finally, much of the action is predicated on the notion that a big, bad crime boss would actually go himself, BY HIMSELF, to help clean up the situation.

In Bruges is nothing we haven’t seen before (in of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels or Snatch, for example) but it’s a pleasant enough diversion.  It was barely released in the U.S. and comes to DVD at a time when there are actually interesting movies in theaters, so if you miss it, well, you’re not missing a lot.  But it’s better than the standard Hollywood fare and probably worth a rental, and certainly worth it on HBO or something like FX two years from now.

Grade: B-

.

If you liked this article, please subscribe to my blog, using the RSS feed or subscribe via e-mail using FeedBlitz or RSSFWD.

Stumble It!

.

<<HOME

“Tracy: Hey, Liz Lemon, I’m going to an animals-only strip club, interested?
Liz: Does that mean the animals strip or the animals are the customers?
Tracy: Animal customers? That’s ridiculous!”

NBC.  Returns in the fall Thursdays, 8:30 EST.  Created by Tina Fey.  Starring Fey, Alec Baldwin, Tracy Morgan, Jane Krakowski, Jack McBrayer, Scott Adsit and Judah Friedlander.

. 

Previous Summer TV:
Friday Night Lights

I’ll again start this Summer TV entry with the recommendation that you watch Mad Men, and the season 1 DVD just came out yesterday.  You have time to catch up before Season 2 starts to air — but if can continue where it left off, it’s easily the best show on TV.

But for those of you who have already seen it, and need something else on these lazy summer nights, I’m going to review Season 2 of the Emmy-winning 30 Rock, one of the two funniest shows on TV (the other being It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, which will be the next entry).  Why Season 2?  Well, because that’s all they have for free on Hulu — you can pick up the DVD of Season 1, which is also quite good, but it’s not necessary to watch it before Season 2.  While there are continuing storylines in 30 Rock and recurring characters, if you’ve never seen it, it’s not hard to start with Season 2. 

A quick primer — the story focuses on Liz Lemon (ex SNL head-writer Tina Fey), the head writer of a sketch-comedy show (The Girlie Show) and her daily exploits dealing with a meddling boss (Baldwin), two crazy stars (Morgan and Krakowski), a well-meaning but naive NBC page (McBrayer) and her producer (Adsit), writers (Friedlander, among others) and other assorted office-types.  The best way to describe it would be as Newsradio (boss dealing with a crazy workplace) meets Arrested Development (single camera, no laugh-track, style of humor), and since those are two of my favorite sitcoms ever, it’s only natural that I’d like it.

As with A.D., the jokes on 30 Rock come at a rapid pace, and though it doesn’t have the same type of call-backs, there are definitely a lot of hidden jokes, whether it’s in the background or props, and a fair amount of cut-aways.  While it’s not quite as good, it’s definitely the closest thing on TV to A.D.  The writing is sharp, the characters are great, even the minor ones, and the quotable one-liners stack up with any show.

While Baldwin gets most of the accolades (and they are deserved, he’s fantastic) for his performance, Fey is the glue that holds the show together.  Though she’s not really the straight man, and is often as crazy as her compatriots, she’s crazy in a more subtle way, and is such a lovable loser in a lot of ways.  Lemon is relatable and while she’s probably playing a thinly veiled version of herself, Fey is so natural in the role.  Morgan and McBrayer are both great, but their characters can sometimes suffer from overuse.  On the flip side, Krakowski is underused despite having as good a ratio of great lines/screen time as any character.  And in Season 2, Adsit’s producer Pete and most of the writers (and Josh!) completely disappear and play a much smaller part that they did in season 1.

Part of this is because the season had a ton of guest stars, starting with Jerry Seinfeld playing himself in the season premiere.  They also had Steve Buscemi, David Schwimmer, Al Gore, Carrie Fisher, Matthew Broderick, James Carville, Andy Richter, Michael Bloomberg, Brian Dennehy, and Edie Falco in a multi-episode arc as Baldwin’s love interest.  Also returning were Will Arnett as Baldwins’ corporate rival, and my favorite, Dean Winters playing one of Liz’ ex-boyfriends, Dennis Duffy.

The best episodes of the year were “Jack Gets in the Game” (w/ Arnett), “Greenzo” (w/ Schwimmer), “Subway Hero” and the final three, “Succession”, ”Sandwich Day” and ”Cooter.”  There were a couple of relatively weak ones, “Rosemary’s Baby” and “MILF Island” come to mind as two.

Overall, though, this season of 30 Rock takes the potential it started to show in Season 1 and builds on it, and it really started to hit its stride at the end of the year, leaving me excited for Season 3. 

Grade: A- (Season 1 would get a B+)

.

If you liked this article, please subscribe to my blog, using the RSS feed or subscribe via e-mail using FeedBlitz or RSSFWD.

Stumble It!

.

<<HOME

“Trust the people.  They’ll do all they can to keep their freedom now.”

2007.  Rated PG-13.  France.  Out on DVD.  Written and Directed by Marjane Satrapi & Vicent Paronnaud.  Based on the graphic novels by Satrapi.  With the voices of Chiara Mastroianni, Catherine Deneuve, Danielle Darrieux, Simon Abkarian, Gabrielle Lopes & Francois Jerosme.

.

Persepolis, which scored an Oscar nomination last year for Best Animated Feature, is a French film about an Iranian girl, Marjane Satrapi and her life growing up in Tehran, and later Vienna.  It stirred some controversy when the current Iranian government protested its showing at the Cannes film festival, but the furor died down a bit, I think, when people realized it’s not a particularly controversial film.  Sure, it criticizes some past governmental actions and shows the downsides of a repressive society, but it’s more a film about the character and her experiences.

The story, told in a series of vignettes, is essentially broken into three parts, beginning with Marjane’s childhood, the second her adolescence and the third her young adulthood.  The first, covers her childhood during the revolution and then the Iran/Iraq war, is a lot more plot-driven and although it’s fairly interesting from a historical point of view, Marjane is just so brutally annoying as a child.  Kudos to her for showing herself in an unflattering light, but it was definitely a distraction to an otherwise strong segment.

The second focuses on a more universal theme of Marjane going through adolescence not knowing where exactly she fit in.  It focuses on her relationships, both with her friends and her first loves, and this was when I found her most interesting as a character.  The third segment covers her young adulthood, and was probably the weakest of the three.  A sequence set to ”eye of the tiger” absolutely did not work, and none of the film’s strongest vignettes were featured in this time period, which kind of led the story to go out with a whimper.

As far as the look goes, my first thought about the animation style was, “this is like a graphic novel come to life,” and then, of course, after watching it and reading about it, I realized it was indeed based on a series of graphic novels by Satrapi.  The majority of the film is in black and white,  with small snippets in color and the visuals, though simple by Pixar standards, are definitely nice to look at.

There are some strong moments, and it’s certainly an interesting and unique film, especially to an American audience, but parts of it just did not hold my attention well.  Yes, I know it’s a memoir, and ostensibly it is staying true to her life and not making it a Hollywood version, but I did not find her character very compelling nor did she show much development.  I realize not every movie needs to involve the main character learning or growing, but the nature of a movie made up of vignettes without a really strong arc is that some will be hits and some will be misses.

It is worth seeing, if only because it tells a story pretty foreign to most people and does so with nice visuals in a mostly interesting way.  It also gives an authentic look into a country whose relations with ours will only grow more important, and humanizes its people - for that alone, it is a worthwhile endeavor.

Grade: B

.

If you liked this article, please subscribe to my blog, using the RSS feed or subscribe via e-mail using FeedBlitz or RSSFWD.

Stumble It!

.

<<HOME

“Compassion for the weak is a betrayal of nature.”

2004.  Germany.  Rated R.  Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel.  Starring Bruno Ganz, Alexandra Maria Lara, Corinna Harfouth, Ulrich Matthews, Juliane Kohler, Heino Ferch, Christian Berkl and Thomas Kretschmann.

.

A movie that gained some notoriety because of the presence of Adolf Hitler as the central character, the Oscar-nominated 2004 German film Downfall still managed to slip under the radar despite being critically acclaimed.  It is a fiercely interesting, well-produced and acted film, with some absolutely devastating scenes that are hard to watch.  While the subject matter is difficult and not meant for everyone, I would highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the material or in just seeing a powerful film.

Hitler’s name has become so synonymous with evil (and rightly so) that it’s easy to forget that he was not a supernatural force, but a human being, albeit a disturbed, sociopathic human being.  It is also a taboo subject, but the truth is that not all the Nazis were inherently bad men, even those in Hitler’s inner circle — they were people not strong enough to avoid succumbing to the environment and responded by blindly followed their leader.  In an era in our country where questioning the actions of the leadership is labeled by many as unpatriotic it is important to see that situation in the extreme.  This is a film that dares its viewers to consider whether there is a difference between evil people and people who do evil things.

Based on a number of novels, particularly the memoirs of Hitler’s secretary, Tradul Junge (Lara), Downfall focuses on Hitler’s (Ganz) final days holed up in the bunker in Berlin with his mistress Eva Braun (Kohler) and generals and advisers, including Joseph Goebbels (Matthes) and his wife (Harfouch).  The narrative shifts to many points of view, following, in addition to Hitler and his bunker mates, a member of the hitler youth, a pair of doctors, and a rebellious high-ranking soldier (Kretschmann).  It captures the growing dread of everyone that Hitler has completely lost it but how the undying loyalty of a few makes it impossible for the more rational thinkers to have a say.

The film is very well directed and it does really feel like you’re there, both in the bunker, and during the war scenes.  Some of it is a ittle too stylized but on the whole the production values are very high.  Hirschbiegel paces it well, and although it’s 2 1/2 hours, it never drags, and the transitions between the different focuses is never awkward.

Ganz had the difficult task of walking a fine line between going over the top and keeping Hitler realistic, but not letting him be anywhere close to sympathetic.  On the whole, he succeeds, but there are some moments where he has some trouble, but this is a role with about as high a degree of difficulty as it comes.  Kohler is perfect as the deluded mistress Braun as is Matthes as Goebbels and most of the other performances are solid.  I was a little underwhelmed with Lara as Junge, who ostensibly is the audience surrogate, but she really doesn’t do a lot besides look sad and wide-eyed.  The standout performance for me was one of the doctors, as played by Berkl and Ferch as Albert Speer – they both do a great job of conveying the characters’ weariness, intelligence and the defeated nature of once-good men realizing the weight of their actions.

Certainly, the film may humanize some characters who may not deserve it.  It sanitizes some of the more brutal events.  But Downfall, at the least, will make you think — about people who believe so strongly in any set of beliefs or ideals that they refuse to question them, even in the face of all evidence to the contrary.  About the old saying that all it takes for evil to flourish is good men doing nothing.  And about an important lesson to reinforce time and time again, especially in a country that is at war, that it is always easy to see what “we” are doing as right and what “they” are doing as wrong — but there are consequences for always thinking that way.

Grade: A-

.

If you liked this article, please subscribe to my blog, using the RSS feed or subscribe via e-mail using FeedBlitz or RSSFWD.

Stumble It!

.

<<HOME

“Australia. What fresh hell is this?”

2006.  Australia.  Rated R.  Directed by John Hillcoat.  Written by Nick Cave.  Starring Guy Pearce, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston, Emily Watson, John Hurt, David Wenham and Richard Wilson.

.

While the Western is generally thought of as a true American genre (despite the fact that Italians were responsible for some of the more iconic ones), setting a Western in the Australian Outback is such a natural fit that I’m surprised it hasn’t happened more often.  There’s the same harsh environment, sense of desolation, outlaw society, and “restless natives” (and of course, the same type of ritual extermination of the natives) as found in the American Wild West in the same time period.  It’s the setting for John Hillcoat’s The Proposition, which saw only a limited release in this country in 2006, which takes a pretty standard Western script and creates a solid film based mostly on the setting and good production values.

The thin, straightforward plot takes place in a small English-manned outpost where Captain Stanley (Winstone) has been dispatched to “civilize” the area.  This includes breaking up the notorious Burns gang, who were responsible for the recent murder of a local family.  After capturing middle brother Charlie (Pearce) and the slow youngest brother Mikey (Wilson), Stanley offers Charlie the titular proposition — freedom for him and his brother if he tracks and kills the leader of the gang, his oldest brother, the psychotic Arthur (Huston).  That’s essentially it — the movie consists of Charlie’s quest to find his brother and Stanley’s struggle to keep the peace at home battling a meddling wife (Watson) and his growing realization that the least civilized people around are his own troops.

The film, written and scored by Nick Cave (yes, the musician) has a similar sensibility to the superior The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (which was also scored by Cave) in its minimalistic feel and that it takes its time to tell a fairly simple story.  The major difference between the films is that here the characters, outside of Stanley, are thinly sketched and fairly one-dimensional, and that is what ultimately holds the film back from being great as opposed to merely solid.

Hillcoat’s direction is quite good, and along with some great cinematography and a good score he presents a very evocative landscape and setting — it really feels like you’re there.  You get a sense of the oppressive heat, the vastness of the land, the solitude of the characters and I’ve never seen more flies on actors before in any film (they get bonus points for that — if multiple flies landed on my nose during a scene, I could not stop from breaking character).

Pearce certainly looks the part but ultimately isn’t given a ton to do other than stand around and look cool, which is a shame, because he’s such a great actor.  Winstone really ends up being the lead, and gives a really great performance, taking what could have been a pretty cliched character and making him quite sympathetic.  Huston is quite scary and powerful in his brief screen time, a departure from other roles I’ve seen him in.  Both Watson and Wenham’s characters are just so annoying and not particularly well-written.  John Hurt’s character, though amusing, did not add very much.  Wilson does a good job as Mikey, a really important role despite the lack of screen time.

The Proposition, while not great, is at least a different take on an old genre, not just in setting, but in the modern way the story is told, and significantly, in the depiction of the Aborigines.  There are some very good scenes all the way through, and the climax is particularly effective.  If you’re a Western fan, definitely check it out, while it’s not on the same level as Jesse James, it’s still worth seeing.

Grade: B

.

If you liked this article, please subscribe to my blog, using the RSS feed or subscribe via e-mail using FeedBlitz or RSSFWD.

Stumble It!

.

<<HOME

“It’s not the will of the people. It’s the fear of the people.”

2006. Ireland. Unrated. Directed by Ken Loach. Starring Cillian Murphy, Padraic Delaney, Liam Cunningham, Orla Fitzgerald and John Crean.

.

I was really excited about Ken Loach’s The Wind that Shakes the Barley — it won the Palme D’or at Cannes, it’s a war movie (which I generally like), it stars one of my favorite actors, Cillian Murphy — everything just fit into the “overlooked foreign film” label. Not only would I enjoy the movie, but I could feel cool for enjoying it before everyone else. Unfortunately, it was not to be, for while it has its moments, it falls well short of being memorable.

The story of the Irish War of Independence and the following Irish Civil War, The Wind that Shakes the Barley follows two brothers, Damien (Murphy) and Teddy (Delaney) from the starts of the struggle against the English “Black & Tans” to the problems that follow. Teddy is the leader of the local faction of guerrillas and Damien eventually becomes his right-hand man before ideological struggles tear them apart. That’s about all I can say about the plot — it’s not that I don’t want to spoil anything, but there’s really not a whole lot to it. There are some character conflicts (which are essentially political debates spoken by the characters) and some poorly directed scenes of guerrilla warfare, but the plot is really thin.

So while the film looks great and the performances pretty solid, especially Delaney’s, the problem is a weak script and uneven direction. There is very little in the way of character background or development, with the main characters making decisions convenient to the plot rather than staying true to how they had been prior. Besides Damien, Teddy, their close friends Dan and Chris, all the other characters are interchangeable and totally wasted.

For example, Damien is so easily convinced to throw away his future as a doctor to join the guerrillas that you wonder why they even bother to make it an issue in the beginning, especially because the audience knows what he’ll do, otherwise there’d be no movie. It would make sense if he struggled with this decision the rest of the movie — but no, it’s barely even brought up again.

There’s also a lame, unnecessary romantic subplot that develops really quickly, essentially out of nowhere, and then flames out, thrown in there to try and add gravity to the film’s conclusion.

Even more disappointing is after a really terrific opening scene with the Black & Tans, filled with tension and drama, the remainder of the action and battle scenes are duds. The major ambush scene is so poorly directed and framed that you can barely tell what’s going on and additionally, there’s no explanation of why that particular battle or road or whatever is important to the campaign for independence.

I understand that by focusing the conflict on a smallish community it allows the audience to see how it affected everyday people, but there’s no sense as to what the war is about, other than the English are bad, the Irish are good, and then the Irish aren’t so good anymore. It’s an interesting history (I read about it afterwards) and if Loach had focused on one aspect — either the War of Independence, or the Civil War, instead of what feels like two movies in one — it may have been more successful.

As it stands, The Wind that Shakes the Barley is a mediocre film with some good scenes (mostly towards the beginning), good performances and beautiful shots of the Irish countryside. You’d be better off reading the history of the wars in question, then taking a trip to Cork, but assuming that’s not possible, I guess this film is an allright replacement.

Grade: C+

.

If you liked this article, please subscribe to my blog, using the RSS feed or subscribe via e-mail using FeedBlitz or RSSFWD.

Stumble It!

.

<<HOME