SLING BLADE

Sling Blade (1996) dir. Billy Bob Thornton
Starring: Billy Bob Thornton, Lucas Black, Natalie Canerday, John Ritter

****

I‘ve never forgotten how good “Sling Blade” is. Made in 1996 by then unknown, yet multi-talented writer/director/actor Billy Bob Thornton, it was an incredible achievement. The film had passion, suspense, humour and is a true auteur piece of cinema. Every couple of years I try to watch and re-experience the film. You should too.

The story is so simple yet each and every time I re-watch it it packs an emotional wallop. Billy Bob Thornton plays Karl Childers who, after over 30 years, is recently released from the local mental institution and forced to reintroduce himself into regular society. Karl is mentally slow and has trouble socializing with the Arkansas locals. Karl chatting with the warden’s family at his house is wonderful scene. Karl gets a job fixing engines at a local body shop. He also meets a young kid Frank (Lucas Black), who likes Karl because he talks like a motorbike. Karl becomes the father Frank never had. He is ingratiated into his home by his kindly mother, Linda (Natalie Canerday), but is also forced to deal with her abusive boyfriend Doyle (Dwight Yoakam). Doyle is the typical redneck and perhaps the only typecast character. As Linda’s gay friend Vaughn describes him, “he is a monster”.

As Karl’s friendship deepens with Frank he realizes the danger Doyle represents to the family harmony potential in Linda and Frank. Karl was abused as a child, and killed his mother which brought him to the mental institution. Karl makes a selfless sacrifice that will affect everyone’s lives including his own for the better.

Billy Bob embodies Karl. It’s clear Billy Bob had this film and this character in his mind for a long time. The film echoes Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men”. Karl is essentially Lennie – the kind-hearted giant whose heart is stronger than his body. John Ritter shines as Vaughn. He plays his homosexuality with subtly and we admire his nobility when he stands up to Doyle after a drunken fight in Linda’s home. In many ways Vaughn is as much of a hero to the family as Karl is. Without Karl in Frank’s life we assume Vaughn will become the ‘in absentia’ father figure.

Another star of the film is Daniel Lanois who composed the score. Lanois made his career producing albums for Brian Eno, U2, and Bob Dylan, but he is given his time to shine on “Sling Blade”. His Southern melancholy sound sets the perfect tone for the film. The scene when Karl finds his infant brother’s makeshift grave at his father house is great and made so much more heartbreaking with Lanois' dreamlike music cue.

Billy Bob Thornton was nominated for two Oscars for the film in 1996 – Best Actor, and Best Writer. He won for Best Writer. Other than acting Billy Bob hasn’t had much success since. His second film “All the Pretty Horses” was such a disaster professionally, personally, commercially and for the most part critically. Has anyone seen “Daddy and Them” with Laura Dern ‘released’ in 2001 but actually shot after “Sling Blade”? Maybe Thornton will never direct another film again. But remember Charles Laughton only directed one film. All it takes is one great film to solidify one’s name in cinema history. Billy Bob has done that with “Sling Blade”. Enjoy

Buy it here: Sling Blade

Here’s the brilliant opening scene:

MONKEY WARFARE

Monkey Warfare (2006) dir. Reg Harkema
Starring: Don McKellar, Tracy Wright and Nadia Litz

***

“Monkey Warfare” a small scale film about the odd and quirky lifestyle of urban garbage pickers. Centred in the urban decay of Toronto’s West End Parkdale district, it has special relevance to me as a resident of the neighbourhood. The film succeeds because it knows its limits and doesn’t stretch beyond its means in terms of storytelling and budget, and it uses just enough dry humour to keep a smile on your face the entire film.

Dan (Don McKellar) and Linda (Tracy Wright) are garbage pickers who make a living riding their bicycles around the neighbourhood raiding garbage bins, lawns, alleyways and garage sales of unwanted junk in hopes of finding rare collectibles to sell on ebay for income. It’s a lifestyle for the duo who are roomates but may or may not be in a relationship – for most of the film it’s left ambiguous.

Dan and Linda live hand-to-mouth and on a fine line between petty criminals and making a legitimate living. They seem to have two purposes in life 1) to make their rent and 2) to buy pot. Making the rent is easy because their landlord hasn’t raised the rent in years and he never comes around to check up on them. Buying pot is more difficult, both money and supply has shrunk and they’re desperate to make a score.

One day a young and vivacious gal Susan (Nadia Litz) shows up in the neighbourhood with some weed to sell. Dan buys some and discovers she’s the last line in a chain of pot dealers back to BC. They strike up a friendship that brings her closer to the sacred Dan/Linda lifestyle/relationship they’ve nurtured for years and years. Though their relationship has been running on empty for a long time, Linda feels threatened by the third person. An attraction between Dan and Susan is there but it's never overt. Dan is clearly repressed sexually and would love to jump her bones, but Susan seems content to toy with him. I must note the brilliant scene when Dan fixes Susan's bike, the overt sexual innuendo make it one of the funniest moments on film this year.

As Susan becomes better friends with Dan, he opens up to her about his love for 60’s urban guerilla lore and his ex-revolutionary background. She becomes fascinated and develops desires to express her inner urban terrorist. Her actions escalate into real terrorism which threatens Dan and Linda’s humble and quiet, ‘sellout’, lifestyle.

“Monkey Warfare” is anchored by the fascinating lifestyle of the garbage picker. The world Harkema opens up to the audience is new and fresh. Dan and Linda aren’t homeless or mentally ill, they are intelligent people who are content with the frugalities of subculture urban living. They don’t own a phone, don’t have a TV, they listen to old 45s on a turntable and only work when they absolutely need to pay the rent.

The film is also anchored by the always charming Don McKellar. His look, reactions, movements and manner of speech are so distinctive he’s always interesting. Don and Reg slowly reveal Dan's character to us, as he is revealed to Susan. He’s guarded and for good reason. The final revelatory conversation about his history with real urban terrorism is a great speech and cathartic after 60mins of quiet unemotional chatter.

Reg Harkema uses the 60’s counter culture films as “..If”, “Hi Mom!” as his influences. An editor by trade, he clearly uses the cutting style of the 60’s and makes interesting obscure choices for music. His interfilm titles and credits sequences add to the psychedelic feel.

The film is as laconic as the pot smokers in the film and as mentioned doesn’t over-extend itself into twist-endings or melodramatic relationship betrayals. It plays itself as a matter-of-fact microscopic look into a very very subsection of urban life. And hey, at 1hour and 17 mins, you can watch the film without taking up a large portion of the day. So pick through the shelves of your local blockbuster or counterculture video store and find "Monkey Warfare". Enjoy.

No this isn’t a fan video. This is actually a montage in the middle of the film:

JOSHUA

Joshua (2007) dir. George Ratliff
Starring: Sam Rockwell, Vera Farmiga

***

“Joshua” is psychological thriller, described by many critics as Hitchcockian. There are subtle differences but Michael Haneke or Roman Polanski might be a closer comparison. It’s slow and stealth. Very disturbing but not graphic or horrific.

Sam Rockwell and Vera Farmiga are Brad and Abby Cairn, two Park Avenue residents of NYC and parents to Joshua (9) and their newborn infant Lilly. Immediately Lilly is given more attention than Joshua. Perhaps the parents assume because Joshua is smart and overachieving he can take care of himself. Joshua is in fact treated like an adult and receives very little caring and nurturing like most kids. Joshua starts to exhibit signs of sociological behaviour problems early on, but the parents are so wrapped up in caring for Lily they fail to heed the warning. Bad idea. Soon Joshua starts reading and talking about violent stories, playing depressing gothic melodies on the piano and dabbling in amateur taxidermy and mummification.

Without the overt references of "The Omen", Joshua is made out to be a Damian-like child – a plague on their lives. Abby starts suffering the same post-partum disorder with Lily as she had with Joshua. Abby is prescribed drugs to heal her pain, but it only worsens her condition eventually causing her to develop delusions that Joshua is trying to kill Lily.

Brad is caught in the middle of the family trying to remain his sanity and composure while also trying to hold down his investment banking day job. Joshua’s deviousness eventually gets under Brad’s skin as well. Slowly his life unravels as well. By the end it becomes a mind game battle between Joshua and Brad, with Josh having the upper hand.

It’s a fine performance from youngster Jacob Kogan who plays Joshua. Unfortunately his character is rarely given any depth or weight. We always see him as a stuffy, school uniform wearing, unsmiling kid. Imagine Tucker Carlson as a nine-year. From the outset he is clearly an unbalanced mental case who will someday turn his delusions of violence into the real thing. He is given only a couple of scenes which humanize him, otherwise he's a complete robot through the entire film.

“Joshua” is almost as funny as it is creepy. Director George Ratliff managed to squeeze multiple fits of short laughter from the crowd I was with. I don’t know if it was intentional, since most of the laughs came from the ridiculousness of the situations Brad is working himself into. They also come out of the joy of the filmmaking skill on display. The film is very manipulative because it shifts points of view when it wants to amp up the fear factor. For most of the film we have an omniscient view into the family. But in the moments of suspense around Joshua’s manipulations, we are conveniently put in the point of view of the parents. For example, the game of hide and seek is a tremendous sequence of silent terror. I do have to knock Ratliff for falling back on some of the older tricks in the book though, namely the refrigerator door reveal trick. I think he did that twice. But since this is his first dramatic feature George Ratliff is a filmmaker to watch out for.

“Joshua” will not appeal to broad audiences, especially women thinking of starting a family. Guys, it’s not a date movie. I’m saving you the painful car ride home. The film is pure cinema and a filmmaker’s film. It’s quietly disturbing but doesn’t have the satisfactory moments that will please the regular horror film crowd. It’s for discriminating tastes – the people who ‘enjoy’ the psychological torture of Michael Haneke.

DEJA VU

Déjà Vu (2006) dir. Tony Scott
Starring: Denzel Washington, Jim Cavesiel, Val Kilmer

**1/2

“Déjà Vu” is a Jerry Bruckheimer/Tony Scott film which automatically means you know how it’s going to look, feel and sound. I used to be a big Tony Scott fan – in the 1990’s almost every film he made was a solid piece of Blockbuster entertainment. Arguably his 00’s output is subpar (sorry, I know there’s lot of “Man on Fire” fans out there), and sadly Déjà Vu is not ahead of the pack. It’s decent entertainment, but nowhere near “Crimson Tide”, “True Romance”, or “Enemy of the State” days.

A bomb explodes aboard a New Orleans ferry boat killing hundreds of civilians. ATF officer Doug Carlin (Denzel) is sent in to investigate. He’s detailed and dedicated, and lonely and unattached as a result. He is joined by the mysterious Agent Pryzwarra played by Val Kilmer, a federal investigator heading up a new highly specialized task force. Kilmer invites Denzel to participate in a form of surveillance – a form of time travel which allows the cops to look back exactly 4 days into the past (no more no less). The past is viewed like a camera which can show the past... umm like a movie… a Tony Scott movie… any camera angle is possible, but it can be at only one place at any one time. Denzel uses this device to follow steps of a woman who died from the accident. Denzel hopes this woman will lead them to the terrorist.

The more Denzel’s allowed to see the woman’s intimate daily routine the more he becomes involved with her case. He quickly falls in love with her. Eventually he goes back in time himself to actively capture the criminal and save the life of his new found love.

The entire film hangs itself on this new time travel device. Essentially it’s the same device as “Minority Report”, except reversed. But never before has such a ridiculously high concept device been thrown at us to accept without the slightest pause. It’s written in just as an excuse to excecute a few neat chase sequences and surveillance trappings. The time travel stuff isn’t as clever as say, “Back to he Future”, or “Primer”, or even something like “Memento.” Once the filmmakers think that the audience has accepted the plausibility of the concept it starts inventing its own rules to fit the action scenes they want to craft. For example, Denzel’s car chase which pits him against the evading terrorist whom he’s chasing from 4 days ago. Though I do have to say it is an excitingly done.

The film also wants to be a love story. Denzel Washington falling in love with a woman he only sees through a television screen is again more convenient storytelling. The lead actress is just a token body to fill the screen with yet another pretty face. Also, she’s 25 years Denzel’s junior. It’s a total mismatch.

But I have to say the final moments do bring the film full circle and is a clever time-travel moment and does put the film into perspective.

Midway through the film several characters just disappear from the film – never to be seen again – Val Kilmer and Bruce Greenwood – two great actors are treated like furniture and just moved out of the way and discarded when not needed.

Tony Scott’s slickness is present and for fans of his saturated gradient filtered long lenses and his wicked helicopter shots, then you will enjoy the film.

Buy it here: Deja Vu

SAY ANYTHING...

Say Anything...(1989) dir. Cameron Crowe
Starring: John Cusack, Ione Skye, John Mahoney

***1/2

“Say Anything” should be considered one of the all-time great romantic films. Cameron Crowe established himself firmly as a personal yet audience-friendly filmmaker with a unique voice. “Say Anything…” treads in the romantic comedy genre, but never feels contrived. It’s a simple story about first love and the work, persistence and passion it takes to make it work.

John Cusack is Lloyd Dobler, a recent high school grad, who doesn’t quite fit into any clique or stereotypical group. He’s not a nerd, yet he’s articulate, he’s not a jock, yet he kickboxes, he’s not a rocker yet he’s music literate. He’s not a character you can define, yet he’s someone everyone knows. Ione Skye’s character Diane Court is also not so easily defined. She is set up as an unattainable girl, but not the bombshell type, she’s smart, shy, reserved with girl-next-door good looks and has intimidated her classmates by her aloofness with her peers. But this doesn’t mean she’s never wanted to be part of the group. No one’s been brave enough to approach her. But Lloyd Dobler does.

The first act is about Dobler’s quest for the unattainable. After much persistence, he gets a date with Diane. The courtship is slow and cautious, but sparks are flying and soon they’re both blissfully in new love. Diane lives alone with her father James (John Mahoney). Together they have an unbreakable bond, which both Lloyd admires but also fears. Can Lloyd ever live up to the standard Diane's father expects of her? James could have easily been a stereotype but he’s actually written as a father who trusts and understands her daughter and respects her decisions. But that doesn’t mean his desires meet her desires. And so conflict arises over Lloyd. I’m reminded of James Dean’s father in “Rebel Without a Cause” - emasculated men who harbor personal shame and try too hard to love and protect their children, ultimately to the detriment of the family.

Knowing that she’s going to school in England in the fall, Diane sides with her father and breaks up with Lloyd. But the trust in her father is broken when she discovers he’s being indicted with tax fraud involving his nursing home business. Her brain has betrayed her heart, and she now has lost both Lloyd and her father. Will Lloyd ever take back Diane?

The film’s strength is in keeping that answer from being obvious. Cameron Crowe writes his characters and situations so well we can never be sure what the outcome will be. And I won’t spoil it for you. The final frame of the film and the cut to black will leave you with a smile. It’s a great moment and the perfect metaphor for the film.

The most famous moment is the scene with Dobler holding his stereo over his head playing the Peter Gabriel song “In Your Eyes.” It’s rom-com moment, but it wasn’t written with the intention to be a climax, it’s the action we expect from Lloyd Dobler as a character. Maybe Crowe didn’t realize the power of the scene because it doesn’t even payoff until several scenes later. If this film were to be remade today Ione Skye would have ran out of the house and embraced Cusack with a sloppy kiss...probably in the rain.

This is when Cameron Crowe was a young fresh filmmaker with lots of angst to put on the screen. His most recent film – “Elizabethtown” – is a lame attempt to recreate the magic of his early films like “Say Anything…” So before you pick up your next Reece Witherspoon or Kate Hudson film, pick up this one instead. It’s as dependable as its lead character and won’t let you down. Enjoy.

Buy it here: Say Anything

Lloyd Dobler discussing his career:

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End (2007) dir. Gore Verbinski
Starring: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightly

**

I finally had a chance to see “Pirates of the Caribbean”. I didn’t much care for the first one, and didn’t really understand the academy award nomination for Johnny Depp as Capt Jack Sparrow, but whatever. The second one I enjoyed more because of its happy-go-lucky sense of fun. This third one is the “Matrix Revolutions” of the series - the obligatory trilogy-ending yawn fest. Can we put this franchise to rest now?

The plot is incomprehensible. Even though it links up with part two and part one (and I’ve seen both) it’s still a complete mystery. But since kids all around the world continue to show up in droves on its way to making almost a billion dollars maybe I’m the slow one. I’ll attempt to explain: Elizabeth Swan (Keira Knightly) Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) have ventured to Singapore to kindly ask Captain Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat) for a boat and a crew to find Captain Sparrow.

Remember Jack Sparrow was eaten by the Kraken in part II but somehow he’s lived on in some sort of dream/nightmare aboard the Black Pearl. Somehow Sparrow meets up with Turner and the bunch in this purgatory land of psychedelic dreams and then escape back into the real world using a secret code hidden in their map.

Meanwhile somehow the British Navy led by Lord Beckett and the newly-employed Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) and his Flying Dutchman boat have been following the good guys in hopes of finding the legendary ‘Pieces of Eight’ owned by the Brethren of Pirates – kind of like the Teamsters of Pirates. This is the first 20 mins. The rest is just a blur. Once the boat flipped over I the water into another earth, (or was it the old earth?) I just tuned out.

I admire Gore Verbinski’s wacky humour and quirky action sequences - PS. Don’t forget to watch “Mousetrap” to see Verbinski’s earliest work – click HERE for my review). He uses real locations, real sets and real props, however big and cumbersome production-wise, to bring authenticity to these films. And the action certainly works well. The highlight for me was the rocking of the boat sequence – a great blend of action and comedy. But for a swashbuckling picture the sword fights always needed work. Nothing in any of the Pirates films can stand up to the swordplay of the Michael Curtiz/Errol Flynn/Basil Rathbone adventures – “The Adventures of Robin Hood”, “Captain Blood” and “The Sea Hawk.” That’s still the benchmark.

The design of Davy Jones’s octopus-meets-lobster makeup and special effects are still astounding. Whenever he’s on screen I could only marvel at the detail and skilled craftsmanship of the character. And Bill Nighy also plays him great effervescent glee.

I found the making of Part II, “Dead Man’s Chest”, on the DVD special features to be more entertaining than the second film. The location work on the film seems like an arduous journey for a crew of hundreds to make. To devote a year to making the last two films back to back is insane. But I imagine a familial atmosphere developed with the cast and crew. The chemistry of the actors on screen is evident.

The curiosity of a Part III to finish off the trilogy will likely draw you in to watch it. And perhaps if viewed in sequence the plot would be understandable, but, as an adult, do you really have seven and half hours to give away? Caveat emptor.

PRIDE

Pride (2007) dir. Sunu Gonera
Starring Terrence Howard, Bernie Mac, Tom Arnold

**1/2

“Pride” is a sports formula/cliché film that would be relegated to obscurity if it were not for the remarkable singular talents of Terrence Howard.

“Pride” tells the story of Jim Ellis, a former promising swim athlete in his youth who changes the lives of a group of Philadelphia inner city kids by coaching a local swim team. Jim is introduced as a noble but hot headed kid in 1966 who rebels and fights back when he’s not allowed to compete in a swim meet because he’s black. Cut to 10 years later when he takes a lame job cleaning up an old rec centre in a rundown part of town. He proceeds to clean up the decrepit swimming pool and create a place for the local kids to swim. When he discovers the kids actually take an interest in the sport he creates an official swim team – called PDR, which stands for Pride, Determination, and Resilience.

After this set up the film is basically on autopilot. The kids experience the highs of competing against rich white kids, and then lows when they are discriminated against because of the colour of their skin. Each of the kids as well as Jim and his partner Elston (Bernie Mac) overcome personal demons to triumph over the odds. Good feelings all around.

It’s the ‘Karate Kid’/’Rocky’ mould, but without the storytelling skill or originality to make it stand out above the rest of the over-saturated sports formula film market. Ie. The three indistinguishable football films released in the past year years: “Invincible”, “We Are Marshall”, and “The Gridiron Gang”.

What saves the film is Terrence Howard. This is the first film he’s shot since his Oscar nomination in 2006. How come people haven’t been hiring this guy? Though, according to the IMDB he has five films in the can and three more in various stages of production – including “Iron Man.” Basically every time he’s on the screen he’s captivating. His recites his dialogue with such integrity – even the heavily clichéd lines resonate with authenticity. Unfortunately he’s given some really cornball scenes to play out in the third act, including a laughter-inducing moment of waterworks.

In summary “Pride” would be completely forgettable if not for Terrence Howard who alone elevates this film a full star on the rating scale. But please, to all producers out there give this guy some better work. It’s a damn shame and waste of talent. Enjoy.

PS. As an aside, it’s interesting to note, there are 4 writers credited, and believe it or not, 16 producers!


Buy it here: Pride (Widescreen Edition)

I could only find the trailer, sorry:

A CALL FOR VOTERS - THE FAN'S TOP 100 AMERICAN FILMS

The Fans' Top 100 American Films

As many of you know, last month the AFI recalculated their Top 100 American films of all time. They compiled the data by circulating a shortlist of 400 films to “1,500 leaders from across the American film community - screenwriters, directors, actors, producers, cinematographers, editors, executives, film historians and critics.”


With a few exceptions the list was remarkably similar to the list of 1997. So it was a bit of a let down. We didn’t see something like “Blue Velvet” invade the list for instance, or a cult classic like “Evil Dead”. In fact, genre films were largely absent.

So I decided to conduct an experiment - recreate AFI’s list but cull the information from film bloggers, cinephiles, fanboys/girls, who are equally informed as the 1500 leaders surveyed by the AFI, but represent a completely different demographic. Therefore, the question will be answered – what are the fans’ top 100? Do scholars, historians and industry people think differently than fans?

I will keep the parameters the very close to the AFI’s guidelines with the exception of the shortlist. Four hundred films are too short of a shortlist to pick from. This is why the list was pretty much the same as ten years ago. And, who choose the top 400 anyway? Though the shortlist is available for reference and a reminder, voters are not obliged to stick to this.

Thus a ‘shadow list’ of the Top 100 American films will be compiled as chosen by the fans of the world.

How will it compare to the AFI list?

Any predictions?

Eligibility to vote is on the honour system, but I would preferably like to hear from cinephiles or fans who will have seen the majority of the films on the list.

So here are the rules:

1)Voting is first-come-first-serve. Just download the ballot and email it back to me – dailyfilmdose@hotmail.com
2)Voting will stop at 1500 entries or after 6 weeks, whichever comes first
3)You can only vote once
4)For demographic comparisons, please include your age and country of origin on the form.

Here’s the voting procedure:

1) Each person votes for up to 100 movies aided by using the official ballot attached below. There is NO need to rank the films.
2) You may include as many films as you want that are not on the 400 short list just as long as your total doesn’t exceed 100. These are called ‘write-in’ candidates. Write-ins must be feature-length American movies released in the United States before January 1, 2007
3) Ballots with votes for more than 100 movies – including write-in candidates- will not be counted.
4) Rank your five greatest American movies in order (#1 being your choice for the greatest American film of all time). This ranking system will be used for tie-breaking purposes only.

Click HERE to download the voting ballot. And email them back to me at dailyfilmdose@hotmail.com

HERE's the AFI Website, with all their lists.

Thanks,

Alan

TRANSFORMERS

Transformers (2007) dir. Michael Bay
Starring: Shia LeBeouf, Josh Duhamel, Megan Fox, Anthony Anderson, John Turturro, Jon Voight

***1/2

Michael Bay pulls out all the stops and brings “Transformers” to the screen like only he can. Michael Bay makes his kind of films, so if you don’t like ‘em you probably won’t like “Transformers”.

“Transformers” is brawny machismo filmmaking. Fast cars, hot chicks, buff dudes, hard rock music, slo-mo explosions, big guns, big helicopters, and fighter jets. And when you include transforming robots that just sweetens the concoction.

The story centers on Sam Whitwiky, nerdy loser who buys his first car – a beat up yellow Camaro. His attachment to the car grows when he discovers it has a life of its own. Meanwhile, the U.S. military have been attacked by a series of alien robots (Decepticons) in the Middle East. The Decepticons proceed to hack into the military database system in search of a mysterious cube which fell to Earth from their home planet Cybertron many years ago. Sam discovers his car is actually one of a race of friendly robots (Autobots) who have come to protect Sam, who holds the key to finding the cube. A gigantic battle between the two sets of robots ensues to ensure the balance of peace on earth.

Taking a page from “War of the Worlds”, “Independence Day” and all other ‘aliens attack Earth films’, the suspense of the film derives from the reactions of the characters to the mystery surrounding the transformers. And even though we see our first robot transform in its full glory in the opening scene of the film, each time a new character sees something transform it’s like we’re seeing it for the first time as well. Bay embellishes these moments over and over again. But it never tires. The sight truly is awesome, due in large part to the seamless special effects of the robots.

Bay makes the CGI look so good because he puts them into real situations, real locations, real sets with real people. In the hands of someone like George Lucas who overuses the technology, the film could have quickly turned into an animated film. But we never feel as if we’re watching animated characters. The destruction is utterly real and knowing Michael Bay’s track record he probably destroyed a lot of property. When something explodes it’s a real explosion. As usual Bay never lets up and he takes great care to make every shot and every scene look good.

Though Bay is known for his action sequences, he also has his own brand of humour. And there’s nothing perfunctory about it either. “Transformers” is not ashamed to mock itself and its characters. Bay actually crafts some very witty and entertaining exchanges of dialogue. Sam’s parents steal their scenes from the robots when they barge into Sam’s bedroom. The quick dialogue is fun and razor sharp, and seems inspired by the madcapness of the Marx Brothers. Anthony Anderson is well cast as Glen Whitman, the nerdy hacker. The banter with Glen and his cousin whom we first see playing Dance Dance Revolution in his bedroom is hilarious. The moment is minute in the grand scheme of the film, but this attention to the detail elevates “Transformers” beyond just another action film.

As far as the story goes, it’s paper thin and unnecessarily so. There’s the obvious maguffin, in the form of the ‘energy cube’, and there’s more than enough speeches and voiceovered exposition that explain the backstory. I can’t let Bay off the hook on this one. If the attention to detail I just wrote about was taken to the plot, the film could have been even better.

Another fault is about the robot characters themselves. Though they are intricately designed, they lack any kind of character behind the metal. Bumblebee is the most interesting because of his attachment to Sam, but he rarely speaks due to a malfunction with his voice software program or something like that. Optimus Prime is a heroic and noble leader, but it’s because we are told that. Other than his speeches his nobility isn’t reflected in his actions. And aside from one line by Megatron to Starscream about their leadership quarrels, the Decepticons are non-existent as characters. I suspect these characters will be fleshed out in future sequels, so I guess we’ll have to wait.

The screening I attended on opening day was filled with a full house of 12-20 year-olds anxious and primed to enjoy the film. As a result the viewing experience was enhanced with audience participation. On three separate occasions there was loud thunderous applause in the middle of the film. Aside from maybe “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace” I can’t recall a screening in the last 10 years with more enthusiasm. So do yourself a favour, see the film soon, with an audience, in the theatre, you won’t be disappointed. Enjoy.

SHUT UP AND SING

Shut Up and Sing (2006) dir. Barbara Kopple, Cecilia Peck

***

Music always makes for good documentaries. Chronicling the Dixie Chicks’ fight with its own fans over a snide comment about President Bush in 2003 “Shut Up and Sing” is no exception. It addresses free speech, country music, rock music, parenthood, patriotism and politics resulting in a unique portrait of modern artists.

Natalie Maines, Martie Maguire and Emily Robison are artists and prefer to play and write music than discuss politics, but when, on the eve of the Iraq War Maines said to a London audience she was ashamed the President of the United States was from Texas she had no idea their lives and careers would be altered forever. When the word spread to their homeland of these ‘heinous’ words, suddenly their music played second fiddle to their politics. The film carefully moves back and forth across the four years from when the statement was made to when they made and released their comeback album.

The threesome themselves are a unique concoction. Formed by sisters Martie and Emily, Natalie Maines came to the group late in their careers after the original singer was let go. So when Natalie made her comment and potentially sunk the careers of her band mates, she placed the entire burden her shoulders. But Martie and Emily stand by her side and confront the controversy together as a group. The trio watch the boycott of their music quickly spread across all the southern radio stations who are the bread and butter of their fan base. Natalie acknowledges her mistake when she succinctly says that she has bit the hand that feeds them.

The Dixie Chicks has a support staff that includes the family of each of the members, whom we get to meet, as well their record company and their dedicated and talent manager, Simon Renshaw. Together they manage to save their careers and record their most successful and passionate album to date. We get to see the Chicks’ reaction almost day by day of the news, the concert sales, the talk show controversy and the political action that’s taken as a result of the matters. The radio boycott is even taken to Washington to be debated with John McCain.

The fun stuff comes when the Chicks cross paths with the various celebrities and public figures along their way. The best moments are the Chicks’ ridiculous quid pro quo with village idiot Toby Keith, who trade public potshots at each other over talk shows and public performances. It’s also fun to see the gals recording their new album. We get to meet the elusive Rick Rubin, the bearded rock legend who produced the Beastie Boys, Aerosmith and Red Hot Chili Peppers. And yup, that’s Chad Smith from the Red Hot Chili Peppers playing drums on their new album.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence with their decreased sales and popularity in the red states, they were selling out shows in Canada and the Northern U.S. They suddenly got some credibility and respect from liberal America which has made them a cross-over success. And with the success of this album and their Grammy sweep last year, it looks like George W. Bush has been a blessing in disguise for them. Enjoy.

Buy it here: Dixie Chicks: Shut Up & Sing

THE GOOD GERMAN

The Good German (2006) dir. Steven Soderbergh
Starring: George Clooney, Cate Blanchett, Tobey Maguire

**

It was a good try but ultimately Steven Soderbergh’s ode to 1940’s Hollywood is a failed experiment. With “The Good German” director Soderbergh has sought to recreate the look, mood, and story of 40’s wartime thrillers, like “Casablanca”, “The Maltese Falcon” and “The Third Man”. There are many rumours about the film being shot with old school cameras, lenses, film stock and lighting equipment. It’s a great concept, but untrue. Soderbergh did use older lenses but he shot the film in colour and corrected to B&W. Though the film looks great and could pass as a Michael Curtiz or John Huston film it fails to bring us sufficient intrigue, suspense and romance that these classic films are famous for.

It’s 1945, the war in Europe is over, Captain Jake Geismer has arrived in war torn Berlin to cover the Potsdam Conference as a journalist. He is met by his military driver Patrick Tully, who on the side is a black marketeer with his own personal agenda. Tully’s girlfriend Lena Brandt (Cate Blanchett) is a prostitute and may be using Tully to obtain transfer papers (a la “Casablanca”) to get her out of East Berlin. BTW Cate Blanchett, as a prostitute, is too much of a stretch, but I let that slide. Things are quickly complicated when unknown assailants show up asking about Lena’s deceased husband, Emil Brandt. Lena also happens to be Jake’s old flame. Is it a coincidence Lena, Tully and Jake have encountered each other at the same time? No. A dead body shows up at the turn of the first act and Jake proceeds to unravel the mysteries in traditional Dashiel Hammitt gumshoe fashion.

The whole point of the film seems to be to recreate “Casablanca”. Lena and Jake had a wartime fling much like Isla and Rick. There are no sparks between Blanchett and Jake though. Jake gazes forlornly at Lena on many occasions but Lena never reciprocates. Beware of SPOILERS AHEAD. Emil Brandt, who may or may not be dead, is built up as a character of certain knowledge that could harm the powers at be, yet when he does show up it’s an anti-climax. His knowledge is already written down in his diaries, so there’s no real need for him in the film. Perhaps this plot line would work if we felt Lena was torn between Jake and Emil (a la “Casablanca”), but she never expresses true love for either of them.

Jake is never really in any jeopardy in the film as well. Clooney does take at least four Brando-esque beatings and manages to pick himself up again for more torment, but does he do it all out of love for Lena? Or is he just doing his job getting to the bottom of the mystery? We’re never quite sure of his ultimate agenda. The ending is a complete let down and when the credit starts to roll the only thing you can think of is why I just donated two hours of my time to this film.

I’ve said it before in my essay comparing the careers of Spike Lee and Steven Soderbergh (CLICK HERE). Where Lee’s films show a progression of personal storytelling – some hits, some misses – Soderbergh just seems to be experimenting with novelty films or remakes of older films– “The Limey” (loosely inspired by “Point Blank”), “Traffic”, “Oceans 11”, “Solaris” and now “The Good German.” Does Steven Soderbergh have an original idea of his own? Though “Bubble” disappointed me it did show much promise that the man who made “Sex, Lies, and Videotape” is still in there somewhere. He’s a talented filmmaker and I have confidence he will pick himself up after thi misfire. His next film appears to be taking the torch from Clint Eastwood – two Che Guevara films, one set in 1956, the other in 1964. Another novelty? Please surprise us Steven.

Buy it here: The Good German

If you’re interested in the cinematography of the film click here. It’s the cinematography.com thread with a very good discussion of the film.

Here's the grossly misleading trailer:

SICKO

Sicko (2007) dir. Michael Moore

***1/2

Michael Moore’s latest film, “Sicko” strikes a blow to the heart of the corrupt and faulty American medical system. Like all his films, but especially since “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9/11”, Moore’s method of documentaries has as many admirers as detractors. “Sicko” will likely divide the partisans again with this film since it’s essentially a two-hour lobby for public health care in the U.S. And just so you know though I’m a left leaning person I also studied economics in school so I understand the conservative mindset. All things considered “Sicko” scores highest marks as a political statement and a piece of entertainment and should be seen by everyone.

The United States is the only country in the ‘developed world’ without a universal health care system. Are they right and everyone else wrong? No, it’s the bravado of the U.S. free enterprise bastion. And, unfortunately, as a result of its stubbornness privatized medicine has only furthered the inequality between the haves and the have-nots.

Michael Moore starts off with the have-nots and shows about a dozen examples of hard-working patriotic, non free-loading Americans whom the system has let down. There’s a man who accidentally cut his fingers off with a circular saw and who was given the option of reattaching either his middle finger or his ring finger for two drastically different prices; or the woman who describes how her deceased husband’s insurance company denied a claim for a bone marrow transplant for being “experimental” surgery. The film follows the same narrative path as "Columbine" and "Farenheint 9/11" when Moore compares the U.S. system to other countries in the world and in the third act takes the initiative to make a difference and help the cause of his subjects.

Since it’s all over the news, I’m not spoiling anything by revealing that Moore takes his subjects to Guantanemo Bay, Cuba to see what kind of health care they can get in a prison for Al Quaida terrorists. This sequence isn’t quite the humourous climax Moore may have expected, but it’s a wonderful sequence, and has a similar effect to when he brought the Columbine shooting victims to Walmart in “Bowling For Columbine”. But before he leaves Cuba the emotional climax does indeed arrive, though from an unexpected source which I won’t reveal.

A minor quibble of the Moore formula is his sarcastic faux-naivety which can get on your nerves for its simpleton approach. His voiceover blatantly mocks the conservative right by describing the contrast in the two systems with the inflection of reading a book to a child. I feel audiences are smart enough to get his point without the handholding. Saying that, it also provides the much needed humour to counterpoint the general downbeat nature of the film.

I do realize that this sarcastic inflection isn’t directed at me but the typical American ignoramus who can’t find Britain on a map, and who believes the myths fed to them about public medicine. And to Moore's credit he smartly has his counter-arguments already lined up to quell of the misconceptions of longer wait times, lower paid doctors, poorer quality care and out of date technology.

I had a very close second hand experience with an American medical horror story. Several years ago my boss at the time, who, because he was 73 and diabetic, couldn’t get insurance for a trip to the U.S. from Canada. He went anyways and collapsed from dehydration in his hotel. He found himself in a Las Vegas hospital with an apparent heart condition he never thought he had. Before he was finally allowed out of the hospital he had had a triple bypass and amassed a bill for almost $300,000 Cdn. It’s wasn’t the doctor’s fault. The care my boss received was impeccable. Moore rightly puts the blame on the insurance companies that run the industry as a purely profit-driven venture. Companies like Aetna and Kaiser Permanente are driven and motivated by stock prices instead of providing care for the patients.

So who knows, if CEOs of insurance companies ever had to take the Hippocratic Oath American medicine may not be in the trouble that it’s currently in. Enjoy.

TRANSFORMERS THE MOVIE

Transformers the Movie (1986) dir. Nelson Shin
Voices by: Judd Nelson, Robert Stack, Orson Welles, Leonard Nimoy

***1/2 (for fans)
* (for non-fans)
**1/2 (avg)

With the release of the live action “Transformers” it’s the right time to look back at the first feature film incarnation – “Transformers: The Movie”. As a kid I religiously watched the TV series and collected the toys and comic books, and so back then an animated feature film version was a huge deal. Looking back on the film with today’s eyes, as a piece of film it’s has the brains and soul of a Steven Seagal film, and the animation, though much improved from the TV series, still wasn’t on par with the top notch anime of its day. But hey, it has cars transforming into robots, energon cubes, laserbeak, the matrix, Grimlock, and Orson Welles. It's a great fan film. “Now light our darkest hour” “You got the touch!”

The film is set about 20 years or so after the TV series. That little kid Spike who always got in the way is now grown up and has a son, Daniel; all the usual robots are still around – Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Jazz etc – but a few new ones as well. There’s Hot Rod (a sportscar), Cup (an aged el camino), Arcee (a female car), and Ultra Magnus (a truck). The plot put simply is this: Megatron and the evil decepticons attack the Autobot earth base in hopes of destroying their enemies forever. They succeed in their mission but with heavy casualties. Megatron and Optimus Prime have one last fight before pounding themselves into oblivion. Most of the old transformers get killed off, and the newer generation are forced to flee. The autobots get split up and are forced to fight and defend themselves across the galaxy before regrouping for one last battle against the evil giant planet transformer Unicron.

Here’s a few reasons why this film works: 1) As a kid after years of watching the watered down, after-school-wholesome violence of the TV version where the lasers always missed and blew up rocks and buildings in the background, suddenly, in this feature film, the robots are actually hitting their targets. It was thrilling to see robots get pummeled with lasers and actually die. Cool. 2) Spike now has a deep voice and swears. Cool. When he said “shit, what are we going to do now” I felt privileged and a little naughty – like sneaking a peak at a nudie magazine or something. Cool. 3) There was a hot female robot. Cool. But sadly, no, there was no robot sex with Arcee. Though it wouldn’t surprised me if there was a Japanese cut of the film with some robo-nudity. 4) 80's heavy metal music. Cool.

Ok, the metal wasn’t exactly Iron Maiden, but it was edgier than the jazz-funk score from the TV series. The Steve Perry-esque inspirational ballads are laughable now, and of course, the main theme, “The Touch” was riotously referenced in P.T. Anderson’s “Boogie Nights”. I can only giggle at those scenes now.

As mentioned the anime wasn’t exactly “Akira” standards, but it certainly was a step up from television. The opening scene of Unicron engulfing and destroying the planet is well drawn, exciting, and kinda scary for a little kid. Speaking of Unicron, as his voice, it unfortunately became Orson Welles’ last role. He died in 1985 shortly after recording his voiceover. Imagine the gravestone:

Orson Welles
1915 – 1985.
From Citizen Kane to Transformers.
A Hollywood Maverick.

“Transformers: The Movie” was exactly how the TV series should have been adapted for the big screen - better animation, death and destruction, some swearing, some heavy metal music and Orson Welles. Michael Bay, what do you have? Please astound us. Enjoy.

Here's the opening:

AMERICAN GRAFFITI

American Graffiti (1973) dir. George Lucas
Starring: Richard Dreyfus, Ron Howard, Paul Le Mat, Candy Clark

***1/2

Remember when George Lucas was a good filmmaker? Seems like so long ago. Let’s go back to “American Graffiti”, Lucas’s second directorial effort, an ensemble nostalgia film about growing up in the early 1960’s. Graffiti started the successful careers of many of its stars including Harrison Ford, Richard Dreyfus, and Ron Howard. It was a personal film about Lucas’s youth and the passion that went into making it is visible on screen. It’s a terrific film that stands up to most of the “Star Wars” films.

The year is 1962 in suburban California. The film takes place over one night and follows a group of recently graduated high schoolers for one last romp before they each head their separate ways. Much of the action happens in around the precious cars that the kids drive up and down the main drag. A high school dance is worked into the mix where Steve and Laurie (played by soon to be ‘Happy Days’ costars, Ron Howard and Cindy Williams) are on the brink of breaking up; Curt Henderson (Richard Dreyfus) gets lost from the group and is taken on a wild ride with a group of local thugs led by the veteran heavy, Bo Hopkins; Terry The Toad (Charles Martin Smith) finds first love with Debbie Dunham (Candy Clark); and John Milner (Paul Le Mat) befriends a 13 year old who jumps into his hot rod car for an adventurous ride.

The metaphor of the transition from youth to adulthood is echoed in the setting. 1962 was two years before the British Invasion and before the psychedelic swinging 60’s. John Milner references the uncertain future when he says “music’s been going downhill since Buddy Holly died”. This somberness foreshadows the ending which comes as a tonal surprise. Innocence is behind Lucas’s characters and the future will never be same. “American Graffiti” then becomes the photo album of his generation.

Graffiti has the innate naturalism of an intensely personal or autobiographical film. Like “Mean Streets” or “Dazed and Confused”, or even “Fellini’s 8/12”. All these films have a natural organic flow that plays interrupted without obvious plotting or story beats. The beats are there, but with natural performances and dialogue we forget we’re manipulated by a story. That’s why the ending of “American Graffiti” resonates, because we actually get to know these characters as people.

At first glance, “American Graffiti” may not resemble “Star Wars” or “THX 1138” at all, but on close examination Lucas’s brilliant eye is always present. His static compositions are very similar to his other films, and the glowing and reflected lights of the street and the cars are a beautiful site. Its clear George Lucas knew how to frame a shot, how to edit and how to direct actors.

It’s a shame Lucas lost his touch. In the 80’s he obviously concentrated his efforts on producing, and forming ILM. It would have been nice to see what other films he could make without the mask of CGI of the new “Star Wars” films. Sadly, I don’t think we’ll ever know. Though we may have lost George Lucas forever to the dark side, I sure hope he has it in him to surprise me. Enjoy.

Buy it here: American Graffiti (Collector's Edition)