MR. MAGORIUM'S WONDER EMPORIUM

Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium (2007) Zach Helm
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Natalie Portman, Jason Bateman

***

“Mr. Magorium” is the debut feature from writer/director Zach Helm. Zach is so new, he only has 3 produced credits on IMDB. But as writer of “Stranger Than Fiction” his name quickly opened a lot of doors. He was privileged to be able to direct his first film at a ripe old age of 31. It’s a cuddly-cute children’s film about a kindly old Willy Wonka-type toymaker who brings love and happiness to kids through his magical Manhattan toy store. Helm leans heavily on the Tim Burton/Peter Pan themes, but is able to create a decent knock-off of rated G feel-goodness.

Mr. Magorium (Dustin Hoffman) is a 243 year old man-child (Pee-Wee Herman meets Willy Wonka) who operates a magical toy store in Manhattan. The store is alive in every sense of the word – children stream in and of the store with wondrous glee, stuffed animals come alive and play along with the kids – Kermit the Frog (Henson voice and all) even frequents the joint. Magorium harbours a secret though. His death is impending. He’s not sick or bed-ridden, it’s just his time to go – and he knows it. Magorium offers the store to his longtime manager Molly Mahoney (Natalie Portman) to own and operate. But Molly has dreams of becoming a world class piano player, touring the world and becoming famous – a dream which had been halted for years because of the needs of the store.

When Magorium passes on the store dies as well. And only a heart with an absolute belief in the healing power of magic can bring it back to life.

Dustin Hoffman is a delight as Magorium. In his older age Hoffman has embraced his supporting roles with verve. He was arguably the best part of “Meet the Fockers” and he stole his scenes in “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer”. As Magorium, Hoffman essentially plays Willy Wonka, but better than Johnny Depp. As required he chews his scenery by speaking with a cartoon lisp and waddling and bouncing around like a giddy child. Few actors could get away with such zaniness.

Jason Bateman’s straight man is a good contrast to Hoffman. He plays the tight-ass accountant Henry Weston who is slowly loosened up by the shy and awkward Eric (Zach Mills). Natalie Portman does Winona Ryder very well – a petite wondergirl who loses her faith in magic. And that’s about all the characters we get. There’s no evil insurance inspector, no slimy real estate developer and not even a pushy toy conglomerate. What gives?

Mr. Magorium suffers mainly from this lack of danger or threat. There’s the looming death of Mr. Magorium, which from his point of view is embraced and welcomed with open arms. I couldn’t help but wonder (no pun intended) how the film would have played if Magorium feared his own death. This would have added a level of depth that Hoffman could have chewed off even more. Instead, there’s a blanket of lollipop goodness that permeates every frame. We’re teased with a menacing entity surrounding the building. There’s a great scene when a corner of the wallpaper starts to turn black when Magorium’s prospective death is mentioned. This threat doesn’t reveal an antagonist, but a convenient plot point to be resolved in the third act.

In the end Zach Helm tells his bubblegum story well – he pushes the right buttons to make us want to be six years old again. And there’s a moral of the story to put your kids to bed with – magic only exists with those with the capacity for the deepest unselfish love.

“Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium” is now available on DVD from 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment.

Mr. Magorium's Won...

DEFINITELY MAYBE

Definitely Maybe (2008) dir. Adam Brooks
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Abigail Breslin, Rachel Weisz, Isla Fisher, Elizabeth Banks

**1/2

“Definitely Maybe” is certainly not a failure, nor does it provide a full 90mins of entertainment. It sails in the middle of the road in terms of drama and comedy and doesn’t quite satisfy either. Though not a complete success, Ryan Reynolds’ and Abigail Breslin’s wonderful banter which frames the story is enough to make this film watchable.

Will Hayes (Ryan Reynolds) is about to get divorced. The otherwise dismal day is made better when he has to pick up his daughter Maya (Abigail Breslin) at school. This is no ordinary day though, as it was their first sex education class which has brought up a million and one questions for Will – one of them is how Will fell in love with her Mom and when she ‘came to be’. Will reluctantly tells her the story – the long version.

It goes back to 1992 when he was working on the Bill Clinton presidential campaign and how he came to meet three key women in his life – all of which, at one time or another, he fell in love with. There’s Emily (Elizabeth Banks) his college sweetheart, April (Isla Fisher) a spunky copygirl in the office, and Summer (Rachel Weisz) a career-ambitious political writer. One of these women became Maya’s mother, but not necessarily Will’s one true love.

The narrative drive of the film gets lost somewhere along in the line, as I actually forgot the purpose of the story Will was telling to his daughter. I couldn’t remember if Maya didn’t know who her mother was, or that she knew, but didn’t know how he and her mother fell in love. What exactly is the purpose of this exercise? Is it so Will could fall in love again and cancel his divorce? This seems to be the big mystery of the film. In the end there’s nothing truly profound or earth-shattering revealed.

In most of these genre films, the best comedy is supplied by the supporting characters (ie. Rhys Ifans in "Notting Hill"). “Definitely Maybe” is sorely lacking in that department. Will’s buddies come from the political campaign milieu. Derek Luke, his closest friend is no comedian and he only serves that sounding board role for the lead character to express his thoughts. He never enters the storyline significantly enough, nor does he crack any funny jokes. The political environment Will works in is neither interesting nor funny. Even Kevin Kline fails to excite – his drunken layabout author character never finds its funny bone.

Ryan Reynolds is always watchable on screen though. He gave a heart to the baffoonish extravaganza, “Smoking Aces”, made “Blade Trinity” less intolerable and shined bright in the confusing "The Nines". In “Definitely Maybe” even when he screws up, the audience interminably cares for him. He is a great romantic lead.

I expected more from writer/director Adam Brooks who knows the genre better than most (he wrote, “French Kiss”, “Wimbledon” and "Bridget Jones Diary: The Edge of Reason”). But, then again, "Definitely Maybe" was made for my wife, not me. And she liked it. So maybe it is a success.

INTO THE WILD DVD

Into the Wild (2007) dir. Sean Penn
Starring: Emile Hirsch, William Hurt, Marcia Gay Harden, Jena Malone, Catherine Keener, Hal Holbrook, Vince Vaughn

****

I didn't have too many complaints about this year's Oscars. We saw a varied selection of films be nominated and win the awards. But having seen Sean Penn's film again its a crying shame Oscar voters chose inferior films "Michael Clayton" or "Atonement" over "Into the Wild". "Into the Wild" creates an immensely powerful from situations and character so real and relatable compared to the salacious "Atonement" and arguably "Michael Clayton".

Based on the novel by Jon Krakauer, “Into the Wild” recounts the true story of Christopher McCandliss, a young man, who throws all his material possessions away and disappeared into the American wilderness to get closer to nature. Sean Penn gives himself an unsusal on-screen credit that reads "screenplay and directed by". This is Penn telling us the film will always be McCandliss’. Penn's visualization of the story is both uplifting and tragic and a flawless and reverent interpretation of McCandliss' epic journey.

To review this film, I must discuss spoiler story elements, some of which readers will already know of. Please beware. The film opens with McCandliss (Emile Hirsch) already two years into his journey in the wild. He’s found a bus in the middle of a desolate Alaskan patch of land, which he names “the Magic Bus”. It’s a moment of bliss for the young man, who finds much needed shelter in the harsh northern environment. Penn then flashes back two years prior to show us how McCandliss got to the Magic Bus.

In 1990, McCandliss is a straight A student, just graduating from Emory University. At lunch with his family he pleases his parents (William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden) with his plans to apply to Harvard Law School. On the surface his parents are supportive and generous (offering to buy him a new car as a gift), but over the course of the film we learn about a history of domestic unrest that shaped Christopher’s outlook on life. As a form of rebellion, Christopher turned into what his parents despised and rejecting materialism as a form of social acceptability.

So Christopher decides to cut up his credit cards, and disappear from the world. It’s 2 months before his family realizes he’s gone, and despite desperate efforts to find him, McCandliss successfully loses himself. His journey takes him across the United States, meeting all sorts of weird and wonderful people. His ultimate goal is to get to Alaska, which becomes a question asked by everyone he meets, but never answered. His journey is a blissful and enlightening experience until he reaches Alaska where the realities of nature catch up with him with tragic consequences.

Part of the joy of the film is that we, as the audience, never quite understand McCandliss, and neither does anyone else. Even though we get diary entries from the man, he is still an enigma. His tumultuous relationship with his parents certainly contributes to his behaviour, perhaps it’s his love for adventure novelist Jack London, but there is something deeper in the man that we never quite understand. This is what makes the story and the film so fascinating. Emile Hirsch, who plays McCandliss, expresses all of this inner conflict with a solid solo performance.

Hal Holbrook, once a great character actor from the 70’s and 80’s, makes a surprise cameo towards the end of the film and richly deserves his Oscar nomination. He is absolutely terrific as a man who allows McCandliss to forgive his parents with a simple and eloquent speech about love and God.

As a director, Penn channels some of the organic free-form techniques of Terrence Malick (remember they worked closely on “Thin Red Line”). Penn uses flashbacks within flashbacks, Super 8 footage, slo-motion, video, bold macro close-ups, Hirsch even breaks the fourth wall and look into camera on occasion. All of it is natural and a free form expression of the journey.

At two and a half hours, it’s a lengthy film, but it never tires. By the end, when we see his last days in the magic bus, though he wrote his thoughts in a diary we still don’t know if he truly fulfilled his journey. Enjoy

VANTAGE POINT

Vantage Point (2008) dir. Pete Travis
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, Forest Whitaker

*

Something went extremely wrong in the making of this film. The concept is really cool – a political assassination in Spain shown from many view points to reveal the cause and effect build up, execution and fall out of the event. I suspect the film never got better than the concept as the script went to camera wrought with sloppy plotholes, contrivances and extraneous chaff that should have been cut away after the first draft. As a result, the entire film falls apart even before the halfway point.

The film takes place during a public appearance of the U.S. President (William Hurt) at some kind of peace summit in Salamanca, Spain. From within a remote TV control room we see the action unfold through the multiple camera angles covering the live event. Suddenly the President is shot, mass chaos, several more expositions and then just shock and awe. The film then literally rewinds in front of our eyes and replays the events from a different point of view. This happens several times over the course of the 90mins, each time attempting to piece together the mystery of the event.

The key characters include Thomas Barnes (Dennis Quaid) one of the secret service agents, who’s looking to redeem himself for another assassination attempt on the President 6 months ago; Kent Taylor (Matthew Fox), Barnes’ loyal number two, Forest Whitaker, a gentle American drowning out the sorrows of his recent divorce by vacationing alone in Spain and who captures some key evidence on his camcorder; U.S. President Ashton (Hurt) and his war-hungry minions who continually prod him into attacking Morocco; Javier (Edger Ramirez), Suarez (Saïd Taghmaoui) and Veronica (Ayelet Zurer) a group of smarmy terrorist-looking locals up to no good. Etc etc.

Warning: Spoilers Ahead. The film starts to go downhill when we see the President’s vantage point. We’ve already seen him get shot three times, but when we see William Hurt’s point of view we are given the most ridiculous explanation to keep Hurt in the film. Upon hearing about rumours of a security threat, the Secret Service employs a “double” to make the official appearance (and who ultimately gets shot – poor soul). And how we could believe the President would have a “stunt double” is covered up with the laughable line from ‘Agent #1’ “we’ve been using doubles since Ronald Reagan”. From there film dives into the deepest depths of ridiculousness. Every cliché is used to create false drama, including a reluctant terrorist who performs his work under threat of having his brother killed, the runaway child in peril who is rescued last minute from on oncoming bus, and various other eye-rollers.

The filmmakers even break their own rules and abandon the vantage point concept, midway through the film. Stuart Baird, who edited the film, a veteran of editing slick thrillers (he cut all the Richard Donner classics including “Lethal Weapon”), is perhaps too experienced. The film feels like those antiquated brainless action-thrillers from the 80’s/90’s – not the realistic, gritty intelligent Bourne/Bauer-era films.

I have to lay blame on producer Neil Moritz who is not an untalented or experienced producer. The film likely started out in the ‘concept’ stage – to do a “Rashomon-type” treatment of an act of terrorism told in the style of “24” and the Bourne series. Indeed merging these three films together is a great idea. But either laziness in the writing, a hastened production schedule, maybe some missed coverage during production, or even sloppy editing contributed to this dog’s breakfast. And it’s all on Moritz’s watch.

Vantage Point

DEATH AT A FUNERAL

Death at a Funeral (2007) dir. Frank Oz
Starring: Matthew Macfadyen, Keeley Hawes, Andy Nyman, Ewen Bremner, Peter Dinklage

*1/2

Comedy is the most difficult genre to crack, it requires brave filmmakers and actors who courageously stick their necks out for the sake of a laugh. And so when comedy doesn’t work, it falls hard, really hard. “Death of a Funeral”, a Brit-com that made some minor noise in film festivals last year and arrives straight to video this week, falls really hard.

Daniel’s (Matthew Macfadyen) father has died and he’s been charged with coordinating the funeral arrangements. In fact, it’s the day of the funeral and when he’s shown the body and casket for the first time, the morgue has brought the wrong body. It will be a day filled with a series of these nightmarish events which will turn his day of mourning into a day of hair-pulling stress and anxiety.

From the user-comments around the internet and some of the quotes on the DVD box, apparently many people found this film funny. In fact, Richard Scheikel describes it as “Insanely Funny”. Why, how and when comedy makes you laugh is an elusive question – and I can only respond with my gut reaction- but there are fundamentals in structure and timing that need to be followed. The filmmakers have the most of the timing down, but it sorely lacks freshness.

“Death at a Funeral” failed for me, because the gags felt old – 20 or more years old. If the film were made in the 60’s, the black humour would have worked. But funeral comedies have already pushed the boundaries of good taste far beyond this film and so “Death at a Funeral” appears more light grey than black.

The film relies on a series of well-worn comic situations. First there’s Simon who accidentally swallows an acid pill thinking its valium and spends the entire film ogling and overacting his acid trip; There’s the dwarf, Peter, who reveals a dark homosexual secret about Daniel’s father and blackmails the family for a piece of the inheritance; There’s Daniel’s Manhattanite brother whom Daniel resents for the success he’s never been able to achieve; There’s the n’er-do-well Howard who spends the first 15mins bickering with Daniel about being shafted on his parking spot. And at one point, Uncle Alfie, who is in a wheelchair, gets Howard to help him onto the toilet seat before his craps his pants. Without Peter Sellers, Rowan Atkinson or John Cleese, the actors playing the roles just don’t have the chops to sell us these overused gags.

After 15mins I was checking my watch and I actually turned the film off at an hour, intending to commit a faux pas and write this review without seeing the ending. But after some research, I read that the backend of the film was apparently better than the front. So I watched the rest of the movie. I was misinformed. It was dull to the very end.

On paper, “Death at a Funeral” has great potential. Its pitch likely included influences from the great tradition of British comedies - “A Fish Called Wanda”, “Local Hero” or “Faulty Towers”. Unfortunately it turns out to be a dreadful comedy paved with good intentions made 20 years too late.

"Death at a Funeral" is available on DVD from Alliance Films

Death at a Funeral

MIDNIGHT EXPRESS 30TH ANNIVERSARY

Midnight Express (1978) dir. Alan Parker
Starring: Brad Davis, John Hurt, Randy Quaid

****

A highly recommended catalogue title pickup or rental is Sony's superb “Midnight Express” 30th Anniversary DVD. Alan Parker's 1978 film is great entertainment. Based on the real life story of William Hayes, a young American sentenced to 30 years in a Turkish Prison for attempting to smuggle out hash from the country, “Midnight Express” is a horror film of sorts, about the dangers of international travel and the hazards of being ignorant to the local laws, rules and customs.

The film opens with a brilliant sequence which shows Billy Hayes’ last moments of freedom. He’s in his hotel room wrapping the packets of hash in preparation for his journey. Billy and girlfriend are then at the airport about to go through immigration when his cold feet sets in. After a brief test of guts in the bathroom, he decides to go for it – it’s the worst decision of his life. He is caught red handed and taken immediately into custody leaving his girlfriend on the plane. Billy doesn’t know it yet, but a kilo of hash from a first offender which would likely mean a slap on the wrist at home, is a lifetime in prison in Turkey. The first sign of trouble is the moment after his capture when the immigration officers take turns taking photos with Billy like an angler catching that big fish. Billy’s about to enter a world he’d never imagined.

The prison he’s taken to makes Abu Graib look like Camp Cupcake – it’s Turkey, where Billy will soon lose the prime years of his life and suffer unimaginable physical and emotional stress. Billy does continue to fight the courts for freedom, but it’s to no avail, he seems to have paid the price for all the “Ugly Americans” who disrespect their laws and culture.

Warning: Spoilers ahead. In the prison he befriends several other Westerners including Jimmy (Randy Quaid) who knows the ins and outs of the Turkish prison underground. In a memorable scene Jimmy explains to Billy it’s a less punishable offence if you stab someone below the waist. Therefore people frequently get stabbed in the buttcheeks, in what’s referred to as ‘Turkish revenge’. John Hurt plays a drug-addicted lifer who’s spent so long behind bars he’s practically blended in with the grey decaying walls. As Billy explains in his voiceover, homosexuality is viewed as the ultimate sin, yet everybody does it and he soon becomes the rape victim of the sadistic prison officer.

In 1978 “Midnight Express” treaded on some controversial subject matter, specifically Billy’s homosexual relationship with one of the westerners – Erich. This relationship is handled with kid gloves by writer Oliver Stone and director Alan Parker. In a time when homosexuality still was a taboo subject Parker bravely shoots a romantic love scene between Billy and Erich in the shower with passionate confidence.

Billy, of course, starts to go stir crazy and suicidal. But when his long lost girlfriend dramatically visits him for the first time Billy is given the impetus to concentrate his efforts and escape the prison for good.

Director Alan Parker was one of the first of the new school of successful 80’s British filmmakers (Ridley and Tony Scott, Hugh Hudson, and Adrian Lyne) who transitioned from the commercial ad world. Each of these filmmakers had a unified style – fogged and textured sets, heavy backlight and long static lenses. And this modern style is very much on display in this film.

Giorgio Moroder's music, the first electronic score to win an Oscar, is simple but effective. The repetition of the theme may seem like overkill compared to the complexity of today’s style of scoring, but re-watching (or re-listening) you come to realize the effectiveness of the technique in creating an emotional investment to the story.

“Midnight Express” was Brad Davis’ career-defining role, but instead of basking in its success his real life became a tragic one. Despite the acclaim of the film and his Golden Globe-winning performance Davis was type-cast in homosexual roles for the rest of his career and never achieved the stardom he could have had. And though he was married for 15 years, he was a closeted bi-sexual, and sadly contracted AIDS and died in 1991.

The ending of the film is made even more emotional in the light of Davis’ short and closeted life. An effectively taut and tenseful sequence shows Billy’s eventual escape from the prison. And the final shot, the sight of Billy walking away from the prison framed with the long zoom lens is one of the more cathartic moments in cinema, and when you breathe it feels like your first exhale of the entire film. Enjoy.

"Midnight Express - 30th Anniversary" is available on DVD from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.

Midnight Express

THE MULTIPLE VISIONS OF RIDLEY SCOTT - PART I

The following essay is a unique collaboration of Daily Film Dose and A Penny in the Well – two bloggers and Ridley Scott fans with strong opinions about the notion of the so-called ‘Director’s Cut’.

Last week Ridley Scott released yet another "Alternate Cut" of a film he’s directed—the extended version of "American Gangster". With the release of “Blade Runner: The Final Cut” last year, this becomes the 8th alternate version of a film directed by Mr. Scott, possibly making him the king of the director’s cut.

Can Ridley not make a movie that he’s satisfied with? Well, yes he can. But even the films with which he is completely satisfied get tinkered with over and over again. Is nothing sacred?

First let's get out of the way the meaning of a "Director's Cut". After a film is shot, it's edited by the editor under the guidance of the director. But remember, it's the executive producer or investor who ultimately has final say on a film (unless a director is given "final cut"). Under this 'traditional' method of post-production a director works with his editor producing a number of rough cuts with advice and notes from the executive producers, after which time he produces his ‘Director's Cut’. If this cut pleases everyone, the picture is 'locked' and it moves into the sound edit. If it doesn't, there's usually some head butting—sometimes peaceful, sometimes not—and hopefully some compromises are made to everyone. Sometimes the director is too stubborn and is forced to leave the project; sometimes he leaves in protest. But often times the Director's Cut differs from the Final Cut.

It wasn't until the 1980's/90's when a public demand emerged for these 'Director's Cuts'. The new home video market saw an opportunity to repackage popular old titles to market as new. I.e. Warner Bros could sell more tapes of "Blade Runner" if audiences thought they were going to see something different than they saw 10 years before.

Thus the Director's Cut became a marketing tool, not a form of protest for grumpy directors and rarely the realization of an artist’s true uncompromised vision. After all, video rights are usually held by the distributor or executive producers who had ‘Final Cut’ rights in the first place.

Ridley Scott has been victim of both a compromised vision and a marketing tool. Seven of his films have been re-cut after the fact—sometimes with his approval, sometimes without. But only three of these films represent the preferred version of Mr. Scott—the one he has on his DVD shelf.

Here's a breakdown of the Multiple Versions of Ridley Scott:

ALIEN
Original Cut (1979) 117 mins
Director’s Cut (2003) 116 mins

Scott’s 1979 sci-fi/horror classic about a space salvage crew that find themselves the victims of an insect-like alien that seems created for the sole purpose of consuming any being it can get its multiple jaws on is perhaps the best example of the director’s thinking on the so-called “Director’s Cut. ” In the DVD liner notes to the 2003 released “Director’s Cut” he admits that the ’79 version of the film is his director’s cut and the new release was cooked up by the studio to insert some scenes that found their way to the cutting room floor. Perhaps the most unique detail of the 2003 version of “Alien” is the fact that, unlike most ‘director’s cuts,’ it is actually shorter than the original film. The new cut was most likely inspired by fans clamoring to see the film’s most famous deleted scene in context. The scene explains the alien’s life cycle—which was originally revealed theatrically in James Cameron’s 1986 sequel “Aliens”—and depicted the fate of the ship’s captain, Dallas. The scene itself is fascinating, but in context becomes a stumbling block for the storytelling. It comes at the climax of the story and brings the film to a dead stop. Scott was justified in cutting it from the film originally.

BLADE RUNNER
Original Cut (1982) 116 mins
‘Director’s’ Cut (1992) 116mins
Final Cut (2007) 116mins

There have been 3 or 4 versions of this sci-fi noir that follows a bounty hunter searching for rouge cybernetic criminals known as replicants in release at various times. The four key differences between all versions are 1) the graphic violence including the famous close up of Roy Batty pushing his thumbs through Tyrell's eyes, 2) the Unicorn Dream sequence that suggests the bounty hunter Deckard is also a replicant, 3) the so-called "happy ending" which shows Deckard and Rachael driving off into the sunset (using b-roll from “The Shining”!), and 4) the noirish hardboiled voiceover from Harrison Ford that explains minor details of the film audiences understood anyway. Each of the versions are essentially different combinations of these 4 variations. It’s hard to choose a preference for any one of the versions over the others. No matter which you see, it's still the same film—a great existential sci-fi masterpiece.

LEGEND
Original Cut (1985) 89 mins
Director’s Cut (2002) 114 mins

More unicorns, but no masterpiece; though it's not as much the stinker it was labeled back in 1985. At times it's a beautiful and elegant film set in a fantasy world where the elements of purity and innocence struggle against the forces of corruption and evil. The extended cut adds 20 minutes of some new and extended footage, and perhaps most significantly the original Jerry Goldsmith orchestral score that was famously replaced in the North American version for a more “modern” sounding Tangerine Dream. Both scores are fantastic though. Another key change is the introduction of Tim Curry as the wonderfully made-up Devilish creature ‘Darkness’. He is introduced in the opening minutes of the original, but in the Director’s Cut he isn’t seen until the third act—a much stronger build-up to his menacing character. Though we don’t have Mr. Scott quoted anywhere saying so, this appears to be his preferred cut.

Click HERE to continue to Part II at Andrew D. Wells’ A Penny in the Well

THE DARJEELING LIMITED

The Darjeeling Limited (2007) dir. Wes Anderson
Starring: Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, Adrian Brody

***

Warning: Spoilers contained here:

After going big with “The Life Aquatic” Wes Anderson has wisely scaled back his latest production to tell an intimate story of three brothers struggling to get through the baggage of their past and rekindle their friendship while on a spiritual journey through India. The stunning visuals make up for a story that starts off well but loses momentum in the second half.

The opening scene is a fun action sequence. The camera is following Anderson’s favourite actor Bill Murray through the streets of an unnamed Indian city. He’s racing to catch the “Darjeeling Limited” train. He’s running down the platform but not fast enough to make the jump on the last car. Just as he gives up, a more fleet of foot Adrian Brody emerges beside him and successfully makes the jump. Murray is left off the train, and off the film. It’s a neat piece of misdirection from Anderson.

We then follow Brody, playing Peter Whitman, who joins up with his two brothers, Jack (Jason Schwartzman) and Francis (Owen Wilson) who are on the same train taking the same journey. The ride is organized with obsessive detail by Francis and his assistant Brendan as a way of reconnecting after the death of their father one year before.

It’s clear there’s much baggage between the three and so Jack and Peter are suspect of Francis’ motives. His intent is meaningful but immediately Francis’ commanding presence over the two starts to annoy each other. One of Francis’ many petty annoyances is his habit of ordering food for his brothers at restaurants. There are a couple of wonderful scenes that showcase this with great comic timing of the actors.

Brody, Wilson and Schartzman are a great trio. As brothers they are completely different in appearance (a 5-6 inch difference between Brody and Schwartzman), but they have a report and a common manner of speaking that is realistic for brothers. And while the dialogue zings like a Hawks film, there are moments of silent glances that say more about brotherly relationship than any line of dialogue.

The characters are typically Andersonian – privileged men who act like children stunted from absentee parenting. The backstory of their younger lives are not fully fleshed out, but with a Wes Anderson film they don’t need to be. Anyone familiar with his films knows his characters’ frailties. And in “Darjeeling” they are much the same. At the midway point in the film, Francis’ plan is halted and the trio are forced to deal with their problems ad hoc without the security of the train and Francis’ itinerary.

Thematically, getting off the train is a great metaphor for the next step in the mending of the lives, but cinematically the film suffers and loses direction. When they eventually meet up with their mother (Angelica Huston), these scenes fail to pay off the set up in the previous two acts. The film then slowly loses steam and deflates without a whimper. At this point only the beautiful imagery and music were keeping my attention.

Like all his films Wes Anderson and his DOP Robert Yeoman shoot the film with wide angle anamorphic lenses. There’s something to look at in every part of the shot. When the camera is framed for its close-ups the actor’s faces jump out of the screen giving each character a larger than life persona. As customary Anderson’s camera movements are kept to parallel and perpendicular patterns. With the wide angle lens the movements are exaggerated and so the camera becomes a character in the film - the wonderful opening scene as prime example.

Since this is Anderson’s fifth film, I was somewhat disappointed he couldn’t expand his storytelling skills and give us something we hadn’t seen or heard before – the quirky compositions, deadpan humour, intellectual dialogue, super slo-mo set pieces, mod music etc. While I do appreciate a director who can create a consistency in style across his or her body of work, as mentioned, the similarities go beyond the style and into story, character, theme and tone.

Years from now when we look back on Anderson’s films, we may be calling him a genius, but I doubt we’ll be able to remember the difference between Owen Wilson’s four main characters: Dignan (Bottle Rocket), Eli (Royal Tenenbaums), Ned (Life Aquatic) or Francis (The Darjeeling Limited). I’ll let him off the hook now, but next time…

Enjoy.

P.S. Wes Anderson advises you to watch his short film prologue “Hotel Chevalier” starring Natalie Portman and Jason Schwartzman before viewing the film. I've seen it. It's really boring and pretentious - don't bother.

CHARLIE CHAN IN RENO

Charlie Chan in Reno (1939) dir. Norman Foster
Starring: Sidney Toler, Ricardo Cortez, Phyllis Brooks

Reviewed By Greg Klymkiw

***

Reno, Nevada. What a glorious setting for a movie. And, of course, Reno is the ultimate setting for many a divorce when our parents and their parents’ parents needed a quickie nuptial severance in the fine, old age when family values ruled over the more modern conceits of me-first selfishness.

Charlie Chan in Reno is yet another entertaining entry in Fox’s Charlie Chan series starring Warner Oland’s replacement Sidney Toler. It happens to be directed by Norman Foster, the great, but overlooked and underrated director of the two noir classics "Journey Into Fear" and "Woman on the Run", many terrific episodes of such Golden Age television hits Disney’s "Davy Crockett" dramatic specials, "Batman" (with Adam West), "The Green Hornet" (with Bruce Lee as Kato) and, of course Fox’s wonderful Mr. Moto series which featured Peter Lorre (a Hungarian-Jew) as the Asian adventurer-sleuth (and though he utilized his natural odd looks to good effect, he still managed to look like his eyes were taped back and as if he were fitted with a magnificent set of gleaming buck choppers).

Charlie Chan in Reno is Foster’s first kick at the directorial Chan-can and is definitely a fun little mystery with Chas and Number Two Son amidst a bunch of hot babes in Reno waiting to make their divorces legal. It’s kind of like George Cukor’s "The Women", but with lots of laughs and some suspense. One of the aforementioned babes is accused of murder and it’s up to Chas to wade through the massive number of other suspects to find the true killer.

The cast is first-rate. Toler delivers his epigrams and theories with considerable Cheshire-Cat-like aplomb while [Victor] Sen Yung as Number Two Son Jimmy stumbles and bumbles his way through Reno with his usual comic flair. In support of our leads, there are a number of terrific performances – mostly of the comic variety. Slim Summerville, the wonderful character actor who is most memorable in films like "All Quiet on the Western Front", "The Front Page" and the numerous silent and sound comedies he appeared in, stars as the irascible and often befuddled Sheriff Tombstone, a local Reno law enforcer who can’t make head nor tail out of the methods of the sly Asian dick. Also gracing the screen is comic stalwart Eddie Collins as a dopey cab driver whose gift for gab is, for most of his clientele anyway, a curse, not a blessing. The bevy of beauties adorning the picture include the earnest, but gorgeous suspect Pauline Moore, the slobber-inducing guttersnipe murder victim Louise Henry, the ravishing Phyllis Brooks and the sultry Kay Linaker (who in the 50s would write the screenplay for the classic creature feature "The Blob").

While this picture is blessed with Foster’s visual panache, it’s a bit closer to the earlier Chan pictures and doesn’t reach the dizzying heights that would follow in "Charlie Chan at Treasure Island". It is still, however, a terrifically entertaining mystery that never feels like the second feature it was meant to be.

Like many of the Fox second features, it’s A-list entertainment all the way.

AWAKE

Awake (2007) dir. Joby Harold
Starring: Hayden Christensen, Jessica Alba, Lena Olin, Terrence Howard

**1/2

“Awake” feels like an extended an episode of "CSI" or "House" or some other one-off medical/forensic TV show. The film was born from the concept of “anesthesia awareness,” which according to the opening text is an actual affliction which renders anesthetized patients paralyzed yet awake. Very little cinematic substance elevates this self-contained thriller beyond the small screen.

As if open heart surgery wasn't a strong enough fear, writer/director now forces us to ask – ‘what if you were awake during surgery. That’s just cruel. This is what happens to Clay Beresford (Hayden Christensen) a young super-rich businessman, who goes under the knife for a heart transplant. Before this dramatic scene, writer-director Joby Harold establishes his characters with a teasing set up. Clay has been dating his girlfriend Samantha (Jessica Alba) for 6 months, but has not told her disapproving mother, Lilith (Lena Olin). As mentioned, he also has a heart condition which would limit his life span if he doesn’t find a new heart soon. When a matching donor emerges Clay and his mother conflict over their choice of doctors. Lilith wants to use her world-class but intimidating surgeon Dr. Neyer (Arliss Howard), but Clay chooses his reliable and good-hearted fishing buddy Dr. Harper (Terrence Howard).

During the anesthesia procedure Clay experiences this rare affliction of paralyzed consciousness. We are put in Clay’s mind and body as he experiences the ungodly pain of being slice open and operated on. Ouch. But during the procedure Clay also overhears of an elaborate plot to kill him on the operating table and steal his money. From inside his mind, Clay's deciphered memories add intrigue and the mystery to the case while his friends and family remain oblivious in the waiting room.

Director Joby Harold shoots the film confidently but is only adequate in setting up the pieces and characters. There will be some eventual twists and turns which we know and probably anticipate. Though I didn’t consciously try to predict the plot, the twists and turns certainly didn’t send shockwaves down my spine. As a result it's more perfunctory action than genuine surprise.

Harold does deliver on the ‘awake surgery’ scene though, which is the centerpiece and hook of the film. With Clay’s eyes taped shut and unable to speak, unfortunately the director's only option is voiceover to tell us what’s going on. It’s a little corny, but he does as best he could considering the limitations and delivers a truly creepy scene.

As good as the scene is, unfortunately this hook is completely unnecessary to the story. Whether Clay is conscious of the plot against him is inconsequential to the actions and results afterwards. Clay is kept on the operating table for the rest of the film and it’s his family and friends that endeavour to save the day.

Harold’s characters are 2-dimensionally drawn and once everyone’s true motivations are revealed the characters don’t so much ‘arc’ as make sharp turns left and right. The film is moved forward when information is revealed, but nothing is earned by the characters. One minute a character is ‘bad’, then he’s good. It’s unsatisfying and simplistic storytelling that would only work for a one-off television show.

Yet Harold’s film is actually a quickly-paced 78 mins (yep, the credits role before the 80min mark). A few chills, a creepy piano score and some good actors, including a lovely Jessica Alba make the film watchable. Enjoy.

"Awake" is available on DVD from Alliance Films

Awake

IN BRUGES

In Bruges (2007) dir. Martin McDonagh
Starring: Brendan Gleeson, Colin Farrell, Ralph Fiennes

***

Much acclaim, including a four-star review from Roger Ebert pushed me to see this film in theatres. It’s a small scale story about two hit men, hanging out in Bruges Belgium waiting for their next instructions. The trailer is cut to be like a Guy Ritchie-Matthew Vaughn film, and though it has the same sense of humour, it’s a largely a low key character film. It’s another in a long history of recent British gangster films that entertain, but never quite take off and soar as the Hollywood and Asian cinema have been able to do.

Ray and Ken (Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson) are a couple of wisecracking hit men who have just completed a job. We’ve never told what the job is, only that Ray and Ken are to convene in Bruges for further instructions. “Where the fook is Bruges?” Ray asks. Bruges is a small tourist town in Belgium, known for its uniquely preserved medieval architecture. When they arrive Ray discovers it’s a boring ol’ tourist trap with little action and excitement. Ken, who’s enamoured by the culture and history, falls in love with city.

A palpable tension exists between the two beyond Ray’s restlessness with the city. We discover their job didn’t go as planned, resulting in more death than necessary. Their boss, Harry, who we only know as an ornery voice on the other end of a phone has nefarious plans for Ray and Ken. With their lives on the line, Ray and Ken's loyalties to each other and their own personal scruples are put to the test.

Martin McDonagh, who generated buzz for himself with his Oscar-winning short film “Six Shooter”, is skilled with the genre. Ray and Ken are a great British “Odd Couple” - Brendan Gleeson is the straight man and Colin Farrell is the wild man. For the first two acts, McDonagh concentrates on the two characters, their relationship with each other and as well as their relationship with the town and its people. Ken, in fact, courts a local girl which feels like genuine love. But McDonagh also silently plants the seeds for the third act, which has Harry (Ralph Fiennes) arriving in Bruges to ‘finish the job’. The seemingly meaningless actions of Ray and Ken and all the minor characters they meet along the way are cleverly weaved in and affect the outcome in the final violent confrontation.

McDonagh commits an error though. He falls in love with his cleverness of his “Seinfeld-like” wrap-up, but forgets that the strength of his film is his two characters. There’s a very powerful emotional moment which occurs at the 90mins mark of the film, which is so well-planned and executed, it would have made a great finale, if the film ended there. But McDonagh continues the action for another 5mins, a chase scene which serves to create action and but not drama. The film is less powerful because of it.

“In Bruges”, with it’s sharp dialogue and strong characters, entertains and generates great laughs, and though it narrowly misses it’s chance to soar, it's still a fun, enjoyable romp.

In Bruges

THE ARISTOCATS

The Aristocats (1970) dir. Wolfgang Reitherman
Voices by: Phil Harris, Eva Gabor, Sterling Holloway, Scatman Crothers

****

Guest reviewed by Greg Klymkiw

With my first child, I had a strict rule regarding what Disney product she was allowed to see – especially when it came to the animated product. Nothing that was made after Uncle Walt’s death would be allowed in our home. Everything in the post-Walt world was risible at worst and mediocre at best. For me, this especially includes that wretched period which barfed out the overblown and overrated and overwrought “Aladdin”, “Beauty and the Beast”, “The Little Mermaid” and (gag me with a very big spoon), “The Lion King” and everything else of that unfortunate ilk. These dreadful pictures with their annoying use of actors like Robin Williams and syrupy scores would not only remain verboten in my home, but were, no doubt, sending Walt’s corpse into major grave-spinning mode. There was, however, one exception to this strict rule and that exception was this: films that Walt personally developed and had already given a thumbs-up to for production PRIOR to his death were perfectly acceptable.

An especially wise exception to that rule was “The Aristocats”, the Disney Company’s twentieth animated feature film. It was finished after Walt’s death, but developed personally by him.

Some criticize the movie for being super-derivative of so many Uncle Walt classics, which, of course, is utter nonsense and true all at once. While there is no denying that “The Aristocats” is basically “Lady and the Tramp” with cats, crossed with “101 Dalmatians” and dollops - here and there - from a handful of others, all that basically proves is that good stories are always worth telling and re-telling and re-telling again – just so long as the details are not only different, but that they are, for lack of a better description, cool.

And “The Aristocats” is nothing if not cool.

With a late 50s jazz mentality set against the ultra-romantic and super-cool backdrop of Gay Par-ee, or, if you must, Paris, “The Aristocats” is up there with the best of them because it takes something from a previous (“old”) generation that already WAS cool and makes it cool again. Keep in mind that “The Aristocats” was released in 1970, long after rock n’ roll had become king, but rather than resorting to what was hip in terms of “now”, the picture steadfastly held onto what was cool in the past and not only cool, but frankly, the kind of thing that COULD withstand the test of time and appeal to generations well beyond the here and now. Disney was always ahead of his time, but he also knew that the ephemeral could make some quick bucks, but wouldn’t ensure several lifetimes of profits. And it was that knack for creating work that could keep making money for generation upon generation, work that had staying power, work that could, in fact live forever, is the very reason that Disney was a genius and a visionary and the ultimate filmmaker – an artist of the highest order in addition to being a captain – no, a General of Industry.

In a nutshell, the picture tells the story of a crazy old rich lady (Hermione Baddeley) who has a gorgeous, pampered cat called The Duchess (Eva Gabor) who, in turn, has three cute and precocious kittens. When the old rich lady decides to bequeath her whole fortune to her manservant Edgar, he decides to kill all the cats since he won’t get a single penny until all four cats live out all their nine lives due to a clause in the will that puts the kitties before Edgar. He cat-naps the felines, takes them to the middle of nowhere, tries to drown them, but is foiled in his nefarious intentions by a couple of mangy, but heroic old hound dogs. The kitties, stranded in the middle of nowhere are assisted in their plight by O’Malley (Phil Harris) and his other alley cats, a bunch of American expat-cats, who play mean jazz as only Americans in France could.

The humour, the characters, the voice-work are all first-rate. The animation, especially in terms of detail with respect to feline behaviour, is exceptional. But what really rocks (so to speak) in this picture is the fantastic musical score – especially the “Ev’rbody Wants To Be A Cat” number that is the soaring definition of the expression: “jazz hot”.

I personally saw The Aristocats in 1970 as a kid and subsequently on a couple of occasions when it was officially re-released theatrically. I saw it when it was first released on DVD, and most recently watched it in the magnificent new 2-disc DVD special edition released by Buena Vista. Each time the movie held up magnificently. It’s one great picture.

That said, my daughter eventually demanded to see all those banned Disney titles. I grudgingly bought all of them. Imagine, if you will, my shame and remorse at bringing “Aladdin”, “The Little Mermaid”, “Beauty and the Beast” and, God help me, “The [Goddamn] Lion King” into my home. Interestingly enough, my daughter watched all of those dreadful titles once and once only. She has never wanted to watch any of them again. The true Disney films, that she’d be indoctrinated with, however, are always on – again and again and again. She never tires of the real thing. “The Aristocats” is a movie she’s seen at least twenty times – probably more.

This, of course, not only proves how great Walt Disney was, but how important it is to expose children to only the best in their early years. That way, they learn how to discriminate between what’s good and bad. Most pointedly, they develop an excellent shit detector when it comes to much of the garbage that has been made in the RECENT past. When their yardstick is the very best, everything else becomes so much landfill.

OSCAR RECAP 2008

The hardware has been handed out, and like last year, it was a relatively surprise and drama-free edition. Some would call that ‘boring’. I still enjoy any Oscar ceremony – no matter what the outcome. The ceremony ended prior to midnight, which was a surprise. Only one lifetime achievement award was given out – what happened to the Irving G. Thalberg Award? We haven’t had one since 2001. There was only one “salute to...” montage. In fact Jon Stewart humorously referenced the overproduced and lengthy salutes such as the binocular/periscope salute or the ‘waking up to a bad dream’ salute. Though it didn’t generate as many laughs as it should, but it was a clever send up of itself.

It was Jon Stewart’s second outing as the host. The first-time jitters weren’t there like two years ago, and he assumed the role like a well-worn shoe. He relied less on the comfort-zone of his political jokes, instead weaving them in smoothly when appropriate. There were enough writers jokes to go around, and some of the usual roasting of the celebs. George Clooney, Dennis Hopper, and Jack Nicholson graciously took some nice shots. BTW: Remember Sean Penn taking offense to Chris Rock’s stab at Jude Law? Stewart was at his sarcastic best as well – my favourite crack was after Glen Hansard’s heartfelt and humble acceptance speech for Best Song in “Once”. Stewart’s crack, “he’s so arrogant” was a perfectly timed ad-lib.

As for the Awards, the Best Supporting Actress race promised and delivered the most drama. Tilda Swinton won over the slightly more favoured Cate Blanchett, Amy Ryan and Ruby Dee. Though I wasn’t the biggest fan of “Michael Clayton”, Tilda Swinton was the arguably the best part of the film. It’s also a great reward for over 20 years of fine art houses performances.

As has been the common over the past few years, there was an even distribution of Awards. In previous generations we suffered through huge sweeps of categories, especially in the technical categories. Ie, “Titanic” or “LOTR: Return of the King” sweeping categories like editing, art direction, special effects, sound etc etc. Instead we saw a deserving “The Bourne Ultimatum” take home three awards. Here’s breakdown of winners and the new tags they can now slap on their DVD boxes:

No Country For Old Men – 4 awards
The Bourne Ultimatum – 3 awards
There Will Be Blood – 2 awards
La Vie En Rose – 2 Awards
Sweeney Todd – 1 Award
Juno - 1 Award
Atonement - 1 Award
Once - 1 Award
Michael Clayton - 1 Award
Elizabeth: The Golden Age - 1 Award
Golden Compass - 1 Award
Ratatouille - 1 Award
The Counterfeiters - 1 Award
Taxi to the Darkside - 1 Award
Freehold - 1 Award
Peter and the Wolf - 1 Award
Mozart of Pickpockets - 1 Award

That’s 17 films taking home 24 trophies.

As for the Coen Brothers, I remember being so satisfied in 1997 when they won Best Original Screenplay, thinking they would never top “Fargo” and that they got the Oscar monkey off their back early. And so with three more personal trophies last night, that makes four trophies on each of their shelves. Unfortunately my personal favourite, Paul Thomas Anderson was left short again. He was previously nominated for best screenplay for “Boogie Nights” and “Magnolia.” But Hollywood has a habit of ignoring daring masterworks in the present – PT, expect a sympathy Oscar later in your career.

Other big news was Daniel Day-Lewis winning his second Best Actor Oscar, becoming the eighth member of the very select Two-Time Lead Actor Winners Club, joining:

Spencer Tracy
Frederic March
Gary Cooper
Marlon Brando
Dustin Hoffman
Jack Nicholson
Tom Hanks

As an aside, other than James Newton Howard, who’s been nominated for 7 Oscars, the Best Music Score nominees which are usually dominated by established veterans were either rookies or second-time nominees - and certainly no household names. No John Williams, Hans Zimmer, James Horner, Danny Elfman, Thomas or Randy Newman. As an aside, can anyone remember or hum any of this years' Best Score nominees? Just where have all the great music scores gone to?

One of the most awkward red carpet moments was Ben Mulroney (CTV Canada) interviewing Julian Schnabel. The notoriously difficult director was as unaccommodating as he’s ever been. He contributed to a very long 3 or 4 seconds of dead air when he refused to answer Ben questions.

The second-most awkward moment was Gary Busey’s invasion of Ryan Seacrest’s interview with Jennifer Garner and Laura Linney:



John Travolta was sporting a fur-like black rug of a haircut similar to the Rock and danced on stage before presenting Best Original Song – we get, you can dance!

Best humorous ego-boost: Jon Stewart/John Travolta’s gag about the Boeing 707 with its lights on. You can’t say he won’t poke fun at himself.

I love the fact that the Academy gets a really hot young actress to host the Science and Technical Awards (usually a few days prior). This year it was Jessica Alba, who looked stunning. I can’t imagine how uncomfortable she must have felt hanging out with the techie geeks at the Science/Technical after parties.

The success of “No Country For Old Men” is part of welcomed new trend in mainstream Hollywood cinema. It’s now back-to-back years with the big trophy going to very dark violence nihilistic pessimistic films. And it’s not a coincidence that we are seeing cherished franchises rebooted to be darker, more realistic and gritty. Is this a statement of our current state of affairs, or just the natural ebb and flow of cinema? A bit of both. It’s a good thing, because 15-20 years ago “No Country For Old Men” may never have a nomination.

It was a less entertaining ceremony for Oscar, but a greatly significant year for Hollywood - and year in which Oscar, for the most part, got it right.

BEOWULF

Beowulf (2007) dir. Robert Zemeckis
Starring: Ray Winstone, Brendan Gleeson, Angelina Jolie, Anthony Hopkins, Robin Wright Penn

**1/2

I have to say I’m still not a fan of Zemeckis’ motion capture innovations. At times it’s photorealistic, and at other moments it looks like “Shrek”. With my brain shifting back and forth between live action and CG animation, it causes a distraction from the story and action.

Putting the technical aside, “Beowulf” is a straightforward adventure story based on the Danish story written many centuries ago. I don’t know if Robert Zemeckis’ version adheres to the Danish origins, but I don’t really care. Is it “300” – No. Is it “Braveheart” – No. Does it entertain? Yes – at times.

Somewhere around 400AD the kingdom of Denmark is ruled by King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins). When his nemesis Grendel (Crispin Glover), an ungodly ugly beast from the mountains, attacks his village he summons the best warrior of the land to slay the beast. Heeding the call is Beowulf (Ray Winstone), a born soldier with a legendary reputation for demon-slaying. He accepts the task of killing Grendel, but little does he realize that there’s a higher power even more devious that pulls the strings. Beowulf’s heroism is challenged when he faces against the computer-enhanced Angelina Jolie – wow! Beowulf sells his soul to the demon in exchange for Hrothgar’s kingdom –a decision which will haunt him during his reign until he can confront the beast once again and redeem himself.

Other then telling an adventure story with some quality limb-hacking and some CG nudity, “Beowulf” strength is it’s de-mythologizing the notion of the classic ‘hero’. Genre films like “300” and “Braveheart” piggyback on the archetypes created by stories like “Beowulf” and Homer’s “The Odyssey”. So in going to back the original source, writers Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary are smart to make their hero as flawed, selfish, and unsure as possible.

When Beowulf is introduced to us, we see in flashback, an account of his slaying of a dragon-beast. What we see is a triumphant demon-slaying, with Beowulf slicing the beast open from within its belly and emerging heroically through his eye. The King’s advisor Unferth (John Malkovich) is suspect of Beowolf’s tall tales – but at this point in the story Beowulf is the hero, and we only see Unferth as the jealous antagonist. But as the story moves forward, the rust in Beowulf’s armour shows, revealing an ordinary man with weaknesses and insecurities like everyone else. In the second half of the film, with the legend already in progress “Beowulf”, now with responsibilities of a King, endeavours to atone for his sins.

Other than the character arc of Beowulf, the plotting and events in the story are minimal. The first half builds up to Beowulf’s confrontation with Grendel’s mother. There’s a jump forward in time, directly to the return of Grendel’s mother. Unfortunately what is skipped is what should have been the second act of the film, when we get to see the downfall of Beowulf, setting up his redemption in the third act.

In terms of adventure and action, “Beowulf” is surprisingly lacking. About two thirds of the film is contained inside the King’s dank and fire-lit banquet hall. And we never get the 'spectacle' this story deserves. With the infinite size of canvas Zemeckis has at his disposal he keeps the action story small and contained, unfortunately to the detriment of the film.

Beowulf