BONNIE AND CLYDE

Bonnie & Clyde (1967) dir. Arthur Penn
Starring: Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway, Gene Hackman, Michael J. Pollard, Estella Parsons

***1/2

Warren Beatty’s brainchild film charts Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker’s violent crime spree across the Southern States, which turned ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ into an iconic household moniker. It’s also one of the most influential films of the 60’s for its expressive use of violence contrast against it’s traditional Warner Bros ‘gangster’ genre façade.

Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway), a bored teenager wasting away in a barren Texas town at first sight falls deeply for Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty). It’s not so much love as a sexual turn-on. Bonnie feels the bad-ass in Clyde and she instinctively wants to go anywhere he goes and do anything he does. They proceed to knock off a series of stores, and banks for fun and kicks. Along the way they recruit an eager car mechanic C.W. Moss (Michael J. Pollard), Clyde’s brother Buck (Gene Hackman) and his wet blanket wife Blanche (Estella Parsons) and establish themselves as 'the Barrow Gang'.

Bonnie and Clyde become media sensations in the era of famous public enemies - ie. Al Capone, John Dillinger, Machine Gun Kelly. But when their fun romp is halted after a violent run-in with the authorities, the reality of their actions will come crashing down on their heads violently - really violently.

“Bonnie and Clyde” represented more than just a gangster film, it was the beginning of an important period in American cinema. Liberal attitudes toward sex and violence freed filmmakers to challenge the auteur films that were being made in Europe throughout the 60’s.

“Bonnie and Clyde” is very sexual, in fact the film begins with Faye Dunaway prancing around nude in her bedroom. Her courtship stroll with Clyde through her desolate Texan town is full of fun sexual innuendos – watch Bonnie licking her coke bottle and Clyde’s match stick twitching in his mouth.

This beginning sets up the central theme of the film - sex and violence and the relationship between the two. But the film gets interesting when once sex is taken out of the equation. Early on we learn Clyde, who admits he’s never been much a lover, can’t perform in bed, thus Bonnie and Clyde’s relationship is fueled purely on violence.

Ok, I know what you’re thinking. Only 3 ½ stars? Well “Bonnie & Clyde” is a classic, there’s no doubting that. It’s a great film, which arguably, with modern eyes, doesn’t stand quite as tall as other films of the era. There are many scenes that drag, specifically the frequent use of the rear-projection driving scene. Penn uses the same uncreative flat frontal shot when shooting his in-car dialogue scenes. It's a bland method of storytelling which unfortunately dates the progressively liberal film.

Estella Parsons, who won an Oscar for her role, provides one of those effective but frustrating performances. Parsons plays Buck Barrow’s annoying wife who's brought along the journey against her will. Her wining voice and constant screaming provide conflict among the gang, which ultimately causes their downfall. I’m reminded of Dorothy Comingore’s equally cringe-worthy performance as Susan Alexander in “Citizen Kane”. Is it effective storytelling or just nails on a chalkboard?

But the most important part of the film, the ending, is still as exciting and brutal as it was in 1967. The innovative blood and squibs effects, the editing and the slo-motion camera work are still beautiful and bold even with today’s eyes. Sam Peckinpah would later find influence from "Bonnie and Clyde" and rewrite cinema for expanding these techniques. But it all started with "Bonnie and Clyde". Enjoy.

DANGEROUS CROSSING

Image courtesy of DVD Beaver

Dangerous Crossing (1953) dir. Joseph Newman
Starring: Jeanne Craine, Michael Rennie

****

“Dangerous Crossing” is not so much a noir as a Hitchcockian psychological mystery. A newlywed is suspected of going crazy when her husband mysteriously disappears without a trace. Part of Fox’s Noir Collection, “Dangerous Crossing” is one of the lesser known classics of the genre – a thoroughly entertaining slice of pulp fiction.

A newly married couple John and Ruth take an ocean liner cruise for their honeymoon. When they arrive in their cabin, John asks Ruth go ahead and meet up in 15mins at the bar before dinner while he runs an errand. Ruth obliges, but at the bar John is a no-show. In fact, he's disappeared from the entire ship. The ship’s crew search the boat, but to no avail. When asked for identification, ticket, or evidence of John, Ruth can’t produce anything. Suddenly everyone’s suspicious eyes turn on Ruth.

Did John really exist, or was he a figment of her imagination? When she reveals the painful period in doctor’s care after the death of her father, the evidence weighs toward psychosis. But when Ruth starts getting mysterious phone calls from John from aboard the boat warning her about their safety, something more devious and sinister rears it’s ugly head.

Ruth (well played by Jeanne Crain) goes through an agonizing journey of torturous frustration. It’s a difficult performance, one which could easily have spilled over into emotional overdramatics, but Crain puts the reality of the situation in all her reactions.

"Dangerous Crossing” is a technically-perfect genre film. Director Joseph Newman has a great studio shooting style - a Michael Curtiz-influenced look with sweeping crane shots, and elaborate dolly moves to accentuate and heighten the drama. Newman sets the tone of mystery and suspense brilliantly. The location and design of the ship provide the confining clausterphobia within which Ruth’s paranoia can bubble over. The scenes in fog-shrouded night along with the monotonous fog horn lay on the noir-intrigue extra thick. The best scene in the film is a sequence worthy of Brian De Palma's theft. Ruth hears a knock on her door, but when she answers it, no one is there. She looks out into the hall – no one in sight. Just then a door from down the hall slowly opens by itself. Then slowly closes. And of course, Jeanne Craine frightening reaction sells the drama.

“Flight Plan” and “Bunny Lake is Missing” tell the same story, an unexplainable disappearance with no evidence to prove the missing person ever existed. Both films are flawed and could not wrap up satisfactorily the ‘is she crazy or not’ conundrum. “Dangerous Crossing” provides the most satisfying resolution of all three films. With the film clocking in at 76mins, there’s not much room for extraneous plotting or lengthy explanations, and so the climax and resolution comes rather suddenly. But the brevity serves the material best.

One of the remarkable aspects about the production was the studio's use of economies of scale. “Dangerous Crossing” doesn't look like it was shot for $500,000 in 19 days, but it was. 20th Century Fox creatively recycled sets, costumes and actors from much bigger pictures also in production – “Titanic” and “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” - to bump up the production value. Combine this with best aspects of the genre - fog, shadows, sound, shady characters and a slowly revealing potboiling plot – and you have a top notch film noir. Enjoy.

"Dangerous Crossing" is part of the Fox Film Noir Collection, which also includes "Black Widow" and "Daisy Kenyon". Look for reviews of these films in the coming weeks.

ICE AGE: THE MELTDOWN

Ice Age The Meltdown (2006) dir. Carlos Saldanha
Voices by: Ray Romano, John Leguizamo, Dennis Leary, Queen Latifah

**

“Ice Age: The Meltdown” is good enough to hold you over in between Pixar films, but ultimately a forgettable entry in the realm of CG cinema. The animation is surprisingly sparse in creative design. I’m not sure it had half the budget of “Ratatouille” or “Cars”, but it certainly has half the laughs and originality.

The film begins at the end of the Ice Age and our trio of lovable animals Manny the Whoolly Mammoth, Sid the Sloth and Diego the Sabre-Toothed Tiger (Ray Romano, John Leguizamo, and Dennis Leary) are forced to leave their glacial home to an awaiting Ark – get it? A flood and an Ark. Even Scrat the Squirrel knows it’s time to go. The trio’s journey take them from the glacier valley across land, ice, water, and mountains to find a new home.

Along the way Manny meets up with another Mammoth, Ellie (Queen Latifah), an orphan who lives in the company of possums. In fact, since Ellie has never seen another Mammoth and so she assumes she’s possum. This comical bit of confusion lasts until Ellie’s latent memories of the day she was orphaned comes back to her.

It’s a rather uneventful journey, with little of the visual wonder which we expect from computer animation. The animals’ lives are threatened by a series of uncreative challenges, there’s a treacherous adventure over a rock bridge, a couple of evil sea dinosaurs, and a group of vultures hovering (and singing) around them. Unfortunately most of the suspense is played for subpar comedy.

Most of the gags are of the Shrek-influenced pop culture variety – it feels so perfunctory and unoriginal it fails to bring the intended laughs. At one point Sid meets a group of young sloths who are willing to obey his every command, a choreographed Simon Says dance sequence follows.

The only saving grace are the brief interludes featuring Scrat the Squirrel and his precious acorn. This is the most inspired humour in the film – a more Chuck Jones-style of physical humour minus the go-to pop culturisms. These scenes act as transitions between the main journey of our heroes and become little comic gems peppered throughout the film.

“Ice Age: The Meltdown” will certainly keep your kids occupied for a 90mins break in your day. It’s relatively scare-free too, so they definitely won’t give them any nightmares. Not recommended for adults.

"Ice Age: The Meltdown" is available on DVD from Fox Home Entertainment

Ice Age: The Meltd...

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN

No Country For Old Men (2007) dir. Joel and Ethan Coen
Starring: Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson

****

Hollywood has just done the unthinkable - given the Best Picture Oscar twice in a row to two of the more darker, nihilistic mainstream films we’ve seen hit our multiplexes (including 2006’s “The Departed”). I welcome this trend as revenge against some of the more egregious Oscar choices over the years.

“No Country For Old Men’s” masterfulness lies in its sparse depiction of two men fueled by greed to find a lost satchel of money – a head to head battle with a dozen or more corpses left in their wake. But despite all the praise, “No Country For Old Men” frustrates me in almost equal measure by its unnecessarily obtuse ending that on second viewing feels even less satisfying.

Tommy Lee Jones narrates the film like an omniscient observer of the events about to take place (like Sam Elliot in “The Big Lebowski” or Moses the Clockman in “Hudsucker Proxy”). He’s a sheriff with a wealth of knowledge and experience about the violent nature of man. His opening speech describes a teenage boy he sent to the electric chair without any second thoughts. The boy was made of pure evil –the Michael Myers type of evil that has no rational thought, emotion, or sanity.

Our hero is Llewellyn Moss (Josh Brolin) who, while hunting in the desert, accidentally discovers a dope deal gone wrong – a half dozen dead bodies as well as a dead dog. Left over is the classic briefcase full of money - $2 million worth – enough for Moss and his shy wife, Carla (Kelly MacDonald) to retire. Moss is an intelligent character established by showing the details of his thought-process. He knows someone will eventually come looking for the money. And so, like a great chess player he calculates several moves ahead of his adversaries. But for most of the film, he doesn’t know who’s pursuing him – just a relentless force of nature – echoing footsteps in a hall, or a vacant voice on the phone.

This force of nature is the evil Jones describes to us at the beginning. The Bubonic Plague with legs - Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem). The Michael Myers (“Halloween”) comparison is appropriate not only in his actions, but also how he is shot by the Coens. He is slow, methodical and literally impossible to kill. His weapon of choice is an oxygen tank and a silenced shotgun.

Like “Fargo” the Coens leave style and cleverness on the cutting room floor and tell the story with a sparse cinematic technique. The performances and characters lead the story. Josh Brolin has never been better – and to think the brothers didn’t want Brolin for the role. It took an audition tape directed by Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez to convince them to let Brolin in the door. And now, I couldn’t imagine anyone else in that role. Oscar-winner Javier Bardem’s showcase scene is his confrontation with a gas station attendant. The rhythm of dialogue is off-putting and tense. Bardem sets a new bar for sadistic maniacs. Move over Hannibal Lector – you’ve been trumped.

Three quarters of the film is a quid pro quo chase through Texas and into Mexico. Like the detailed mechanics of the events in “Blood Simple” the Coens craft a series of masterful sequences of predator and prey. The piece-de-résistance of sequences – which should win the Coen’s their first directing Oscar - is a scene which starts with a hotel room confrontation between Moss and Anton and ends out on the street amid a hail of bullets and blood.

But after achieving greatness for three quarters, after a key death the film slowly peters out with little action or drama that significantly affects the story. The film turns into Tommy Lee Jones’ story at the end, which still frustrates me. Though the voiceover in the film is Jones’ he is virtually inactive and doesn’t affect the plot or events in the story. The book is an anti-climax, and so is the film. The Coens, on the DVD featurette, describe to us, with verve this fact. But recognizing this fact doesn’t make it any more satisfying or great. And for a film so inspired Jones’ final speech and obnoxious ‘cut to black’ is just a slap in my face. A film this great deserves better. Enjoy.

"No Country For Old Men" is available on DVD this week from Miramax Films and Alliance Films"

THE COUNTERFEITERS

The Counterfeiters (2008) dir. Stefan Ruzowitzky
Starring:Karl Markovics, August Diehl, Devid Striesow, Martin Brambach

**1/2

“The Counterfeiters” was the Best Foreign Language Film winner at this year’s Oscars. It’s a true story of a group of concentration camp prisoners in WWII who survive the horrors of the Holocaust by making counterfeit money for the Nazis. It’s a story of personal survival amidst the most harrowing of historical events that unfortunately suffers for missing its opportunities to be a 'great' film, instead of just a 'good' film.

Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics) is introduced in post-war Monte Carlo, gambling, and whoring his life away. Though he's winning with ease, he's not happy. After a night with a beautiful girl, entranced only by his money, she notices his concentration camp tatoo on his arm. This piece of information sends us back to the War to show how Sorowitsch survived the Holocaust.

Sorowitsch was one of the most famous forgers in Europe, he made an unscrupulous living falsifying passports for whoever had the money to pay. But once the war starts, Sorowitsch, like all Jews under German occupation is imprisoned in a concentration camp. Sorowitsch witnesses and is subject to the imaginable brutalities of the concentration camp and vows to survive at all costs. Sorowitsch's expertise becomes a valued asset and he soon finds himself leading a group of forgers with varying skills counterfeiting British Pounds and American Dollars to fund the Nazis' last ditch war effort. The group find solace in their work, but when another member of the team, Burger (August Diehl) objects to the immorality of working for the Nazi cause moral conflicts compound on each other threatening everyone's lives.

The strength of the film is the fundamental and confounding moral question of 'what you do to survive?' Before Burger raised his ethical hand, Sorowitsch thought he knew the answer to this question. But the heart of Ruzowitky's film is how Sorowitsch reconcile's these internal and external conflicts.

By tackling the Holocaust Stefan Ruzowitzky is automatically pitting himself against the great films that have come before it. “The Counterfeiters” is a good film, and perhaps deserves more than 2 1/2 stars, but considering the subject matter and the potential the materials presents, I must dock large points for each opportunity missed.

The cinematography bothered me – so much so, I literally couldn’t look past it. Ruzowitzky and DOP Benedict Neuenfels shoot the film with a blanket of grain it’s actually very difficult to see the detail in the film. They also employ an unnecessary handheld swishing camera technique that doesn’t fit the material. The result is something akin to Alejandro González Iñárritu’s stylized “21 Grams”. The style worked to enhance the grittiness of Iñárritu’s story, but for the Holocaust, the subject does not require such enhancement.

As well, we barely get to see the detail of how the counterfeiters created such perfect recreations of currency. Salomon Sorowitsch was such an artist with his work we needed to see the details of his craftsmanship to truly appreciate the timeconsuming work being done. Like Col. Nicholson is "Bridge Over the River Kwai", seeing the details he obsesses over makes his eventual redemption even more powerful. But with the distracting fuzzy cinematography the preciseness of Sorowitsch's work is lost and with it another layer of internal conflict. 

It's a shame to critique a film of such compelling real life subject matter on the basis of its camera technique, but it's also a shame for the director to distract us away from his story with an unnecessary artifice.

The final on screen text frustrated me even more, when we learn that the Counterfeiters' work in the film was the largest counterfeiting operation in history. That took me by surprise because this scope never got across on screen. The most amount of money we see at one time is a handful of dollar bills. Again this is a missed opporuntity for Ruzowitztky to show us the scale of the operation instead of telling us – and at the end of the film.

"The Counterfeiters" is a good film, but I just can't help what could have been...a shame. Enjoy. 

The Counterfeiters

HITMAN

Hitman (2007) dir. Xavier Gans
Starring: Timothy Olyphant, Olga Kurylenko, Dougray Scott, Ulrich Thomsen

***

In my review of “Shoot ‘Em Up” I expressed my frustration for the excessive use of ‘double-gun’ shoot-outs. John Woo’s double-gun career is over, and so should everyone else’s. “Hitman” not only uses the double guns, it features it prominently on its poster. Needless to say, my expectations for this film were low. But “Hitman” is not all gun-porn. Writer Skip Woods (“Swordfish”), Director Xavier Gens (“Frontieres) and star Timothy Olyphant, with a wink of Eurotrash humour, create a bloody-satisfying popcorn genre film.

Agent 47 (Olyphant) is patterned out of the Jason Bourne mold of killers – like Bourne, 47 had his identity removed and was brainwashed to be a Terminator-like killer. 47 lives like a wandering soul, at the command of some unknown “organization” called “The Agency”. Interpol supercop Mike (Dougray Scott) has been tracking 47 down for seven years. During this time 47 has killed 100 people across the world (and, according to a brief shot of a pushpin map, a hit in Northern Manitoba – wow!).

Agent 47’s latest gig is to bump off the President of Russia (Ulrich Thomsen). After the job goes down, successfully from 47’s point of view, he discovers a double-cross, which has him really mad and looking for answers…and violent revenge of course. In the middle of the complicated melee is President Belicoff’s favourite Ukrainian prostitute Nika (new Bond girl Olga Kurylenko), who teams up with 47 to solve the mystery.

If the plot sounds a lot like the “Bourne” series, or “The Professional” you’re right. It’s a major influence and piggybacks on the success of the new-Millenium superspy – the brooding uncharismatic identity-less loner. But “Hitman”, which is based on a videogame, retains the bubblegum tone of the videogame genre. Though the film is relatively humourless, unlike Bourne, it never takes itself seriously. Gens and his team know their film is pulp cinema and a low-rent franchise.

So with this attitude Gens maximizes his cinematic possibilities. The film feels like a young expressive filmmaker looking to make a bold career statement. Gens, a Frenchman, previously directed the eye-popping violent horror film “Frontiere(s)”. With that film he pushed the boundaries of violence, gore and good taste. That was the torture-porn genre, and in the gun-porn genre he puts in as much chutzpah.

There’s several action set pieces that make Michael Davis’ “Shoot em Up” sequence look pathetic. The final gun battle is bloody and nasty. Gens doesn’t spare us the great blood squibs we never got in “Shoot em Up”. And Belicoff’s death scene from the bullets of the helicopter encircling and tearing up with his rooftop lair is the most satisfying gunfight I’ve seen in a while.

Not everything in the film is a bulls-eye. The first third of the film is too paced quickly. Gens fails to generate the suspense needed to make the ‘hits’ exciting and thrilling. As a result, at the beginning, the film actually feels like a videogame. Gens gets over the hump and in the second and third acts. Once we get to know 47 and his relationship with Nika the film blossoms and find a good groove.

As well, Timothy Olyphant deserves some credit for taking a stock character – a videogame character – and turning him into someone intriguing enough to want to get to know. The barcode on the back of his shaved head is ridiculous, but I saw it as deadpan humour (and no, we never get to see him get ‘scanned’).

On the DVD special features it’s apparent, despite the pulpiness of the material, Olyphant, Scott and all the other actors took their parts seriously which actually shows up on screen. Combine this with the cinematic energy of a hungry and talented filmmaker, and you see how straight-to-video material gets elevated to respectable popcorn entertainment. Enjoy.

Don’t be dissuaded by the overdramatic trailer.

Hitman Timothy Olyphant

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.