GONE BABY GONE

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

THE TWO JAKES

The Two Jakes (1990) dir. Jack Nicholson
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Harvey Keitel, Meg Tilly, Madeleine Stowe

**1/2

“The Two Jakes”, the 1990 follow up to “Chinatown” arrived on DVD this week. Watching the film without any hype or fanfare (as it likely was in 1990) the films holds up pretty well in the tradition of the first film, but missing is the style and suspense which Polanski brought to the original classic.

It’s now 1948, post war L.A. Jake Gittes is still a gumshoe, with a large practice, P.I.s on the payroll and a swankier downtown office. He’s hired by another Jake (hence the title), Berman played by Harvey Keitel to catch his wife (Meg Tilly) cheating on him. Gittes indeed succeeds, but during the sting Berman shoots and kills the other man. When Gittes discovers the other man was Berman’s partner, like “Chinatown” he realizes he’s been used, played and swindled. Jake’s sleuthing skills unearths a labyrinth of lies and deceit that again involves the big business of Los Angeles’ natural resources (oil, this time).

Did “The Two Jakes” ever stand a chance of succeeding? To Jack Nicholson’s credit he gave it his best shot. His old producer buddies Harold Schneider and Robert Evans are along for the ride, as is the original writer Robert Towne. Original lensman John A. Alonzo was replaced by another fine 1970’s shooter Vilmos Zsigmond and of course, Roman Polanski wasn’t able to make the flight to L.A., so Jack himself took the helm behind the camera.

The story unveils itself well. Like in “Chinatown” Jake is taken advantage of and as a result an innocent man gets murdered. Jake, who makes a living exposing the infidelities and breaking up marriages, is awakened from slumber by the chance to exercise his latent personal ethics. The plot is a Byzantine concoction and virtually incomprehensible if you haven’t see the first film - and certainly more recently than 1974. The plot is thickened when Kathryn Mulwray (the incestual daughter of Faye Dunaway and John Huston’s characters from the first film) is mentioned by one of the characters before he’s killed. It’s easy to remember her now, when “Chinatown” is simultaneously re-released on DVD. But in 1990, was it available on VHS for a refresher viewing? I don’t know. Minor obscure characters like Escobar and Kahn pop up as well. These clever link ups are indeed fun.

The film loses steam once it crosses the 1:45min mark – when the film should have ended. Instead the film drags for another 30mins, when the full details of the big business urban planning scam are revealed. By this time, complete confusion and lack of interest set in for me.

It’s a noble effort, but ultimately “The Two Jakes” will join “The Godfather Part III” and the “Last Picture Show” follow up “Texasville” as unnecessary sequels from great 70’s films on the 3 for $20 shelves at Best Buy.

PS All three of these pseudo-sequels were coincidentally released in 1990. Weird.

CHINATOWN

Chinatown (1974) dir. Roman Polanski
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, John Huston

****

“Chinatown” has been touted by many pundits as the best screenplay ever written. It’s a unique Hollywood concoction – a gunshoe thriller in the classic noir genre, but also modern and beguiling. It’s a twister that unravels to reveal a salacious melodrama motivating a big business urban conspiracy.

Jake Gittes is an L.A. private detective in the 1930’s. One day a woman named Evelyn Mulray enters his office and hires Jake to spy on her husband Hollis Mulray whom she suspects of cheating. Jake is initially hesitant to take the case as he honestly explains that she’s better off not knowing, it would cause more pain for her. Mulray is insistent and Jake takes the case. Jakes follows Mulray around for several days. He discovers he’s the chief engineer of the city’s water department. There’s a major drought in the city of Los Angeles and Mulray is in the middle of a heated debate about an expensive new dam project. Despite all this, Gittes’ investigation reveals a conspiracy involving the city dumping precious water in secret overnight. Gittes performs his job and captures Mulray’s rendez vous with a young girl. But when Hollis Mulray turns up dead the next day, and a different woman shows up claiming to be the real Evelyn Mulray, Gittes realizes he’s been set up in an elaborate murderous plot.

With his pride and reputation on the line Gittes retraces his steps to uncover the conspiracy. He develops a relationship with the real Evelyn Mulray (Faye Dunaway). Evelyn, a good-looking erudite woman, with an emotional detachment to the mysterious goings-on, intrigues Jake and he takes her case to find the other woman who was seeing her husband. No one seems to be telling the truth, not even Evelyn, and as Gittes moves through the city of Los Angeles, the stakes get higher and higher. When he meets Evelyn’s father Noah Cross (John Huston) who owns the water company, we realize the conspiracy is as personally motivated as it money-driven. “Chinatown’s” byzantine plot expands larger as the film moves along becoming a big business conspiracy about the creation of modern-day L.A. and a searing melodrama with operatic plot twists.

I’ve seen the film several times and it still confounds me. The mechanics of the plot, like “The Big Sleep”, are notoriously difficult to follow. And though I do get lost each time I watch it, I’m comforted by the intermittent expository lines Towne gives Jake to say which always helps me catch up.

Roman Polanski directs the film to perfection. Nobody has shot Los Angeles better than Polanski and his DOP John Alonzo. For a film noir, they chose to the shoot the film as bright and sunny as possible. Film noirs are traditionally shot in shadows and underlit to compliment the secretive elements of the genre, but Alonzo and Polanski hide nothing from us. They choose to beautify Los Angeles and bathe their characters in the brightest colours. Polanski’s camera follows Gittes very closely the entire film, much of it behind his neck. With a 2.35:1 wide angle frame we are able to see everything Jake sees and still see Jake’s wandering eyes and furrowing brows up close and personal. The handheld work is subtle. It’s so close to everything it becomes part of the action, but without the jerky movements that overtly remind us a camera is there. Sometimes the camera is so close to the actors we can feel it getting in the way. Watch the very end, after the shootout in Chinatown. When Jake and the cops run up to the car and see the damage done Nicholson actually knocks the camera. It’s unintentional but unobtrusive and natural to the film.

“Chinatown” never tires. It contains so many indelible characters and situations, an unraveling plot that gets bigger and bigger as it goes along, beautiful locations and a modern quality that continues to resonate today. In fact, it’s a good companion piece to “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room”. Seriously. Check it out.

SHE

SHE (1936) dir. Lansing C. Holden, Irving Pichel
Starring: Randolph Scott, Helen Gahagan, Helen Mack, Nigel Bruce

**

“She” is based on the novel by H. Rider Haggard, the Victorian pulp novelist famous for adventure stories such as “King Solomon’s Mines”. The filmed version was a collaboration from two of the members of the ‘King Kong’ family – co-director Irving Pichel, and Kong producer Merian C. Cooper. I’ve only seen three of their films (inc. “Kong” and “The Most Dangerous Game”), and "She" is by far the pulpiest and hokiest so far and for curious cinephiles only.

This tall tale has Horace Holly (Nigel Bruce), Leo Vincey (Randolph Scott) and Tanya Dugmore (Helen Mack) traveling to the treacherous arctic in search of the eternal flame of life that will bring man everlasting life. Vincey is drawn to the expedition to discover the fate of his great great grandfather John Vincey who went on a similar trip in the 1700’s but never came back. After crossing dangerous frozen waters and avoiding bone-crushing avalanches, they reach magnetic north and follow the path of myth that will lead them to a lost world of paradise. Indeed, the team finds this lost world, which is inhabited by an unruly group of natives, and led by a cruel female despot uncreatively named ‘She’.

Many years ago ‘She’ had been tempted by the eternal flame herself and now lives a doomed life of everlasting life. With the arrival of the hunky Leo Vincey, she discovers a mate who can live with her in lifelong harmony. But over the past 300 years She has gone a little nutty and has taken to authoritarism including ritualistic human sacrificing. Vincey and the bunch have to find a way out before they are all thrown into the volcanic pit of death.

“She” is grand scale hokum. The young squared-jawed Randolph Scott delivers his lines with the golly-gee-wiz intensity of Burt Ward from the Batman TV series. Helen Mack (from “His Girl Friday”) is quite yummy as the damsel in distress. And Helen Gagahan is alluring but inert as “She”. But you’re not watching a Merian C. Cooper production for the dialogue. There are a handful of exciting action sequences, including a very convincing avalanche sequence and a lengthy ritualistic dance/human sacrifice sequence that are worth the price of admission.

The film is watchable only for its pedigree (the ‘King Kong’ connection) and it’s influence on modern adventure cinema – specially “Indiana Jones”. Though Jones was inspired by film serials, “She” is also closely tied to the series. The “Temple of Doom’s” Volcanic sacrifice scene is lifted directly from here, as well the dramatic ceremonial finale in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”.

“She” is also worth a look for its fantastic Art Deco production design and special effects which are as good as anything of its day, and in fact better than most for decades. Black and white film allows traditional matting photography to blend in better with shot footage, than colour film. So, ironically when studios started making colour films, it took decades for the special effects departments to catch up to the days of Merian C. Cooper.

The storytelling has the ‘White Man’s Burdon’ superiority of British colonialism. The natives of the arctic lands are like untamed animals who do the bidding of the all-powerful white woman – She. It was still the prevailing world view at the time among developed nations, so you must look past this ignorance.

Merian C. Cooper was never good with subtlety. Like Carl Denham’s final words in “King Kong” - “No, it was beauty that killed the beast”, we are given an equally blatant reiteration of the film’s theme – “the flame of life exists here, in any fireplace in any home where two people live and love each other.” A terrible ending, but cudos to Legend Films for bringing it back on DVD. I don’t regret watching it. Enjoy.

Buy it here: She

BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING

Bunny Lake is Missing (1960) dir. Otto Preminger
Starring: Carol Lynley, Keir Dullea, Lawrence Olivier, Noel Coward

***

Otto Preminger’s “Bunny Lake is Missing” is a lost cult film from the great era of British thrillers of the 60’s. It tells the frightening story of a woman whose child disappears out of thin air from a British daycare centre. It’s both an exciting investigative mystery with a Hitchcockian psychological edge in the tradition of "Psycho" or “Peeping Tom”. The veteran director Preminger, who was at the tale end of his career ponies up some creative strength producing this enjoyable little gem. A potential four-star film is marred with a sloppy ending that tries to catch the wave of psychoanalysis, which was too late for 1965.

Carol Lynley plays an American girl (Ann Lake) who has recently arrived in Britain to live with her brother Stephen (Keir Dullea). Carol has brought her young 4 year old daughter Bunny to her daycare school as instructed. But when she goes to pick her up at the end of the day she is missing. Fingers are pointed at everyone else as none of the staff claim to have seen her. Panic sets in for Ann who receives little care or cooperation from the snobby set-in-their-ways staff. Ann’s brother eventually arrives, takes control, and calls in the police.

The police investigation is led by the calm and collected Newhouse (Lawrence Olivier). Newhouse traces all leads and witnesses who may have seen Bunny over the course of the day. But when he starts running into false leads, his eyes slowly turn to Ann and Stephen for more information about their lives. Ann and Stephen appear to be hiding information from the police and quickly become uncooperative and eventually suspects themselves.

Otto Preminger, who you may know as ‘Mr. Freeze’ in the Adam West Batman series in the 60’s was a director who made a diverse variety of great films from the 30’s – 70’s. He was also known as an oppressive monster in the directorial chair. But his films speak for themselves - “Laura”, “Stalag 17”, “Anatomy of a Murder”, and “Advise and Consent”. Like Michael Powell's “Peeping Tom” “Bunny Lake is Missing” is one of those Hitchcock films that Hitchcock didn’t make. Otto Preminger treads on the internal fears of the audience of losing a child, of being in a foreign land, and in the last act, mixing in then topical psychoanalytical themes. The result is a film that is two thirds fantastic, and one third sloppy and dated.

He exploits our fears of being in a strange environment and being at the whim of a foreign culture with foreign procedures. A film like this could be remade today in the light of the post 9/11 fears. The film works best when it keeps information from us. Preminger plants the seeds of different suspects in the opening act. There’s the nosy perverted landlord (hammed up by, of all people, playright Noel Coward), the crusty old German cook who skips town the day of Bunny's disappearance, and the Mrs. Bates-like older lady who lives in the attic of the daycare and records children’s recounted nightmares on audio tape. Wow, that’s creepy. This is when the film is most fun.

But the cleverer the set up the harder it is to pay off in the end. And Preminger doesn’t get it right. He relies on a deux ex machina element of false memories and psychoanalytic mumbo jumbo, that by 1965 was already old hat. I couldn’t help but think if this film was made by say, Roman Polanski in 1965. The film feels like Polanksi in how Preminger skillfully moves his camera within the tight closed spaces of the daycare centre. But Polanki wouldn’t have relied on psycho-terror to solve his mystery – he would have horrified us with a tragic ending.

Lawrence Olivier is a pleasant surprise in the film. His ego is kept in check and he acts the film with realism and understated confident attitude. As Newhouse formulates his theories, Olivier internalizes his thoughts keeping the plot revelations a mystery to the audience.

The headscratcher of the film is the appearance of British mod group “The Zombies”. They are given a head credit but appear only on a TV screen in a bar. It seems like a blatant piece of product placement that is clearly 'out of place' in a film about disappearing children. Don’t mind this loose end though, just kick back and drink in the psycho-terror-babble to enjoy this film.

Buy it here: Bunny Lake Is Missing

Here's another super-cool Saul Bass credit sequence:

AMERICAN GANGSTER

American Gangster (2007) dir. Ridley Scott
Starring: Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe

***1/2

“American Gangster” surprised me by setting itself apart from “Carlito’s Way”, “Casino” and “Goodfellas”. Ridley Scott's film is more like Michael Mann’s “Heat” than anything else. It’s set in the 70’s but it’s not about the 70’s. The film is also worthy of the starcasting of Crowe and Washington as adversaries on opposite sides of the New York heroin drug war. Ridley Scott directs a surprisingly lean and focused film about the exploitation of American capitalism. Despite its simple title, it’s a smart film about a complex business.

The film takes place between 1968 and 1976. Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) is a bagman for a local Harlem mobster who dies at the opening of the film. A number of other gangsters quickly assemble to fill the void. Lucas sees his opportunity and sets off to become top of the food chain in the drug business. Lucas is as smart a businessman as he is a thug and Ridley Scott shows us in detail Lucas’s passionate dedication to creating his empire. Lucas is an early globalist and actually makes a trip into the jungles of Thailand to buy pure heroin at the source. Meanwhile, the cops led by an undercover agent with Serpico-like scruples named Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) frantically searches for the supplier of Lucas’s new brand of potent Heroin. The film becomes a cat and mouse game between the two characters over the course of 8 years. And in the end they find out they have more in common than they realize.

The underlying theme of the film is capitalism - how Frank Lucas used all the skills and experience from his lifetime of crime to exploit the economic system of supply and demand. He establishes a personal set of rules which allows him to quickly replace the boss of Harlem (like Tom Peters' "In Search For Excellence" adapted to the drug trade) 1) show strength and confidence. 2) Bypass the wholesaler and buy straight from the source 3) Sell a good quality product and low prices – watch Lucas’s confrontation with Nicky Barnes (Cuba Gooding Jr.) for a wonderful scene demonstrating his firm grasp of this pricing principal. Lucas’s fourth rule may only apply to drug dealers – keep a low profile.

Lucas indeed keeps a low profile and uses race to his advantage. Lucas goes about his business with little flair and flash as his competitors- the Italian mob. In a city where the Italian mob rules the streets Lucas, as a black man, stays off Roberts’ radar for a long time. There’s a scene midway through the film where Lucas loses concentration and slips up. It’s a minor moment with drastic ramifications. When Lucas realizes his mistake it’s a great moment of acting for Denzel.

Russell Crowe matches Denzel’s chops in the acting department but writer Steve Zaillian is a little sloppy in fleshing out his character. Roberts has a child with his ex-wife Laurie (Carla Gugino) and is going through a custody hearing. The contradiction for Roberts is that for a man so responsible in his job he shows a remarkable lack of responsibility in his family life. This is all in the script, but it’s told to Roberts (and us) in dialogue. Roberts doesn’t learn it for himself. In the end Roberts makes a sacrifice to do the right thing, but it's too much of an aside to affect his life and his work.

Aside from a few songs and one music montage “American Gangster” stays away from being a nostalgia-fest. Films about the 70’s usually feature the songs of the era to put the audience in the period ie. De Palma’s disco-Godfather tale “Carlito’s Way” or Scorsese’s Rolling Stones-heavy “Casino”. Scott creates his own path in the genre by limiting his use of period music. In addition Scott’s colour palette is dark and muted. The film is rooted in the New York City grey, as opposed to the disco colours of the other aforementioned films. As such “American Gangster” doesn’t look like a film about the 70’s, which allows it to exist on its own.

“American Gangster” is a refreshing take on the cinematic world of New York mobsters. Ridley Scott is certainly more than comfortable with action, but his film is heavy on character and procedure and low on action. The film works best as an enlightening essay on the economics of drugs and how well it adapts into American big business.

THE THREE STOOGES

The Three Stooges 1934-1936
Starring: Moe Howard, Larry Fine, Curley Howard

****

By Greg Klymkiw

When I look back upon my life, I recall – with considerable fondness – some of my favourite activities: eye-pokes, open-hand-forehead slams, double and triple face slaps and uttering such immortal threats as, “I’m gonna murderize you.” On occasion, when greeted with anything that inspired excitement and/or terror, I’d launch into a series of high-pitched “woo-woo-woos” and, of course, upon hearing something vaguely amusing, I just loved responding with a hearty, “nyuck-nyuck-nyuck”. These days, I find it difficult to engage in such activities. When I do, I am greeted with looks of horror and the kind of hurtful verbal ejaculate best reserved for those in asylums.

Things were so much simpler at the age of six. The abovementioned activities were never received with scorn (save for one’s elders) and, in fact, offered a healthy less-violent alternative to the usual childhood games of the time: Cowboys and Indians, Cops and Robbers and recreations of World War II. Nothing like having your eyes poked. And even better, nothing like successfully blocking an eye poke and delivering a good healthy face-slap.

Thanks mainly to the joys of television syndication most late-baby-boomers and early-gen-Xrs discovered the cinematic genius that was The Three Stooges as they settled into the after-school boob-tube marathon in their living rooms and rec-rooms. Occasionally, some of us during those halcyon days even saw them on a big screen as shorts preceding features during kiddies’ matinees at ramshackle nabes (in Winnipeg, it was the North End’s Deluxe/Hyland Theatre). And sometimes, when we were very lucky, our local community centre would show two or three hours of Three Stooges in a row on 16mm.

Amazingly enough, our parents and grandparents experienced The Three Stooges on the big screen - where they were meant to be seen. However, unlike most other big-screen comedians like Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello, The Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, etc., The Three Stooges were never really popular in the medium of feature length motion pictures. In fact, they only made five top lining appearances in features in the latter stages of their careers, as well as occasionally guest appearances in features.

The Three Stooges gained all their fame from starring in almost 200 short films. From the early 30s to the late 50s, the Stooges were the most popular, most requested, most beloved live-action stars of short cinema – worldwide. Their lightning-paced comic anarchy was pure slapstick – a series of physically violent set pieces that careened insanely and brilliantly into such surreal realms that they verged upon, if not rivaled Luis Bunuel at his most bizarre.

Now, thanks to the efforts of Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, we can all relive the experience of these three whack-jobs in the best possible way – painstakingly, gorgeously restored DVDs of Columbia Pictures’ original Three Stooges, presented in their exact order of release in this magnificent first two-disc volume that includes every single one of their shorts produced between 1934 and 1936. While, the Stooges themselves had a variety of onscreen personnel changes before and after the period represented on these discs, it is safe to say that the trio on display here deliver some of the most brilliant comic work ever committed to film. Led by the mean-spirited Moe Howard with his trademark bowl haircut and a variety of the most vicious slaps, kicks, stabs, punches, whacks and eye-gouges imaginable, we are equally amused and delighted by Larry Fine and his trademark pate flanked with curly locks and Moe’s brother, Curly, the slightly rotund and bald whiner.

This volume includes 19 knee-slapping comedy shorts and when viewed in theatrical release order, one sees a well-oiled comedy troupe (they already had many years as vaudeville comedians) that gets only better with each successive film.

Most of the movies feature the Stooges as either homeless or working class bumpkins who, in spite of their brutish ways, manage to keep an upper hand over the establishment ruling class. They were kind of like Chaplin’s “Little Tramp” without the sentiment or The Marx Brothers without the snappy verbal wit. The Stooges were ham-fisted butchers of the English language and reveled in the most lowbrow violent slapstick.

This is not to say their comedy is in any way inferior. In fact, some of it is downright genius. In the short entitled “Restless Knights”, the Stooges engage in a wrestling match/exhibition that recalls Chaplin’s boxing match from “City Lights” in its sheer comic virtuosity – physical humour of the highest order. In “Uncivil Warriors” we get a hilarious spoof of both “Birth of a Nation” and “Gone With The Wind” (albeit with eye-poking). In “Disorder in the Court”, the boys defend the virtue of a sexy dancer while making utter manic mockery of the justice system. And, for those who take delight in anachronistic political incorrectness, look no further than the utterly offensive, but urination-inducing “Whoops, I’m An Indian!” These, of course, are a few of my favourites in this collection, but I seriously must admit that I laughed pretty uncontrollably through most of the collection’s 340 minutes.

This is an absolutely terrific DVD. It represents movies with a truly multi-generational appeal – so much so, that I am pleased to report that my six-year-old daughter has also become a Three Stooges fan.

Thanks to Sony’s painstaking work, I not only look forward to the subsequent volumes (some of the Stooges wartime shorts are truly unbelievable – jaw-droppingly funny swipes at Nazis that put Chaplin’s “Great Dictator” to shame), but I’m thrilled that they hold up to my contemporary scrutiny and most importantly, that they have a truly universal and perhaps timeless appeal (if my daughter’s enthusiastic response is any indication).

Simply put, The Three Stooges are commedia dell’arte as re-imagined by Salvador Dali in the Borscht Belt. And besides, who could not appreciate a comedy troupe that are so truly beloved by Mel Gibson that he not only impersonated them in the “Lethal Weapon” movies, but produced a TV-movie biopic about them. Besides, with all that scourging, isn’t “Passion of the Christ” kind of like a feature-length Three Stooges short with Pontius Pilate as Moe, King Herod as Larry and Jesus H. Christ as Curley?

In any event, if you love The Three Stooges, this is definitely a must-own DVD. If you’ve never really experienced The Three Stooges, rent it – they must be seen to be believed and this first volume is the best way to do so.

If, for some reason, you don’t love The Three Stooges, allow me to gouge your eyes out with a hearty “Nyuck! Nyuck! Nyuck!”

Or maybe I’ll just “murderize you”.

Or worse, I’ll get Mel Gibson juiced-up and sick him on you.

Buy it here: The Three Stooges Collection, Volume One: 1934-1936

SICKO

Sicko (2007) dir. Michael Moore
Documentary

***1/2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RATATOUILLE

Ratatouille (2007) dir. Brad Bird
Voices by: Patton Oswald, Ian Holm, Brian Dennehy, Lou Romano, Brad Garrett, Peter O’Toole

**1/2

Critics went overboard on the praise of “Ratatouille”, another Pixar/Brad Bird collaboration, the previous of which resulted in “The Incredibles”. Of course the animation is fantastic, and the restaurant environment provides an interest locale for more computer animated animal hijinks, but the film is surprisingly devoid of the interesting and funny characters that we have come to expect from these blockbuster films.

The lovable protagonist in the film is a talking rat named Remy, an outcast rodent from the country who despises the diet of garbage and leftovers eaten by his family. He yearns for a better life, a life of culture and haute cuisine. So he leaves his family and travels to the big city - Paris - to eat in style. Remy’s idol is the world famous Parisian celebrity chef, Gusto, who has recently died and whose restaurant has lost its ‘stars’ and become a shadow of its former self. But while stealing food from the restaurant he accidentally prepares the best soup Gusto’s has ever made and had it served to a customer. It becomes a hit, and when the head chef asks who made it, the only person in the room to take credit is a lowly kid janitor named Linguine.

In order to save his job Linguine and Remy are forced to work together to cook not only the soup but a series of other fabulous dishes Remy has invented. They develop a system where Remy controls Linguine’s movements by tugging at his hair while hiding underneath the hat on his head. The ploy works until Linguine’s greedy head chef Skinner discovers his secret. The only way for Remy and Linguine to save Gusto’s from being taken over by Skinner is by hijacking the restaurant and wowing the snobby food critic that took away it’s stars.

I’m reviewing “Ratatouille” long after the film made gobs of money around the world and critics hailed the film as a masterpiece – check out the 97% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. And so when the film sailed along on a very predictable narrative path with barely a chuckle from my face, I was more than surprised. Remy is a fine character and Bird’s cooking sequences are cleverly constructed. His passion for fine food is a pleasant ironic twist of character. But the story arc is shamefully predictable and all the other characters in the film are adequate story placeholders.

As well, I don’t understand why Remy couldn’t actually talk to Linguine. They communicate with each other like they speak each other’s language – Remy shakes and nods his head when Linguine speaks to him - but we only see Remy talking to his other rat friends. As a result I never felt a true connection between these characters who needed each other so much. If indeed they could have a dialogue between each other this would make their relationship so much more interesting.

We now take for granted the phenomenal animation these new CG films create. The Paris Bird creates is as photo realistic as ever. Watch the lighting effects and the way the camera can change focus in a shot like a real camera. Top marks on all levels here.

But my main complaint is that it just wasn’t that funny. Of course, humour is a matter of personal taste, as it’s mostly an uncontrolled involuntary reaction. But I didn’t laugh at all in the film. Brad Bird just didn’t have the supporting characters like, say, the Gingerbread Man from “Shrek”, or the Penguins from “Madagascar” or the Swat Team from “Monsters Inc.” to make the comedy soar.

“Ratatouille” bests all other films on a technical level, but in terms of story and humour it’s unfortunately only competent.

AMAZING JOURNEY: THE STORY OF THE WHO

Amazing Journey: Story of the Who (2007) dir. Paul Crowder, Michael Lerner
Documentary

***

Firstly, they certainly could have thought of a more creative title. Anyways, the road from working class London to becoming British invasion pop stars to rock opera Gods is always a good story. The Who's journey is as salacious as any – humble beginnings, tempestuous infighting, drugs, sex, death, child porn. It’s all in a career’s work for Roger Daltrey, Pete Townsend, John Entwhistle and Keith Moon.

The Who started out in London England in the early 60’s influenced by what inspired many of the bands at the time, American Blues and Skiffle. It so happened the most obscure member of the band bassist John Entwhistle was the most talented and was one of the first members along with singer Roger Daltrey. Though I do wish there’s was more deconstruction of their music, I was pleased enough to see, at the opening, the emphasis on John Entwhistle’s amazing bass licks on the definition of their distinct sound. We then learn how Pete Townsend and drummer Keith Moon joined the band. The 60’s takes up most of the film highlighting their early gigs, their influence from and on the Mod culture and their lead up to their first big breakthrough, “Tommy”.

It’s amazing that every three or four years there’s a major beat in their career that puts them back on the map as relevant and influential artists. In the 60’s there was the smashing of their instruments which, early on, became their gimmick. Though I really wanted to know just how many instruments they've smashed in their career and how many instruments they carry on the road with them. I guess that’s a trade secret. Some of the other career benchmarks include the legendary Monterrey Pop Festival. There’s some clarification of the rock myth about the argument over who would go on first, Hendrix or the Who. A good chunk of screen time is devoted to the production of “Tommy”, but for me not enough about the even better album, “Who’s Next”. We get to hear anecdotes about the great song, “Baba O’Riley”, but nothing on “Won’t Get Fooled Again”. I guess I’ll have to watch the “Classic Albums” episode on that one.

Unlike many other top 60’s bands, in the 70’s “The Who” got bigger and better. “Quadrophenia”, “Tommy-the Movie” and “Who Are You” kept them on the map. There’s also their accidental influence on the British Punk scene in the late 70’s. It seems over the years, the band kept getting bigger and cooler. Then, of course, Keith Moon dies in 1979. If there were a top ten of ‘craziest rock lifestyles’ Moon’s would certainly rank high. Though his bandmates and colleagues reflect poignantly on the loss of his life, they also don’t hesitate to say that if anyone had it coming it was him. Daltrey sums up Keith Moon best when he says, “whatever Keith was given by anyone, he would take it.”

I assumed the film would end after 1979, certainly the creative output of their careers died, and so I expected the film to slowly peter out after then. But surprisingly there are some more dramatic beats in the 28 years after. We learn about the uncreative 80’s that saw the band breakup and how the bandmembers suffered from rock withdrawal. Entwhistle – perhaps the most interesting band member – spends all his money on clothes, and Daltrey and Townsend get back into drugs after almost a decade of cleanliness. It's hilarious listening to Townsend’s admonition that the reason they got back together in the 1990’s to tour was to get Entwhistle out of debt – twice. And the details of Entwhistle’s death in 2002 is a head-scratcher. With a smirk they describe the joy with which Entwhistle must have left this earth – after a concert, in his hotel with a naked girl and some lines of cocaine. And the man was 57 years old. Wow.

I was wondering how Townsend’s child pornography allegations would be brought up and dealt with, but Townsend surprisingly does address the issue and put it to bed. The film successfully defends him and makes it a non-issue.

The presence and sound bites from likes of Eddie Vedder, a polite Noel Gallagher, Sting, The Edge and more add even more credence and perspective, on the influence of the band. Their music also sounds fantastic of course. There’s nothing terribly juicy or earth shattering about the film though. And much of it is a boilerplate narrative. It doesn’t hit the bar of Julien Temple’s “The Filth and the Fury”. Missing is, well, the filth and fury of that film. But for fans of the band (like myself) it’s comprehensive enough to make it the definitive film on “The Who.” Enjoy.

TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY

Terminator II: Judgment Day (1991) dir. James Cameron
Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Edward Furlong

***1/2

Remember when James Cameron made movies? Yes, there was a time when he was the hottest director out there and every 3 years he’d come out with an extravangza bigger than the one before it. Cameron right now is the middle of a Malick-like hiatus which is about to cross 10 years. “Terminator II” arrived with gargantuan hype in the summer 1991. It’s still a fun adventure, but it was better in 1991, than 2007. The film is buoyed by the action and the cool time-traveling link-ups with “Terminator I”, but weighted down by an earnestness which loses the raw toughness of the first film.

Sarah Conner’s (Linda Hamilton) voiceover again begins this installment. She sets the scene and tells us two Terminators were sent from the future to kill John Conner. Of course, the 1984 version failed and got crushed in the hydraulic press of that metalworks factory. Then we see the appearance of the two Terminators. Cameron’s introduction of them is clever. He intercuts Arnold arriving in town, beating some people up and destroying property like he did in part 1, but we also see another slimmer Terminator (Robert Patrick) doing the same thing. Which one is the bad guy? Because of the hype machine, it was no secret in 1991, but if you watch the film without knowing what to expect you will be surprised how well this first sequence plays out.

Indeed, it’s no spoiler to reveal that the traditional Arnold Terminator is the good guy and Robert Patrick’s ‘mimetic poly-alloy’ T1000 is the baddie. Sarah Conner is the big surprise here though. She has grown from a meek victim in Part I into a super bad-ass Terminator-woman in part II. Over the past 7 years she has become a rebellious activist against computer companies (too bad she didn’t take down Microsoft). Now she’s in a mental hospital with no ability to communicate with her son John (Edward Furlong). After finding John Arnold rescues Sarah, narrowly evading the T-1000 at every turn. The film makes a neat left turn when they decide to go after Miles Bennett Dyson (Joe Morton), the man responsible for the robot takeover in the future. Killing Miles just might save humanity. Meanwhile over the course of the film John and robot Arnold develop a surrogate father-son relationship. And in the end Arnold learns what it means to cry before he bites the dust in a pool of molten metal.

“T2” (pioneering the movie sequel acronym) succeeds in trumping the original in terms of action. The best set pieces include the Terminator vs. Terminator battle in the hallway, which turns into a chase through downtown L.A. and into the sewer system; the hospital chase; and the final helicopter chase down the freeway. My wife who sometimes watches my silly movies on the couch while surfing the net took a peak at the nighttime Cyberdine action scene and asked why the T-1000 drives his motorcycle up the stairs of the building. “Why doesn’t he just walk,” she said. I never even thought twice about this plothole before then. I just said, “so he can jump through the glass and fly into a nearby helicopter.” Jocelyn subsequently went back to her computer.

The second act subplot exploring the nature of “feelings” in humans certainly drags and drags – especially in the DVD “Special Edition”. As a 16 year old watching the film I didn’t care, I was still awed by the landmark special effects. But the attempts at humour and poignant reflection on humanity and existence just muddy-up what should be a tough-as-nails thriller. But with pressure to make it palatable and family-friendly and to increase the scale at all levels we all know this was inevitable. It only strengthens the original film, which is still the better of the two. Enjoy.

PS Remember Vasquez from “Aliens”? – Believe it or not, that’s Janette Goldstein who now plays John’s whitetrash stepmom - Janelle

TRANSFORMERS

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

***

I’ve taken a lot of heat for liking this film. It is possible to like Michael Bay and Bela Tarr at the same time? Of course. Watching “Transformers” on DVD - my third viewing - still brings childlike excitement to me. The story is completely ridiculous and paper thin, but Bay's enthusiasm for the art of action makes my eyes dilate.

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

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

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

Bay makes the CGI look so good because he puts them into real situations, real locations, real sets with real people. In the hands of someone like George Lucas who overuses the technology, the film could have quickly turned into an animated film. But we never feel as if we’re watching animated characters. The destruction is utterly real and knowing Michael Bay’s track record he probably destroyed a lot of property. The special features on the DVD confirm this. Love him or hate him, he must be commended for his enthusiasm for the work and his strict adherence to real, on location, hands-on filmmaking.

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

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

I was a big Transformer fan in the 80’s and I take no offense to the creative changes to the story or design. Watch the Special Features to explain why the robot designs differ from original cartoon. I’m mean come on, it’s not “Lord of the Rings” or “Harry Potter” – “Transformers” should not be that precious.

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

And so, like the divergent audience of Bela Tarr – if you don’t like “Armageddon” or “Bad Boys II” or “The Island” don’t watch “Transformers” and if you do, your criticism will fall on deaf ears. Enjoy.

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD

Night of the Living Dead (1968) dir. George A. Romero
Starring: Duane Jones, Judith, O’Dea, Karl Hardman, Marilyn Eastman

****

I must confess for 32 years I’ve harboured a horrible secret. I had never seen “Night of the Living Dead”. And I only caught it accidentally on late night television a couple days ago. But it was worth the wait, and I can now understand and appreciate the influence for George Romero on cinema. “Night of the Living Dead” deserves all of the praise – it’s an indie zombie classic that hasn’t lost anything in age. Though almost 40 years old, it feels as modern and relevant now as it did then.

The opening is in a cemetery where arguing siblings Johnny and Barbra visit the grave of their father. Then randomly a stranger attacks them. Johnny is killed and Barbra is chased to a nearby abandoned house. When more zombies start attacking the house, Ben, a heroic stranger arrives to save Barbra and seek shelter with her in the house. After Ben boards up the house and fights off more zombies he finds out the basement is occupied by other victims – Harry and Helen and their sick daughter Karen and a young couple, Tom and Judy. Over the course of the night, the internal conflict within the group – specifically Ben and Harry – is almost as great as their fight with the assailants outside.

The broadcast of the film on “Sun TV” in Toronto was horrible. It was dark and murky with bad contrast. And at times it was difficult to even see the characters faces. Of course some of this is due to the low-budget nature of film, but some of it was the bad broadcast tape Sun was using. But rising above this is smart writing and a thoroughly modern cinematic shooting style.

“Night of the Living Dead” is a lean pragmatic film. The characters act in the moment and react to the reality of the situation. There are no backstories to tell or to reveal. Take Ben for example, when he shows up at the house, he briefly explains to Barbra how he got to the house, and from then on he’s about action and survival. With Barbra Ben hardly speaks a word, instead we see the intense details of his preparation for the house. This could have been accomplished technically with a few montage edits to show the passage of time, but Romero shows us everything in real time. Romero accomplishes one of cinema’s oldest rules, establishing character through action as opposed to dialogue.

Romero’s film is the work of a true independent – unlike say, the Corman films, or “Easy Rider”, or the Cassevettes films – Romero produced his film with no Hollywood connections. It was shot in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania with local private money with actors that then or since have remained completely unknown other than for this film. The low budget allowed Romero to employ a handheld style that was ahead of his time. Despite the grainy black and white image it’s a thoroughly modern style that resembles the camerawork of today’s films.

What elevates Romero’s film above any other b-movie, or Corman-style horror film is its lack of pretension. In fact, the film is under-dramatic. So real, it seems like a perfunctory exercise. This approach allowed Romero to inject his trademark social commentary as subtext. Analysts have compared Romero’s zombies to a criticism of capitalism – an extreme form of survival of the fittest social Darwinism. It may be a stretch, but the ironic and tragic ending certainly befits a pessimistic 1960’s society in despair.

Romero also subverts every other Hollywood horror film which came before it. After the arguing about whether to stay upstairs or in the basement the television set is turned on and we get the news reports of the causes of the zombie-infestation. The depiction of the military action and the inept scientific explanations of the phenomenon seem to be direct shots at the classic b-movie horror genre. This is Romero telling us his film is not a Hollywood film, but his own disturbing and frightening inward look at ourselves. Enjoy.

PS “Night of the Living Dead” was improperly copyrighted back in 1968, so the film is in the public domain and available through a number of distributors: I don’t know which the best, so beware.

HALLOWEEN II

Halloween II (1981) dir. Rick Rosenthal
Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis, Donald Pleasance, Charles Cyphers, Lance Guest

***1/2

“I shot him six times, I shot him in the heart!”

John Carpenter’s “Halloween” is a great film, but rarely is its sequel “Halloween II” ever discussed with any reverence. Perhaps because it’s not directed by Carpenter which may knock it down on the prestige level, or perhaps its lumped in with the half dozen sequels which came after it. But discussing “Halloween” without “Halloween II” is like discussing “The Godfather” without “The Godfather Part II”. “Halloween II” is a superb second half of the story, a natural extension from the first film, adding more chilling horror and revealing more of the story which make both films all the more satisfying.

The night of Oct 31, 1978 isn’t over in Haddenfield. “Halloween II” not only links up with Part I, it overlaps the last five minutes of the film. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) the quiet teenage babysitter has just fought off the Shatner-masked Michael Myers and we see Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) shoot Myers six times only to discover his body has disappeared into the night. While Dr. Loomis and the cops comb the streets of Haddenfield and Laurie is taken to the hospital for treatment, Myer regroups and continues his rampage. Myers is a different killer though, he’s not as random as we thought. When he steals a knife from a neighbour’s kitchen he curiously leaves her alive. His murderings seem motivated and by necessity. A series of discoveries by Loomis will reveal why.

Eventually Myers makes it to the hospital where the terror is ramped up to peaking levels. Rosenthal constructs a masterful sequence of terror in the clausterphobic confines of the hospital. One by one the skeleton crew staff bite the dust in even more gruesome fashion. Myers creatively kills with a syringe, a scalpel, his bare hands, and even a scolding hot water tub. When Myers finds Laurie, it becomes a one on one chase through the hospital with Myers pursuing with a calm but relentless Terminator-like assault. Loomis eventually makes the connection between Laurie and Myers, and arrives at the hospital just in time to save the day,

“Halloween II” feels like a real and necessary sequel because it expands on plot threads from the first film and provides the satisfactory closure missing in the first film. Some may say the randomness of Myers’ killing or the open-ended ending made it scarier. I disagree. Knowing Myers’ motivation and the patient 15-year wait before his premeditative attack is even more chilling than the randomness.

Rosenthal smartly mimics John Carpenter’s style to make his film fit nicely alongside the first. Carpenter wasn’t so far removed from the project either to make it completely Rosenthal’s film. Original creators Carpenter and Debra Hill co-produced and co-wrote the sequel and Carpenter composed the score again. And so, with the same actors, it’s all but Carpenter’s film. In fact, in interviews Carpenter’s said he should have directed the sequel, but his career was blossoming too fast at that point.

Rosenthal is no slouch though. The hospital sequence is as good and scary as anything in the first film and arguably the film reaches even higher levels of dramatic intensity. The creepiest shot in the film is Myers slowly walking down the steps, scalpel in hand, in time with the beat of the music.

The film is book ended with a counterpoint song, “Mister Sandman”, which reinforces the theme of Strode’s living nightmare which will continue to haunt her the rest of her life. And Loomis’s heroism at the end is the correct way to close out his character. Throughout his time in the mental hospital, Myers’ battle was with Loomis – a battle which Loomis lost, and for which he needed redemption. “Halloween II” is as much about Loomis as it is about Strode or Myers. Enjoy.

Buy it here: Halloween II