Just because it is doesn't mean it should be....an epic

All right, I’ll admit it. I’m a sucker for Hollywood. I say that not in my defense, but in my self-discovery. After sitting through all 160 minutes of Baz Luhrman’s sweeping epic Australia, I came to the inevitable conclusion that despite its lengthy run time, paint-by numbers plot, and unabashed melodrama, I actually enjoyed the movie. Sure I didn’t buy most of the plot for one second, but since when are we really supposed to believe all of the Technicolor glamour we’ve seen on screen for ages? In the end what did it for me was that the style and execution mostly outweighed the parts that I could have done without.

The world is on the brink of the Second great war, and the demand for beef is rising. Such are the conditions that English aristocrat Sarah Ashley finds herself in when she unexpectedly becomes heir to a cattle station in Northern Australia. When arriving in Australia, Sarah finds herself in the midst of great hardship resulting from cultural differences, and the sudden doom her company finds itself in. Soon, she befriends a young Aborigine boy, dubbed by he country’s intolerable race laws as a “half-caste”. The boy is the son of an aborigine female and a white male, and will soon be forced to a sector of the continent so that “the black may be bred out”. When Sarah discovers corruption within the business she must put her faith in a rough cattle herder known as drover. The three form an unlikely team to try to restore the name of the ranch, and are still forced to deal with the impending bombing of Darwin, Australia by the Japanese militants.

This film is a very deliberate homage to the John Ford epics of the past. Luhrman said himself that he set out to make his own Australian Gone With the Wind, and the comparisons are hard to miss . The actors seem to sparkle on screen in a kind of luster that is reminiscent of the golden age of Hollywood. Australian born Luhrman has a keen knack for visual flair that while is often-times breathtaking is still other times distracting with his over use of CGI shots. Luhrman’s camera urges us to soak up the vast Australian landscape with impeccable tracking shots. The 3-act film has so many plot points that it can be tedious to try and soak all of it in, especially considering the film is nearly 3 hours in length. It is a fantastic film to look at though, with lush cinematography and strong performances practically daring audiences to look away.

3.5/5

A word about ratings....

I recently read a brilliant article from Roger Ebert' s blog entitled "you give out too many stars". In it, Ebert goes to great length to defend his position in the terms of legendary critic Robert Warshow: "A man goes to a movie. The critic must be honest enough to admit that he is that man." Ebert, like most of us who view several films a month ultimately do it because we love movies. I use the term movies here in its most classical sense. That is to say, all kinds of pictures. Pictures that inspire, make you laugh, cry, or invoke anger. Pictures that revel in their own campiness, or melodrama. Pictures that sell-out multiplexes for weeks straight. Pictures that are viewed often times in the arthouse theaters that seem to desperately tread water in an industry that earns its bread and butter off of formula. So why am I bringing this up now....?

It has been brought to my attention by a few of you out there who happen to read this blog, that I perhaps suffer from a different type of movie rating malaise: That of the critic/man who is impossible to please. I realize that a lot of this may be from the confusion wrought by my own rating system (needless to say, I thouroughly hate most rating systems that are out there..including my own, but I'll get to that later.) So in an effort to rectify such a perception of "film-snobbery" I would like to clarify my position as a movie fan, and my system, as cut-and-dry as it may seem to be, for trying to gauge them.

The trouble with rating movies is that it is not a science. I'm sure there are countless critics out there who will try to convince you otherwise, but something about that belief just doesn't seem fair to me. A film should best be judged out how well it does what it is supposed to do to you as a member of the audience. In this sense, a film should sweep over you, the viewer. It should in a sense, manipulate you into thinking, feeling or reacting a certain way. This makes for a very hard system of trying to pin down where a film stands in regards to others. There are obvious things to consider of course. Did the story resonate in such a way to sustain interest? Are the characters developed enough for the audience to mainain a strong connection? Are the elements of the plot, and the characters themselves consistent in their actions and themes throughout? The hard part comes in trying to put on a scale of 1 to 4 or 1 to 10 how well the film did what it was supposed to.

The reality is that as a "critic" it is never my intention to 'deconstruct' a film to the point of inviting public debate. I am nowhere near learned enough, or in possession of the adequate tools to embark on such a task. My job is to try to express as best I can, what a film did to me. This is of course highly subjective. Most films, and the reaction they incite, are. There are a few obvious exceptions. I mean come on, who's going to argue that you don't gasp when you first hear Darth Vader utter those dreadful words to Luke about their true relationship? But since most films aren't obviously good, or obviously bad, it leaves much room for differing opinion, which is just that. Opinion. Not formula.

Having said that, let me explain briefly why I have chosen the rating system I currently use. The problem with the 4 star system (as with most systems) is that I feel it leaves too much room for comprimise. There will undoubtedly be certain films that jump from being good to great, or good to bad in order to give an easy-to-read scale. All though any scale should be indeed a mere "snapshot" of the quality of the film, a 4 star-system I feel does not best show the quality of the film in relationship to others. Here is the basic run-down of what each of my stars represent.

1 - This is a movie that I practically hated sitting through. It means that I found virtually no redeeming qualities to speak of, and the film did notihng to engage me, or to keep me involved.

2 - This is a movie that I didn't like. There might have been at least a couple good scenes, or an interesting story idea that either wasn't developed enough for my liking or just didn't work well. Nevertheless, it is not a movie that I would endorse seeing.

3 - This is a movie that I liked. It probably did what it was supposed to, and I enjoyed sitting through it. It it is not necessarily a movie that I would champion, but I would still encourage seeing it.

4- This is a movie that I really liked. It was clearly more engaging than a 3, and the kind of movie that after watching it you know it your gut that it was above a 3.

5- This is a movie that I absolutely loved. It is a rare breed, like the 1 rating, because these are the two extremes that are probably the least subjective. It is a movie that possesses some of the above and beyond qualities that seperate it from any normal movie-going experience. This does not mean however, that it was a "perfect" film.

For those of you who prefer the simple endorsement/no endorsement type of rating system, I will be including a simple "stamp" of approval at the beginning of each review. It will be a symbol that I haven't decided on as of yet, but will be the most basic snapshot of what I thought. Think a smiley face or a check mark for good, and a frowny face or an "x" for bad. I would use thumbs, but in today's lawsuit happy world I'm sure I would find that those symbols are trademarked.

Just for the record,, the "good" movie would fall under the 3-5 category, with the "bad" being 1 or 2.

Its wings were crystal...Its ways were murder!

If there is one thing horror auteur Dario Argento does masterfully, it is to create a feeling that sustains and manipulates an audience throughout the course of an entire film. This is in fact, what all of the truly brilliant horror/suspense films do well. One need look no further than John Carpenter's Halloween, Hitchcock's Vertigo, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, the original vampire film Nosferatu, or Argento's other seminal horror flick Suspira. Like these films, Argento's The Bird with the Crystal Plumage owes much of its success to a kind of visceral intensity that plays the audience like a piano. in Argento's case, it is not necessarily taut story-telling, or intriguing characters that mark him as a director. Rather, it is telling a story that is disorientating not so much in form, but in style.

Sam Dalmas is an American writer who has been lving in Rome for quite some time. He and his model girfriend are all set to return home when Sam witnesses something that will dramatically change the course of events for the next few weeks. While walking by a museum late one night Sam notices a struggle within. He realizes that he is witnessing a woman being attacked by an assailent dressed entirely in black. Sam tries to help, but finds himself stuck between two giant mechanical glass windows. the attack ends with the woman lying bleeding on the floor, as the attacker is able to cleanly make a getaway. The authorities, realizing that Sam is the lone witness to the attack, and a vital part of the ensuing investigation, confiscate his passport, preventing him from leaving the country. What slowly pulls the audience into the plot is the fact that Sam becomes obssessed with the idea that he saw something that night that he can't fully explain. It's a haunting realizition that somehow the vital piece of evidence to the case is alluding him, while all the while there like a splinter in his mind. He knows that he knows something yet he doesn't fully know what he thinks he knows. whew!

Argento has been dubbed the "Italian Hitchcock" and it's hard to miss the comparisons in this film. Both directors use all the tauted tricks in their aresenal to keep the audience always at bay, yet thouroughly intrigued. The audience witnessess the crime right along with Sam. We know just as much as he knows, yet throuhgout the course of the film we find ourselves questioning just what it is that we think we saw, and how to best intrepret it. Our theories change, we start to doubt, we start to believe, and ultimately try to understand what it is that is happening. Everything we try to analyze comes from the only means by which the main character has to work with: his memory. There are virtually no flash-backs, no other witnesses but us. This is powerful filmmaking. The one noticeable difference between the two directors is that the acting in the vast majority of Hitch's films are far superior to that of Plumage. Argento almost gets away with it though, by creating a dizzying style of story-telling that is rarely surpassed anywhere else on screen. An interesting film to say the least. Definitely one worth checking out.

3.5/5

These next few posts are long overdue, and for the 1 or 2 of you who might care..I do apologize. If you find yourself bloated and hungover from turkey saturation this weekend, then you should perhaps consider curling up on the couch with family and friends to enjoy....blood...madness...mayhem..Ok, so admittedly the horror genre dosen't evoke feelings of holiday warmth, but nevertheless It's never too late to catch up on your knowledge of horror.

And They Call it Vampire Love...

If you aren’t familiar with the popular Twilight book series that has just spawned a major motion picture then don’t feel left out. I hadn’t even heard of it until a few months back. This was weeks before the last installment of author Stephenie Meyer’s romance stories about teenage vampires was slated to hit bookstores, and talk of the soon-to-be movie was in the air. What you need to know is that the stories have struck a huge chord with an enormous fan-base that has rivaled, if not matched the success of the immensely popular Harry Potter series. The film however, is probably easily forgettable if you are not a fan of the book.

Things aren’t exactly going well for Bella Swan. When her mother decides to move to Florida with her new husband, Bella relocates to live with her father in the small dreary town of Forks, Washington. Adjusting to her “new kid in town” status, Bella tries to cope with being the girl in school who has always known she is different. Then she meets a boy unlike any she has ever met before. The stunningly beautiful Edward Cullen possesses a kind of mystery and danger that almost immediately attracts her to him. Edward is everything that a young girl who claims, “she would die for someone she loves” can toil over, even if his character’s James Dean locks look somewhat absurd atop his clown-faced white skin. It doesn’t take long for Bella to find herself swept away in the intrigue of Edward’s strange behavior and super-natural powers. Bella does what any modern-day teenage heroine would do in this situation, she “googles” the symptoms, only to find that Edward is indeed a true blue vampire. Soon, the two are caught up in an unorthodox romance that will compromise not only Edward’s secret, but Bella’s very own life as well.

If you are under the impression that this is a film about vampires then guess again. It relies almost entirely upon the believability of the romance between the two main characters. It’s not so much about dread or gore, but about the chemistry these two possess on-screen when the sparks start to fly. In fact, the vampire plot-seems to be tacked on almost after the fact of what would otherwise be an incredibly droll teen romance story. In a kind of 21st century consumer culture commentary, the youthful vampires in this picture are driven by what can perhaps be described as pure unbridled lust. The sexual overtones are obvious, but the theme is surprisingly wholesome as well. It’s ultimately a story about two kids who want to consummate their desires, but can’t “lose control” in the words of Edward, or they will both regret it. You see, the mere scent of a human’s blood is enough to send the most self-controlled of vampires into an uncontrollable feeding frenzy, and if Edward were to become too intimate with Bella, he might be tempted to sink his teeth into just a little, and not be able to stop. Bella, as you can probably guess, finds this extremely attractive. Thus the abstinence message is snuck in through the back door on millions of unsuspecting teens lining up to watch this movie.

The bottom line is that this film is poorly acted, and ill contrived in its execution throughout the majority. The target audience however- 16 year old girls, will absolutely love it. It will fail to resonate however, for virtually any other demographic. While having never read the books I could tell that there were indeed some interesting themes in the film that probably deserve to be explored in the written form at greater detail. Twilight will make a lot of money. It will spawn sequels, and break box-office records. It will do all of this, I suspect before the majority of its fan-base will even have time to decide whether or not the book was better. By that time there will be few people left who are unfamiliar with this story.

2.5/5

Bond..perhaps not the way you remember him

Quantam of Solace, if not remembered for being perhaps the most oddly titled James Bond movie in history, will undoubtedly be noted as the departure of the Bond character we have come to know throughout the course of 22 films. The 21st century “blonde bond” finds himself a far cry from the womanizing, boozing, double O agent most of us remember. Instead we find a bond who is conflicted, walking the tightrope between vengeance and justice blindly, leaving his martini “shaken, not stirred” for…gasp. Draft beer! It’s a character that makes screenwriter Paul Haggis appear as though he is trying to ride the wave of success formulated by such recent characters as Jason Bourne and Bruce Wayne. It’s not nearly as good as the previous installment Casino Royale, but it’s a chapter that will fit entertainingly into the impressive James Bond canon.

Picking up immediately where the last film left off, James bond is tormented by the betrayal and death of his former lover. Trying not to let the event make his next mission a personal one, Bond sets out to uncover the truth behind a dangerous organization that is willing to use blackmail and extortion to outwit the MI6 agency. Bond travels to Haiti where he meets the lovely Camille, and stumbles across a ruthless businessman named Dominic Greene, who is known only as a ringleader in the dangerous crime organization “Quantam”. Soon the truth about Greene and his plans to hoard one of the earth’s most valuable resources is uncovered. Along the way, Bond’s character will be tested, and his future in the agency will be put in jeopardy.

The film moves along at a brisk pace with plenty of familiar looking car chases and hand-to-hand combat scenes. The action here is nothing new, and is nowhere near as breathtaking as some of the elaborate sequences explored in Casino Royale. The real gimmick this time around is about the inner turmoil of Bond’s psyche. He is an agent tormented by revenge, and the murky pool of his own squalid emotions. It’s territory that has virtually been unexplored in Bond films until now, and is admittedly not always as fun to watch as the schmoozing debonair of the James Bonds’ before him. The sultry Daniel Craig reprises his role here, and ladies will be pleased to know that he does not disappoint. Using the less is more take on the character, Bond is an enigma with little to say but clearly much to be explored in coming installments. The reviews for the film are already mixed, and time may only reveal that I am in the minority of people who had a good time watching it. It may be that I am a sucker for Hollywood, or that my irresistible man crush on Daniel Craig is clouding my judgment, but this bond, all though nothing like the ones before it, makes me curious to see how this character will continue to develop.

3/5

Madagascar 2 boasts stellar cast with charming characters

Diversity. Comraderie. Forgiveness. Take these not-too-deep meta-themes, a handful of scheming monkeys, crisp animation with memorable characters and you have the formula for another one of Dreamworks pictures’ animated feature films. It may also be a subtle reminder of why their counterpart Pixar still leads the way in terms of innovative and ground-breaking childrens’ movies.

Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa is a funnier, more crisply animated version of the 2005 original. This film boasts a tighter story-line and a stellar cast of voices that beef up the entertainment level for the second time around, giving something for adults to enjoy too.
4 Animal friends are on their way back home to the Central Park Zoo when their plane crash lands in the remote African desert. Much to the gang’s wonder and amazement, they soon meet other members of their species for the first time. Africa soon becomes a place of enchanted excitement, but that soon begins to unravel when they find themselves a bit to unfamiliar with their surroundings.

If you’re considering taking the kids to see this movie and you need a perk for your interests as well, then consider these names for starters: Ben Stiller, David Schwimmer, Chris Rock, Jada-Pinkett Smith, Bernie Mac, Alec Baldwin, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Cedric the Entertainer round out the extremely talented cast with jokes that often are geared towards the adults without being too offensive for the kids. Although it’s not nearly as good as the summer hit WALL.E, (if you or your kids haven’t seen WALL.E yet, do yourself a favor and rent it when it comes out on DVD in a couple weeks. It’s the Citizen Kane of animated movies. Trust me, it’s that good.) It’s still a sweet enough story with just the right amount of laugh-out-loud moments to make you somewhat forget you’re at a kids movie.

3/5

Alert the Academy...

The opening title frames of Clint Eastwood’s new crime drama Changeling reveal to the audience that what we are about to see is indeed “a true story”. It’s the kind of blatant preface that makes you feel as though Eastwood is telling us this up front because it’s the only way we are going to believe one second of the story we are about to hear. Seasoned actor and now lucrative director Clint Eastwood delivers his newest searing drama that is often times very enthralling but ultimately panders to the critics who will choose this year’s oscar winners.

Changeling, inspired by actual events taking place in 1920’s LA tells the story of single-mother Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) whose life is forever changed when her young son is abducted. When the LAPD assumedly retrieves the wrong boy and returns him to Collins, she begins to suspect that she is the victim of a scheme to cover up the city officials’ ineptitude in solving the case. In a turn of events reminiscent of the Twilight Zone, virtually every person in uniform Collins tries to get to help her convinces her that she is the victim of post- traumatic stress. The plot thickens when Collins is forcibly sent to a mental health hospital and a ranch containing the bodies of 20 young boys is unearthed. The film preys heavily on audience’s emotions, in fact it does so much that its tactics begin to wear thin about half-way through the film.

Changeling is beautifully photographed and fairly well acted. Jolie is strong in the lead, and John Malkovich offers a somewhat riveting performance as a local pastor who comes to Collins’ aide by speaking out against injustice and political corruption. The film is so formulaic and melo-dramatic however, that it is ultimately nothing more than an exercise in creating a film that desperately tries to garner itself with accolade. It is a story that is indeed unbelievable but perhaps a snapshot of life in the pre-DNA age, where the instant verification of the relationship between mother and said son would be undeniable. Its faults aren’t so much numerous as they are glaringly obvious. Powerful scenes linger within the epic scope that the film tries to inhabit.

2.5/5