Running Scared

‘Running Scared as Hell’

I don’t believe I can begin to explain how disappointed I am with Wayne Kramer’s Running Scared starring Paul Walker. I recently reviewed Kramer’s more famous work The Cooler and so when I found out Running Scared was his most recent film, I had to see it. In truth, I feel that Kramer must have been struck by the inconsistency bug since he wrote both films and directed them both but one is infinitely better than the other. The reasons why? The writing, acting, and length.

Notice I did not mention direction because it is obvious in this movie that Kramer is a natural director. The visualization of scenes and shootouts and how to piece it all together must have required great vision and a hell of a lot of planning. The effects are mind-boggling and the editing is exquisite. The only real editing/directorial problem is the time. By the end of the movie, you will probably find yourself in the lobby trying to get away for a breather at least before you have to go endure more badly planned twists and turns. The last 30 minutes of the movie should have been cut down and should have been made clear. I still have no idea what Paul Walker was talking about that caused everyone to kill each other on the ice for the big shootout finale. At least the cinematography never relents. Kramer layers on the gritty feel in the scenes and the lighting and camera angles only accent this visual idea. Now if only it had been a good script.

Kramer’s writing isn’t bad, it just is devoid of almost all character emotions. It rambles and twists taking the audience along for a ride to …? Anyone? It honestly reminds me of Ultraviolet, the sophomoric failure of director Kurt Wimmer which, interestingly, share one of the same kid actors. The story of both tend not to follow any emotional continuity between scenes and therefore are strong on style but very weak on plot and acting. Running Scared almost feels like a poorly sketched commentary on corrupt city society. The cops are corrupt, mafia kills at will, pimps will kill their hoes whom have dreams, fathers are abusive, etc. Only at the end of the film after the fake burial of Walker’s character does it seem that the main character’s find peace out on a farm. Other ideas that support this theory that it is really a commentary on corrupt city society is the John Wayne thing going on with Oleg’s tweaked out abusive father and the stupid lines given by the pimp right before he is killed, “say hello to my little friend”, (WTF!!) and even the tangential storyline of Oleg being kidnapped by some scary crazy child molesters and killers. It makes me scared as hell of ever thinking of living near LA (I think that is where it takes place). However, the twists and turns are never explained in any rational manner. Some of it is honestly just too coincidental to be believable which supports my theory, but takes any emotional interest out of the film. For example, after killing the murderous molesters, Walker’s wife (Vera Farmiga) meets with Walkers character and decides to say then that she has seen real evil tonight. No remorse, just regret, probably at living in the city. Well, enough with this theory, time to move on to the acting theory.

The acting theory for this film is very simple. Perhaps if the leading man had been better or at least a more honed actor, the film and it’s underlining points could be emphasized better and contain more empathy from the audience. Walker plays his character a little too angry and over the top all the damn time and honestly I’m hoping he dies by the end of the movie. The character’s one time to really grab the audience is when he tries to have sex with his wife, a little too roughly, when she doesn’t seem that interested. He comes across as a rascist anti-russian sort of thug. At the end, pointing out he is an undercover cop does not excuse his behavior before. The one saving grace for him and his family is that he never hits his family or even threatens to unless he is joking with them. That is it. He treats his poor ailing father appalingly (who never has a real point in the story). Walker feels like someone just walking through the emotions of anxious, angry, and upset all the time and he is such a crummy person that I doubt anyone cares for him. As for his family, Vera Farmiga does a decent job as his wife and there does seem to be some sort of caring for Walker’s character. She plays the part of the distressed mother well. Alex Neuberger does a decent job of being Walker’s son and even Cameron Bright, whom I wonder about being a potential killer of films, gives a great show. I’m sorry if I seem harsh on Bright, but I haven’t seen much acting out of the kid to warrant being a lead kid actor in two movies now. I will say this, he looks creepy as hell and seeing him with a gun brings back memories of the Gorillaz song “Kids with Guns”. It’s true, the kid would be great in a remake of the Caulkin classic The Good Son. Everybody pulls off only an okay job in this film, which is impressive given the wandering storyline. Yet, the main lead actor, who we as an audience should worry about getting killed, does worse than the rest. I was worried throughout the movie for his family, never for him. Walker shows some possible potential, but right now he needs to focus on expanding himself and stick to supporting roles. He’s just not ready to carry a movie. The only actor I found myself truly interested in was Karel Roden who plays a despicable father for most of the film.

Conclusion

A good try on this film and it is very appealing visually, but Kramer needs to make it more concise and clear as a story just what the hell is going on. It needs some better actors in the cast or at least more emotional writing. Perhaps if Kramer had focused more on the relationships between characters instead of the visual tone, the film could have been better. In the end, interesting but might want to be left off of Kramer’s resume.

2.6 out 5

Wannabe

Check out the Feed

Hey everyone,
I just added a new feed so enter yourself if you would like to get random samplings of writing as well as updates on the most current reviews as they come out. Need a good film to see? Just check your email for the feed posts and voila! A review that hopefully will help you choose the movie YOU want. Enjoy and more as I develop the site. Peace!
-Wannabe

Babel

‘Babel speaks well of itself’

Every award season for the last several years there has been some movie that involves a cast of characters and instead of focusing on one major storyline,it tends to focus on the interweaving of human lives into a bigger tapestry. A good example of such a film was the best film winner last year Crash by Paul Haggis which explored the various types and prevalence of racism in today’s society. Last year’s Crash is this years Babel.

If Babel were to garner several Oscar nominations, it would be no surprise to Alejandro González Iñárritu who has an oscar nomination for each film he has made so far. His first film is perhaps the most unheard of, Amores Perros, but it did gain an Oscar nod for possible Best Foreign film. His next film was the more well-known 21 Grams in which most of the actors involved received Oscar nominations. So to say that I entered the film with high expectations should be fair. Thankfully, I was not disappointed. I have never seen his first film but 21 Grams I thought was better than the similar film Traffic. However, I truly feel that Alejandro González Iñárritu has finally come into his own with his recent masterwork Babel. The pace is brisk and energetic and even though the ties between the various characters takes a long time to come together, they do come together and don’t feel forced. The timeline is also well conceived in a minimalistic style so that everything falls into place with a single phone call and a detective visit. High praise should go to Guillermo Arriaga who wrote all of the films directed by Alejandro. High praise to Alejandro for delivering excellent films all the time and for making a film that is very relevant to a world that feels lost.

The film spans 4 major stories that are interlinked. The stories take place in Morrocco, Mexico, Japan, and America respectively and reveal the universality among man to need a connection to others. The film’s plot is really irrelevant (despite the fact that is amazing) except for how well it conveys its ideas and themes. For a film all about the inability of language and mankind to connect to each other, Babel makes its themes and points exquisitely clear. From the deaf Japanes girl looking for love to the unhappy couple who find their love for each other again only after one has been shot by accident. Each story is so unique and heart-wrenching that it is one of the most powerful movies of the year. The real problem for the film come Oscar time is it does utilize an undercurrent political commentary on America post-911. The inability for Brad Pitt to get his wife to a hospital fter she has been shot only to hear it is because the American government stopped the Morroccan ambulance so that they could send in their helicopter and publicize it could easily come off as criticism of American policy and how the government is trying to promote itself to its own citizens through newscoverage and not caring as much about the individuals in trouble. In fact, looking back on all the stories, the only real “bad guy” per se would be the American government. The great news is that Alejandro makes a conscious effort to downplay these elements and does reveal a difference in Americans and the American Government’s current policy. Thank you for that Alejandro, but I’m afraid come award time the political undercurrent might play against you. Or, since Hollywood is full of liberal nuts (supposedly) maybe it will boost the chances for this film.

As for acting, there will definitely be some nominations from this film. Brad Pitt plays one of the more believable and lovable roles that he has ever played. Although he doesn’t seem to stand out from the rest of the remarkable cast as well. Cate Blanchett on the other hand needs to go ahead and prepare a speech for that Oscar nod as her performance is riveting and sad and ultimately uplifting. Very impressive considering the little screen time she is given. The talk regarding these two actors has been very high since the film came out among critics, but I propose two other candidates. No, Gael Garcia Bernal. Yes he does a fine job but his necessity to the plot and his character just aren’t as interesting as others in the film. I suggest the young Morroccan son Boubker Ait El Caid and the deaf Japanese girl Rinko Kikuchi. Both of their performances are so believable and so powerful that you automatically like them even if you don’t agree with what they do. The idea of taking practice by shooting at cars does not seem like a great idea, but it is believable in their acting. These two unheard of actors take risks and drive fill their character’s shoes superbly (Plus Boubker Ait El Caid looks a little like a Middle-Eastern version of Jonathan Taylor Thomas, how cute!). Nobody in the cast stands badly and there is no doubt that you will leave this movie changed and/or affected in some way. This is a must-see movie for anyone truly interested in movies that make you think. If you like fluff, stay the hell away.

4.75 out of 5

Wannabe

For Your Consideration

'For Your Consideration Only'

Christopher Guest, by now almost a household name, has brought his most recent improv movie to the big screen. He is primarily known for the movies Best in Show and A Mighty Wind which features a group of talented actors and actresses improving the story and their way through scenes at a breathtakingly funny pace. He has already tackled dog shows, reunion folk concerts, and now...the Oscars. Sounds funny right? And it is, very funny, but not as commercially palatable nor funny as his past films.

The biggest problem with the film is that it is a film primarily made for film makers, critics, and anyone with a lot of knowledge of the backstage workings of the entertainment industry with a good dose of cynicism. That is not to say that all the jokes are mostly that way, but the few that are fall obviously flat and risk angering the audience when only a few people understand it and laugh, or chuckle quietly as I did. The other problem/asset is that the film is mocking the entertainment industry Oscar buzz and publicity. Normally Guest and company have taken on other fields in which rabid fans exist and make it commercially acceptable by mocking the conventions and personal attachment people achieve. The funniest part of Best in Show (for me at least) was the couple who had to take their dog to the therapist because the felt they had traumatized their baby by having sex in front of it. All of his films show the power of some seemingly inconsequential event and the effect it has over those who "live" for that event. The problem is that there are many actors and audience members who follow the Oscars and consider them not to be inconsequential. Instead of bringing an awareness of the the power of old folk music over people or the crazed desire to win the best fluffy dog prize, the film seems to highlight more the ridiculous and destructive nature of the Oscars and what they mean than the recognition of a job well done. This leads the characters into the problem of playing familiar stereotypes when the true brilliance of the older Guest films originates from the story forcing the actors to create new characters that will quickly become stereotypes by others.

Part of the fun of seeing a Guest film is seeing who from his old cast will be back and what new few will join the prestigious improve ranks of his company. A sure bet is seeing Catherine O’Hara, Eugene Levy, Christopher Guest, Parker Posey, Jennifer Coolidge, and a bunch of others like Fred Willard and Jane Lynch. The great part is that it seems Guest is more than willing to swap around his leads, so once you are a part of the company, at some point you will be one of the leads. In this movie, the main leads are Catherine O’Hara, Parker Posey, and Harry Shearer. However, only one of them manages to pull off a character that can drive the audience. For a long time, Catherine O’Hara has shown acting chops in smaller movies like Home Alone. Finally, she has her chance to shine and she does it well. Her rise and fall during the movie is heartbreaking. If anyone or thing has a chance of being nominated this year, it is her. Parker Posey plays her part admirably but it is nothing amazing and Harry Shearer seems, well…too fake? I mean I realize he plays an actor whose biggest claim to fame is being a commercial actor for a hotdog company, but he never seems to be offended and he almost tries to hard to be “old-timey.” There are plenty of other great characterizations in the film, but honestly there is too much. What do I mean? Well, there are a bunch of people who show up in the film for one scene. Famous people, like Sandra O. The cast becomes so huge and the feel of the film becomes diluted among all the actors and subplots. It slows down the pace and can be very distracting. It also prevents the audience from becoming too involved with the characters when there are so many to keep up with. Plus you have the improv factor.

The improv factor is when you go to an improv show and you can quickly figure out which of the improve actors you like the best. The problem is that there may be certain games or many games in which that person doesn’t perform and when you leave you feel as if you have only seen an okay show. Guest is known for making improved movies meaning that he and co-writer Eugene Levy concoct an over arcing plot and they contrive the elements of the scene such where does the scene start, what happens in the scene and where does it end, but they never decide the dialogue. That is for the actors to do themselves through the chemistry they feel in the moment. In this case, there are so many actors that there are several actors that I wanted to see more of and several actors that I could have done more without.

Conclusion

With all of that being said, the movie is still very funny. The changing of the title of the movie being filmed in the story is a hilarious event and I felt there were several things they could have spent more time on. However, if you are going to see the film preparing to laugh your socks off (yes yes, rock them, I know) and see the best damn Guest film ever, well then you’ll be disappointed. It is a funny film and it comes off well, but here’s to hoping that Guest fixes his next film with a littler company and more focused plot line. 3.25 out of 5

Wannabe

Panic

'Panic...no really'

As a continuation of my William H. Macy appreciation week trilogy, I follow up with this lesser known film which also contains one of my favorite actresses, Neve Campbell. In fact, that's the only reason I chose to watch this film out of the huge canon of Macy's past works. Panic is a film about a man struggling to feel alive again by seeing a psychologist and having an affair with a fellow patient. But before I can dissect, I'm afraid I must dissect the actors first, since the quirks and inabilities seem to overlap.

For whatever reason, this film is very uneven in its acting. Upon reflection, no one actor does a terrible job. The story itself is just so hard to relate to. Macy and Campbell's characters are so messed up that it is almost too bizarre to handle. Maybe it isn't the story itself, but the chemistry between actors. At the beginning of the movie it is hard to recognize any relationship between Macy's character and any other character. As the film progresses, we watch and slowly see the frayed and tense bonds between Macy and his family and the newer frayed bonds he forms with his psychologist and Campbell. The biggest problem is that Macy's character is so detached. As the main character he is hard to understand, let alone empathize with since his character is so detached. At one point he tells the psychologist(John Ritter) that he doesn't think he's ever been angry in his life. Life! Thankfully, the story pushes him out of his shell and toward the end he begins to make more emotional decisions. As for his supporting cast, Campbell plays the confused love starved female with aplomb and Donald Sutherland is great as Macy's dad/boss. Sutherland comes across as spooky, manipulative, and mean in a fatherly way. The only acting choice I have a problem with is Sutherland's attempted accent, it aids the Sopranos complex causes the film to reek for the first half, but more on that later. Tracey Ullman does a great job of playing Macy's wife and showing a more emotional dramatic turn that I am used to (The entire time: That's Tracey Ullman! Or not. Or is! or not...thank God for imdb). The best standout performance though has to belong to John Ritter as the psychologist. He nails the tone of his character and his actions perfectly from the beginning. Not to mention the new look of Ritter with a full head of hair works well to keep his normally over-expressive face subtle. In every scene with Ritter, it's easy to become involved in his plight with his new patient. It's good to see a solid performance by Ritter in something other than comedy.

The director and writer of the film is Henry Bromell. Bromell is a writer better known to television than film, and it shows. The film is incredibly slow paced at first. The title character is fairly uninteresting for the first half of the movie and it smacks of the Sopranos. The Sopranos is obviously a reference to the famous HBO series in which a mafia family is run by James Gandolfini who is also seeking a shrink's help with his many problems. Many issues that were unique and well combed through already by the Sopranos are regurgitated by Panic. It is only later when Macy's character really begins to recover from his world of death does the story become interesting. The change in development of the family business and the relationship between Macy and his parents becomes much more interesting when his ambitions and desires conflict with what's expected. The movie becomes more interesting by becoming more confused and strange, but in the confusion there is a sense of welcome as a change from the everyday of Macy’s character’s life. Ultimately the story has a good denouement, but there will be many moments where you fill find yourself wondering about the sandwich in your kitchen or down the street, or maybe about that guy who took your money in 2nd grade. If nothing else, the redeeming grace is that the story could serve as a message as to why being emotional and rebelling against parents is much better than simply storing it all away. If I thought about it more, there would be plenty to say about the themes and messages of the film, but I'm still too distracted by the quality of the film to care.

Conclusion

Although the film's story has a good payoff eventually, it takes a long time to build up interest despite excellent actors and performances. The cinematagraphy is decent, but in the end Bromell needs more time to hone his tone and develop his writing ability. His directing carries some promise since there is a payoff and he is able to get the actors to maintain the weird and tense relationships, but he seems to have a hard time in bolstering audience empathy because all of the characters seem so disturbed and removed from the "general" audience member. If you are a huge John Ritter fan or you just love Macy (me!), then see this film. Otherwise, this film deserves a :
2.75 out of 5


Wannabe

The Wool Cap

'The Wool Cap gives off fuzzy feelings'

If you are frantically searching imdb.com for more information regarding this little known film, good. You should be. The reason you might not have heard of it is probably because like several of Macy's other works, it was a made for TV movie. Although TV movies are generally of lesser quality than film due to a lower budget, there are always certain specks of sand that pull together to form a diamond ($#!*, a cliche!). The Wool Cap is certainly a diamond worth buying.

The film follows the exploits of a good hearted but mute superintendent of a rundown apartment in New York. He owns a monkey and eventually takes in a black little girl and learns to live again. Sounds like the traditional spoonful of crap cable loves to feed us, except it has great acting! Seriously. From the opening scene and situation, the audience is thrown into this fantastic world of Gigot(Macy). Although mute, everyone knows him and he gets the pleasure of dealing with everyone else's crap. He eventually has a impoverished family forced upon him after helping them earlier which unfold into the twisting TV scenarios everyone has come to suspect. The main difference in the writing is that it seems to focus more on the revelation of Macy's character than the rest of the story, but through these revelations then the rest of the plots can occur naturally and not feel overdone or forced. In retrospect, the script was so well written in terms of content that it's hard to understand why it was not made for theatrical release, but oh well, at least it was made. Apparently it is a remake of a Jackie Gleason film called Gigot. I have no idea what they have in common. I haven't seen the Gleason version, so I hope that they both share the great story since I am adding it to my rent list.

As for acting, there are some amazing portrayals in this film. Macy, as always, is impeccable at conveying emotion, words, thoughts, and even a conversation without ever saying a word. The closest he ever comes is in an occassional whistle. When we first meet Gigot, he seems like a guy who hates his job and is poor but doesn't mind it too much. It's not until about halfway through the story that the rest of Gigot's past is slowly revealed. It is quite the character striptease and it is made that much more fascinating through Macy's excellent miming and characterization. Other great jobs are done by Don Rickles as Gigot's friend and by Catherine O'Hara as Gigot's love interest/hooker. Rickles is highly amusing as the boisterous but good hearted jewish tenant, but shouldn't win any awards or anything. Catherine O'Hara, has put in perhaps the best performance in her career. Primarily known in her comedic roles in Home Alone and the various Christopher Guest films, O'Hara finally waxes her dramatic personae to deliver a poignant and sad character that will grab the audience in each of the few scenes she is in. Now with all of that said, it's time to observe the future of acting, Keke Palmer. Palmer (Lou), despite being very young shows more promise and acting talent than I've seen from Halle Berry ever. Now maybe that's not fair since I haven't seen a lot of Halle Berry films, so instead I'll just say that she holds her own aptly against the much more heavily experienced cast. The chemistry between her and Macy flies as the struggle to understand each other. At times her acting isn't quite right, but 99% of the time she is perfect and expertly handles a lot of the adult themes and ideas inherent in the story. I say give her several more years of training and publicity and she will be garnering awards right and left.

Now, the directing. Steven Schachter is a fairly new director, which is odd that he is able to garner such an outstanding cast. Despite his newly arrived status, it is easy to see why he has arrived at all. The film is wonderfully lit, extremely well-planned and acted, and it draws the audience into it, a feat that most big time directors struggle with. There are only two real flaws with the film, one of which I find highly amusing because you have to know about it. The first flaw is that the film can drag at times. It can become too heartwarming and start to initiate the gag complex, but these spots don't last long and they are few and far enough between to not hurt the films overall impression much at all. The second flaw is that there is one scene that takes place at the Six Flags in Atlanta, Georgia. What? But didn't you...yes, I did. I said it took place in New York. See the problem? I only know this because I recognized my favorite roller coaster in the film as the Georgia Cyclone not only by it's track but also by the giant Cyclone logo on the front of the cart. This flaw is not a big deal since I doubt that half of the country has any idea about the Six Flags in Atlanta, but its still broke the continuity for me. Other than these two flaws, I don't have much to complain about except that Steven Schachter needs to hurry up and make his theatrical debut.

Conclusion

The Wool Cap is an exquisite film with great cinematography considering the low budget I'm assuming it acquired. The cast is superb and the writing is surprisingly good for a TV film, especially since it was partially written by Macy who is known for being more of an actor than a writer (Who knows? Maybe Mamet rubbed him with his magic stick?). Schachter does an incredible job and the only thing to complain about is an occassional slow pace. For a TV film, this is head and shoulders above the competition, but as a general film on DVD, this film deserves a:
4 out of 5

Wannabe

Casino Royale

'OOkay'

Before anything else, quick, take a deep breath and relax. Bond is ok, in fact, Bond is in excellent shape. It's true he's a blond and he's built like a giant pouting brick wall, but no one has given bond such danger and charm as Daniel Craig since the Connery days. At first glance, Craig might not seem like the ideal candidate for the part, but trust me, it pays off well and I am glad to hear he will be back for the next bond film. Their is a glint of sadistic enjoyment at the thought of killing people in Bond's eye. Actually, what makes Daniel Craig perfect for the role, is the perfect poker face. There are several parts of the movie that show how daring and risky the young Bond (his first adventure supposedly) actually is by letting him surprise the audience. Since the main event of the movie revolves around a poker tournament (originally Baccarat in the novel), this makes Daniel Craig an apt and able choice to take on the tux.

In fact, all of the parts are well cast in this movie, with the possible exception of Vesper Lynd. Dame Judy Dench is finally given more room to act and her chemistry with Craig is surprisingly riveting. Le Chiffre, although normally very subdued has an excellent torture scene and is played well by Mads Mikkelsen. (Not to mention that he has a bleeding eyeduct!) The only real casting problem in the movie comes from Vesper Lynd. Oh, I'm not denying Eva Green as a beautiful bond babe. She is one of the more beautiful bond babes I have seen in a while. The problem is that unlike Craig and Dench, Green and Craig seem to have lost that spark in their relationship. (Yes, yes! Cringe!!!) This is especially troubling since much of the script weighs itself upon their ability to convince the audience of the possiblity of Bond falling in love. Craig is a good actor and he holds his own with Dench, so I'm placing the blame on Green. Their just really isn't any chemistry at all! Which makes it especially hard to give a crap when the bond babe dies at the end (Not a spoiler unless you have never seen a Bond film ever). I won't divulge more into this because I don't want to give away the surprise that is in store for the hardcore Bondinians (can i copyright that? no?). Speaking of caring for the characters, now is time to get to roasting some writers sorry asses.

I loved Paul Haggis. Loved him. After Crash the man could do no wrong. Except now, having seen Flags of Our Fathers and Casino Royale...I'm pissed. It's true that he was merely brought on for a rewrite to "touch up" the comedic bits. Well, good luck laughing. There are some truly amusing moments in the film that are portrayed in a dark humor instead of the good natured chummy suave that so many women have dreamed about while asleep next to their husband. This is not what fails, in fact I like the switch from the fluffy comedy to the darker and grittier comedy (has any review of this movie not used the word gritty somewhere yet?) simply because it brings out what I would consider to be the more realistic bond side. Bond was always ten times scarier to me as someone who could pull off a joke and then shoot you in the face while smiling and making the women beside in the theater rip their shirts off and throw them at the screen...okay, maybe my fantasy, but still. The previous incarnations of Bond were definately descendants of the Joker. Anyhow, the problem with the jokes in this film is that they don't work. For the most part they are too unoriginal and have been overdone before. For example, a man mistakes Bond for a valet and tells him to park the car, Bond gets pissed and crashes the man's car on purpose. Add in some canned laughter and voila. Now occassionally Bond delivers some great lines, but they are no where near as good as past films. While I like the change to sardonic dry dark wit, I have to agree with previous reviewers that Haggis was not the man for the rewrites. Even though Haggis let me down, this does not let Neal Purvis nor Robert Wade off the hook.

The real reason this movie fails in my eyes is due to a flagrant disregard for continuity. This is supposed to the first Bond epic right? Well, ok, I can overlook Dench's casting even though she shouldn't be around until the last films. I can even put up with a couple of really bad product placements, but the line "Damn I miss the Cold War" is unacceptable. How the hell does Bond have his first mission in which the Cold War is over and then go back for Her Majesty's Secret Service or From Russia With Love into the Cold War hmm?? Not only that, but the few attempts made at reverting the movie back to what Ian Fleming envisioned as a hardened spy cannot make up for the amount of prop problems. Laptops and cell phones play a prominent role in the first Bond movie and they can't even be mentioned in the early Moore and Connery days. Plus all of the new age stuff doesn't gel with the occassional throwbacks such as the 1964 Astin Martin in the film. (On a sad sidenote, last I heard Astin Martin is being closed down) I see no way that the producers could have been so careless unless either they are restarting the entire Bond franchise, which I hope not since I refuse to watch 20 remakes, or they are lazy sellouts.

This includes Martin Campbell, the director, for letting his film be ruined by corporate advertising. Campbell delivers such a mixed bag of treats and letdowns. The opening chase scene is perhaps the best on foot chase scene ever. Also there are several riveting new-to-Bond film techniques that he employs to draw the audience into Bond's dilemmas at pivotal moments. Yet, for all of the great action, he seems to put only a distant cold face on Bond's romance, which only aggravates the chemistry problem between Craig and Green. Plus, as a director, he had to know that the various product placement wouldn't fit in the timeline of Bond. If nothing else, I blame the continuity problems on the director and producer foremost and on the writers a little. The writers are actualy more guilty of creating a poor plot. The end is hastily wrapped up and if you can explain to me why Vesper has to die, I'm all ears. Honestly, the end comes across as if someone said, "hey! we have 10 pages left, crap!" And the rest was history.

Conclusion

So with all my vitriole and anger excised, what remains? A fairly well done movie. It is heavy on the action and light on the suave romance which will help it to appeal to men mostly. The film's plot is good until the end. And the acting is superb. With that being said, the lack of tons of fun gadgets, John Cleese, and some better romance might deter females. All doom and gloom, then where's the fun? He's friggin 007 people and he kills people, if you don't like it go home. In the end it will be interesting to see what the Broccoli's do next. Will they decide to start making movies of John Gardner's Bond books? Or the more recent writer? Or will they go back to creating their own stories out of the air for Bond now that the Ian Fleming canon is complete. All in all it is an excellent film for a first timer and Craig pulls off daring and risky like never before.
3.75 out of 5

Wannabe

The Cooler

The Perfect Independent Film, ‘The Cooler’

Now, for those who don’t know, I am a self-professed William H. Macy lover. The man seems to be one of the hardest working actors ever and even in films that flop, he still manages to shine like a mirror in the sun. I have long awaited every year to see him receive an Oscar, just one! But no, he’s always overlooked as playing the silent one too well. So yes, this review is probably gently angled in his favor. With that being recognized, I still whole heartedly believe that he deserves an Oscar for his turn in The Cooler. Maria Bello also deserved a nomination. The fact that neither Macy nor Bello were nominated indicates just how stiff the competition was for 2004. At least Alec Baldwin got nominated for his outstanding work.

In Wayne Kramer’s film about an unlucky man and his trip to find happiness, not a single performance disappoints. Baldwin and Macy control the show as they allow the viewer small but insightful glimpses into their disturbing friendship. Baldwin pulls off the feat of being both vicious and protective. He’s like a dog who has found his favorite bone and doesn’t want to let go of it for anything. Macy on the other hand is the unhappy and unlucky employee who struggles to find something worthwhile in his every day. Not only that, but Maria Bello pulls off her part more than convincingly as Lady Luck. Even Jesse Bradley turns in a spirited performance as the annoying undergrad consultant. Wayne Kramer, of recent Running Scared fame, really flexes his director muscle in this piece. How? By not being apparent anywhere in the film. Seriously, the hardest trick for a production to pull off is the feel of being told in front of your eyes for the first time. The shots are all well planned as are the montages, the actors perform exquisitely well and the script, my God, the script is amazing!

From a popular viewpoint the script is good or just okay (hey, it has a semi happy ending which is good, right?), but what most people don’t realize is the amount of work put into a produce-able script. The only expensive location in the film had to have been the casino. By using only a relatively few cheap locations and keeping the excitement to character interactions and dialogue, it allows money that would be tied up in the budgeting process to be freed for things like better actors or more creative editing. Also, the twists and turns jump off the screen at times and makes you re-evaluate what you had already seen. Another great feat of the script is that the presence of Vegas is felt in every character and scene. It’s an oppressive, flashy hammer that pounds on everyone in the movie to create a sense of destiny. I recommend the script to anyone who would think of writing for film as an excellent example of what to write, especially to start off your career as a potential director.

Other great features of the film? The sound editing is actually quite superb in every way. The sound reflects everything from atmosphere to pacing and occasionally allows insight into Macy’s character. The music itself is not necessarily memorable and is mostly the standard Vegas fare, but the sound effects and the timing really adds a lot to this story and is layered and interwoven brilliantly into the dialogue and action on screen. Another great touch was the idea for the special lighting whenever Bernie (Macy’s character) is in a good mood and his luck changes. The lighting adds a nice touch of flare and a brief escape of hope in the audience for Macy’s character since it comes so rarely and he is pitiable.

4.5 out of 5

Wannabe

Welcome (Again)

Hello one and all,
welcome to my site and feel free to comment, in fact please do. Although to comment you must be a member of the blog. I know, I know, that's lame. However, that's how I set it up...cuz I'm lame...I guess. So please join and comment away for better or worse and expect responses occassionally. Peace!

Wannabe

Flags of Our Fathers

‘Flags of Our Fathers’ Waves Short of Expectations

Clint Eastwood is discussing his favorite topic once again, heroes, or more accurately, the real men behind the façade of the hero. In fact, one could say that Eastwood’s entire life is a character study of the heroic ideal. Flags of Our Fathers seems to be a snug fit in the same direction. So, should Eastwood expect another nomination this year at the Oscar’s? No, he shouldn’t.

Whuh? Huh? What happened? The answer, nothing. Eastwood is a talented actor and, at times, a gifted director. However, he is also the biggest cause of the failure of his movies. Many regarded Mystic River as being way too sentimental and over the top and those thoughts apply directly to his latest feature. The problem is Eastwood’s directing style. Unlike most directors, Eastwood is known for taking entire scenes in a couple of long takes instead of doing a multitude of takes as most directors do. Although this style of directing honors his actor’s abilities and can save a lot of money and time for producers, it also assumes that an actor’s first performance is his finest. In the film, it’s possible to see how well informed and directed the actors are about their character and motivation (cliché right? But still), however film does not lend itself to this style of directing. Most theater directors that believe in this idea can never get it right and in theater the actors have one very long take to build and feel the character as opposed to film where they must hit just the right emotional stance and tone as they may have shot the day before on the first try. What really happens as in the case of Adam Beach’s character, Ira, is that the emotions either feel over the top, too sudden, or forced.

Speaking of Adam Beach, as exaggerated he is in the film, he is probably the most interesting to watch. His dilemma is shown as a major thread throughout the film and a couple of moments are so strong that it lets you down when in the next scene it is obvious that he is struggling just to get through the part. The other two main characters Rene Gagnon and John Bradley, played respectively by Jesse Bradford and Ryan Phillippe, are simply unimpressive. Bradford plays the part he always has, the snide and smug rich boy. Phillippe on the other hand is so stoic and wooden that one wonders why he is even in the film until near the end when you realize his son is narrating everything. Philippe and Bradley have one great scene each showing that they have other skills besides looking, smirking, and patting people on the back. Both of the actors fall prey to the style of little rehearsal to flesh out their characters. The surprising star of the film to me is Barry Pepper as Mike Strank. He is rarely seen and has only a few lines, but in his few lines and actions it is clear who he is and what is doing. He is a true hero who understands what’s at stake and when he dies it’s like watching a gruff old turtle curl into its shell for the last time (Oooo, yea weird analogy, I know). In the end, the cast pulls off an overall mediocre performance which is a feat for such a badly edited film.

Editing is a key feature of films and Eastwood should stay away from the crazy timeline sequences. The first 50 minutes or so are incredibly hard to put together for no reason at all besides the fact that the editor probably felt that non-linear timelines are cool. Leave that to Christopher Nolan and others. Focus on telling a good story that actually spends time on developing characters through action and not narration. The wonky editing, uneven acting styles, ridiculous amount if narration, and several obvious blue screen shots detach the audience from the movie, making Eastwood the best Brechtian director ever. At least the war scenes were an improvement. With guidance from Spielberg, Eastwood uses a similar greyed out technique except he ups the gore and violence to reveal more of what a truly terrible experience Iwo Jima truly was to everyone, Japanese and American alike.

Besides the aforementioned problems, it still leaves me wondering why this movie was panned so much more than Mystic River. The honest truth is that I believe it is a death warrant in the timing of the piece. The film is obviously anti-government war but yay soldiers and it appears directly before the elections for Congress. America is stuck in Iraq with no clear answer in sight and watching fantasy films en masse probably in attempt to find their own hero. Their sense of justice personified in some figure, in some idealic form. What Eastwood releases is a movie whose entire point is that most heroes are not heroes at all and don’t like being thought of as such. They are usually just lucky whereas the real heroes are rarely remembered or honored. There you are America! There are the heroic soldiers lying in the dirt, nameless and forgotten! Aren’t you proud of your hero seeking antics? The timing of the film might have been to try and get voters to stop the war in Iraq at the voting polls, but it feels more like a slap in the face to a general audience of Americans who already feel depressed by world events.

Conclusion:

If you get a chance watch it. Don’t break your back over it, but go, watch, and discuss because if nothing else you will want to discuss this movie and it’s heavily emphasized point. The acting has a few gems jutting out over a rough terrain and the war scenes are truly horrific and mesmerizing. Also, the interviews with the war veterans are an interesting addition, even if they do feel tacked on. Besides, Eastwood clearly shows a sympathy in the film for the Japanese which will help him when he releases his follow up film Letters from Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective. It will be interesting to see how the two films overlap. 2.5 out of 5

Wannabe

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

‘Eternal Sunshine’ Illuminates Screens

Charlie Kaufman has finally gotten it right. Kaufman, the man who wrote the screenplays of Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, has once again written an incredible movie. In truth, it is probably his best film to date. Kaufman’s sense of writing involves interesting stream-of-consciousness voiceovers and many psychological character driven scenes. His characters are always lovingly created with a serious humor to them that makes them fun to watch. In the past, Being John Malkovich won appraise and was nominated for several Oscars as was Adaptation. However, the problem with Kaufman’s writing was that it was too intellectual for most audiences, including the Academy. The intelligence of his prior movies could easily keep the audience from enjoying it due to the constant change of pace and rhythm as seen in Adaptation, or the references and allusions in Being John Malkovich. His recent endeavor, known as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, reveals itself to be the perfect balance of intellect and entertainment. The Academy will have no cause to deny Kaufman’s current masterpiece.

Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind acts as a reminder to everyone that ignorance is not blissfulness. Since the movie is about a couple of lovers who want to forget each other but can not, it is much more watchable for an audience. Although the first 20-30 minutes or so are hard to follow at first due to scenes that do not seem to intertwine, the movie quickly remedies itself. At the end, in denouement style, the beginning of the movie is explained and all is revealed by showing the beginning in context of the movie’s time frame. So do not worry that you will not understand at first, because it does get much better.

Besides the story being amazing, the acting is also remarkable. At first the cast list seems fairly hokey, as if the movie was another teen comedy of some sort. Yet, the movie takes itself quite seriously, in style and acting. Jim Carrey plays Joel Barrish, the young man who realizes that his long-standing girlfriend has taken a procedure to forget him and he decides he wants one too. Carrey plays the role as a nervous quiet man and rarely ever uses any of his style of comedy. Instead of playing to the comedy that is inherent in the movie, Carrey acts his character and remains Joel Barrish. It is a delightful breathe of fresh air for viewers and his best job in a movie. His co-star, Kate Winslet, is also spectacular. Her job of playing Clementine, the impulsive and daringly neurotic love interest is touching to the soul. Kate Winslet’s performance of the multi-color haired woman is perfect. Together, Winslet and Carrey seem so real and life-like in their interactions, that they are completely believable.

Other cast members include Mark Ruffalo, Kirsten Dunst, Elijah Wood, and Tom Wilkinson. In many movies, the main characters have to carry the story. Not true though for this one. Kirsten Dunst does a good job and does not come off as just another pretty actress of Hollywood. Tom Wilkinson, Mark Ruffalo, and Elijah Wood all score a touchdown. Despite the fact that Wood’s character as well as Wilkinson’s is almost flat, they are still wonderful to see. All in all, the movie is a soon to be classic and should be watched for this year’s Oscars. Lastly, for all those in love with Elijah Wood, he is sadly not given enough screen time to make it worth your while to ogle him. 4.5 out of 5

Wannabe

Spartan

Mamet’s ‘Spartan’ Gives Suspense New Life

Most suspense movies rely on the same old tricks. Suspense can be done in so many various ways from horror to detective stories. Yet, all genres of movies use the same stylistic tricks and expect the audience to be on the edge of their seat. Occasionally a new movie comes along with a fresh take and is able to actually bring the audience into its world. Spartan is one of the latter.

Spartan’s plot reads like the generic thriller movie, Secret Service bad-ass on the hunt to get back the President’s daughter. The plot summary is not what makes this movie so wonderful to watch. What makes this movie so remarkable is the script and telling of the story. The movie does not go through any explanatory stage. It simply immerses the audience in the action and requires for them to have to pay attention to catch up.

David Mamet, one of America’s leading playwrights, wrote and directed the movie. He uses amazing cinematography to keep the audience wanting to know what will happen next. In fact, the suspense almost never stops. The best part is that Mamet refuses to use the overdone method of slowing down at key points in the film. He tells the story well, grippingly, and quickly so that the audience never has a moment to relax. As for the script, it is an amazing script because it denies every normal twist and turn that thrillers take. The revelations in the movie are all well contrived and inventively done that it surprises the audience instead of bores them. There are a couple of Mamet features in the script that pop out, such as using the “f” bomb a LOT and very terse dialog. However, the story, using a hackneyed formula with a fresh telling and new twists, gives the audience the sense of something familiar but still interesting.

Mamet is not the only one to be taking the credit for the movie. Val Kilmer, who plays Scott, does his best job of acting since Top Gun. Val Kilmer should no longer be maligned as a pretty boy of Hollywood after showcasing his astounding acting talents in this movie. With so little dialog, Kilmer is still able to let the audience in to see the man behind the bad-ass agent, something that many film actors don’t seem to be capable of any more. Plus, if you’re a fan of one-liners, then you don’t want to miss this movie. Kilmer’s one-liners are great and will make you re-quote them for hours. However, Val Kilmer isn’t alone on the list of great actors. Derek Luke, William H. Macy, and newcomer Tia Texada help fill out the other roles as well and none disappoint. All the actors/actresses perform together amazingly well and don’t feel contrived at all.

The cast is amazing. The script is wonderful despite the everyday plot summary. Also, the directing is first-class. So what is there not to like? Well, one good complaint would be that characters the audience begins to like will die. People seem to just be killed off left and right and leave an almost Shakespearian feel near the end. Despite this one annoyance, Spartan is an amazing experience that has been under publicized. If you are looking for the next Silence of the Lambs breakthrough experience, step right up and see Spartan. 4 out of 5

Wannabe

Van Hellsing

Van Hel-sink

The most recent offering from Director Stephen Sommers of The Mummy and The Mummy Returns fame is the ludicrous Van Helsing. Helsing is about the plight of one man to learn his past by killing off the evil creatures that rule the world. Sound familiar? Hugh Jackman plays Van Helsing, the famous murderer/hunter for a secret Roman agency. He is assigned to hunt and kill the infamous Dracula. That, is where the movie begins. Throughout the movie, Helsing will find and duel with many creatures of movie and literary fame. As promising as this movie seems, it fails to work on many levels. Its use of foreshadowing ruins almost all of the twists. Cliches run rampant and can easily annoy the spectator. The plot, although as promising as it might seem, is only good for satisfying the director’s hunger of old horror lore. That and for creating amazing fight scenes, one of the few places that the movie actually succeeds.

Hugh Jackman as Helsing is a throwback to Wolverine from X-Men. Jackman proves that he is supreme at being the bad-ass. Except, Helsing is more of an early 19^th century Bond than a raving chip-on-his-shoulder mutant. Helsing works for a secret agency, uses a lot of gadgets, and has a Helsing girl, Anna Valerius. Kate Beckinsale plays Anna Valerius, the last of the Valerius family and the love interest of Helsing. After all, Kate Beckinsale is gorgeous. The entire movie the audience is allowed to see Beckinsale beaten up worse than a pane of glass by snail mail. The fact that Beckinsale is able to believably imply that she is a fierce fighting machine is a testament to her staying power. However, the kudos of the movie goes to David Wenham as Carl and Richard Roxburgh as Dracula. Wenham’s delivery of lines and portrayal as Carl the friar lets the audience laugh at what would otherwise be a way too serious clichéd film. Roxburgh’s emotional changes from calm to emotionally enthralled is gripping to watch. He adds a level of unanticipated menace to a character that many had believed to be already dead.

Sommers insistence for an epic through horror film nostalgia, there are many special effects. The good news is that the CG animation is amazing. The bad news, it can become annoying at times. The graphics of the movie are put through such depth and shown so vividly, that one can’t help but to watch in awe. The fight scenes rely heavily on graphics since most of the bad guys are monsters. Not only that, but the music and the sets for the movie are fantastic. It is hard to tell between what is CG or set and what is real in the movie. Everything blends together seamlessly, something that is very hard to do for most directors. So why is that bad? The problem is the animation is used on such a large scale that at many points throughout the film the audience is given a Brechtian jolt and spends more time oohing and aahing than watching the film or plot, even if there is very little of it.

Recap of the movie: decent acting, great fight scenes, good animation, music, and locales, and a long nostalgic run through horror land. Unfortunately, bad dialogue and cliché imagery is saturated throughout. The plot itself is an amalgamation of other ideas contrived to let Helsing run rampant. The fact that Sommers loves horror characters and lore is apparent. What isn’t apparent is any cinematic innovation.The script relies too heavily on deus-ex machina. The foreshadowing is so blatant that anyone can figure out the next step in the plot. What the movie needs is more misdirection for hints and less clichés. Not more CG. 1 out of 5

Wannabe

Purr poise

Alright, so here's the deal. I'm an aspiring director/writer/and actor for film and theatre. But guess what? I have a hard time finding a job in the world of entertainment for various reasons. Therefore, I'm creating my own small miniature world here, online. Mostly this will be a site of serious film reviews with a healthy spattering of Q&A sessions if anyone feels like getting a hold of me and possibly a pinch of my own small scriptwriting talent. I understand if you don't like me, I'm not a fun internet pundit. However, I guarantee to other film makers out there that I will try, like most critics should, to put a fair and honest portrayal and explanation of what did and didn't work in the films. First, there will be several old film reviews followed by my newest one concerning Flags of Our Fathers. I will not stick to film in theaters since I am a poor fellow and will more than likely hit up netflix DVD's more often. With all of that introductory trash out of the way, grab your stirrup and hat.

Wannabe