Munich

'Munich is something to munch on'

Munich is one of those movies that was widely acknowledged last year as being nominated for best picture as a honor to its director Steven Spielberg without any real expectation of winning. It was lauded before it came out as being a great work since it was the melding of Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner, the mastermind behind the play Angels in America. The movie was released, considered okay, but not amazing as everyone had hoped for it to be. What happened? The cast included several well known actors including Geoffrey Rush and Eric Bana plays the main character. In fact, the current Bond, Daniel Craig, had a big part in the film. Many articles and critics focused on the historical accuracy of the story itself as being flawed and therefore producing a flawed movie. Some decided to focus more on the fact that the movie feels too heavily prejudiced in favor of Israel. Since I have little knowledge of the actual events upon which the film is based, hopefully my review will be different in explaining the reasons for its failure to capture audiences and critics, although I am of the belief that America supports Israel a little too often in the Middle East.

Most of the history upon which the film is based comes from the events surrounding the hijacking and execution of the Israeli Olympics sports team by an Islamic group of radicals in the film known as Black September. After the deaths of the athletes, the Israeli government gathers several groups of Israeli nationalist Jews together to form their own terrorist cells and to supposedly attack back and kill the terrorists responsible for the deaths of the Israeli athletes. The film follows one of these cells lead by Eric Bana’s character. Speaking of poor Eric Bana, the man shows such promise in films and then his films get panned. His character in Troy was great, but the rest of the movie was badly handled. Hulk failed as a consequence of the struggle between the director Ang Lee and the studio execs creating an opaque and cloudy vision of mish-mashed ideas. So what was wrong with the film this time for Eric Bana? Well…he is. Yes, he finally doesn’t seem to live up to the part he was chosen for. He shows a lot of range but why can he not pan out? This could be because of the way in which the film was created. Tony Kushner is primarily a playwright and this was his first screenplay. He treated the screenplay as he would treat a play by being there for the creation and editing his script as he came up with new ideas and tried to sculpt the vision to how things were going. Tried to make the characters belong more to the actors and help them. However, with the constant editing and rewriting on the set, this causes possible confusion for the director Spielberg who has never directed a play, and for the actors in terms of not knowing the arc of the overall story or characters necessarily. However, a leading man should be used to this and it doesn’t seem to affect most of the other actors. In fact Daniel Craig comes off better than Eric Bana. Geoffrey Rush does an excellent job as well. In the end, I guess Eric Bana simply wasn’t ready for this role. Most of the movie he comes across as too silent and moody and he doesn’t let the audience in far enough to see his personal conflict as much as he ought.

Other problems...well, Spielberg? If you want to see the growth of a director, just look at Spielberg’s career and be awed. He went from doing light entertainment and kids films to adult war films such as Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List. The problem is that he has never really tried to make a message film. Well, that is arguable, but for the most part he claims to only want to tell great stories, which may or may not have a message. In this case he has said that he wanted to make a comment about a very real and debilitating conflict which is causing so much pain. Where he succeeds is he doesn’t focus explicitly on the Israel versus Islam hatred. He makes it a story about a man and his group of revenge killers for the national tragedy. He also doesn’t let Israel get off the hook. It would be easy to claim that Spielberg is pro-Israel however, the Israeli government comes off looking bad as do most of the radicals. By the end, the conflict appears to be useless and all for the sake of revenge on both sides. The real problem is that the film spreads itself too thin and the pacing needs work. The film tries to cover too much from recreating the assassination of the Israeli sports team, to portraying and building the struggle and empathy for the main character, to the building of the friendship between Eric Bana and his friends. The pacing goes too slowly in some spots where I think Spielberg is trying to develop the silent conflict of Bana’s character and it feels forced and slow. It is easy to be distracted while watching the film and find yourself doing something else when you shouldn’t be. Another interesting thing is that Spielberg noted that this movie is as close to directing a play as he will ever get. Well, for a first attempt its not bad, but he needed to devote more time to developing the relationships through dialogue.
Conclusion:
Munich is a good film but it suffers from being too spread out. The relationships between characters and their motivations are murky at best. Also, Eric Bana does not seem to put in too much of a performance. However, Spielberg puts in a good first attempt with good cinematography, great action scenes, and the re-enactment of the kidnapping of the Israeli sports team is exquisite. Spielberg has shown that he is more interested these days in making adult entertainment masterpieces and I feel that this film is an excellent attempt at this ideal. Hopefully this won’t be the last time Kushner and Spielberg collaborate because I feel that next time a lot of the problems that plagued this movie will not exist and they will learn to emphasize each other’s assets better to create a true great masterpiece that will rival the likes of Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and even Schindler’s List.

3.75 out 5

Wannabe

Déjà vu

'Deja Vu has been seen before'

Well, Tony Scott’s time traveling drama has come and gone from theaters. To claim mixed feelings seems a fair judgement. The film succeeded on several levels. The actors were pretty good, after all it is hard to ever argue with Denzel Washington in the role of a police investigator. I seem to have a hard time pointing out where the film fails and why I left wholely unsatisfied whereas several middle schoolers out on a date in front of me left raving about how the film blew their minds. Yes, I’m older which plays a small part. Really where the film fails I think is in its mediocrity. My expectations were a bit high for this film considering the hype and the fact that the director is Ridley Scott’s brother. I guess I expected an eye-opening fresh experience when instead I had a decent one. First, the actors.

In this film Denzel Washington plays a police investigator who is brought on board after a huge explosion killing many navy men on temporary leave in New Orleans. He then tries to find a way to stop the death of Halle Berry and the many navy men aboard the ship. Denzel is Denzel and he will always be a great cop. I kind of wish that directors would stop typecasting him so much, or maybe he just really likes playing strong authoritative black men. He works fine and differentiates the role slightly from his previous cop type roles. Then there is Halle Berry, who manages to pull off one of her best performances believably, I feel, and manage to finally look attractive all at once. I admit that I am not a Halle Berry fan and I have never understood the fascination with her beauty. I prefer Tyra Banks or Gabrielle Union honestly for looks and I think Vivica A. Fox is more like what Halle should be. In this film though, I have finally seen the acting potential and the beauty I have heard so much about. Kudos to her, but with that being said the performance is still nothing outstanding or amazing. The villain is done by none other than Jesus himself, Jim Caviezel. I’m glad I saw him again because after The Passion it seemed like he fell off the face of the earth and I get the impression now that he’s trying to reinvent himself as a versatile actor and not be known as Jesus like Christopher Reeves was known as Superman. With that being said, he pulls it off well. His character is cold and demeaning and one of the scariest villains I have seen on a screen. He felt like Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs because at any moments when he was captured you got the feeling that he might leap up and decapitate Denzel Washington while smiling, except you could never see his muscles tensed. Very creepy. The supporting cast do a decent job as well with people like Val Kilmer and Adam Goldberg turning in okay jobs. The fact of the matter is that the film rests on Denzel’s shoulders where he carries things effortlessly as always. So, in the end, a decent job by the cast with a well deserved nod to Caviezel and an improvement in Berry’s work.

Well, now to the problems. The plot does a good job of creating an invisible co-star out of the element of time itself as Denzel works against it and time travels. It even does a decent job of keeping a continuity where weird little things in the beginning of the movie make sense after Denzel travels in time and tries to change things. The problem comes in how the time changes. The movie briefly explains a couple of simple theories as to how time works. The one it sticks to is the branch theory, which I personally do not ascribe to, in which when something is changed in the past the possibility of changing the future forever occurs. Now, my biggest complaint is that when Denzel does change the future to get the desired outcome, it is only a small thing that has changed. There were plenty of bigger events earlier that should have changed everything but didn’t. Also, why did Caviezel’s character come back to the boat? The end is way too tidy and everything feels like it was explained away in bad scientific theories. Denzel dies in the new time line by drowning (I think) so that the director doesn’t have to mess with the crazy idea of having Denzel meet himself. The villain comes back on board for a final confrontation and dies. Halle Berry lives anyway and meets the new Denzel Washington. I also dislike the Hollywood thing where actors seem like something the other one says is vaguely familiar, as if from a previous life. In this film that doesn’t make a lick of sense because when Denzel at the end, that Denzel never went back in time, will never go back in time, and should therefore have no recollection or even sense of vague familiarity with Halle's words which his old self had told her. The fact that the film has a science fiction component that is different from most sci-fi crime actioners is interesting but I feel it is badly implemented.

The last problem I have is with Tony Scott in the film. The cinematography is great and I feel like the continuity editor was amazing. However, the film is simply ok. It is not great unless you are being exposed to these ideas for the first time. I feel that Time Cop did a better job in this genre than this film and that I’ve seen a lot of these same gimmicks better realized in other films. They aren’t done badly, I’ve just seen them done better. I’m glad to see Tony Scott branching slightly into sci-fi, but he is primarily an action director as can be seen from his list of past films and it shows in this film. He has directed Top Gun, Days of Thunder, Man on Fire, Domino, and is working on a modernized version of The Warriors. Looking at this past work, I feel he was trying to copy the success he had with Man on Fire by having Denzel and setting in New Orleans. In fact, he does a really good job getting the feel of New Orleans without focusing on it heavily. Of course the action is intense and well done. But the relationships and dialogue need work and I feel like he could have really stepped it up on this one. Every director has bad films, which this one isn’t. It’s just not his best quality.

2.75 out of 5

Wannabe

More Coming

Whew,
Okay look. I realize you might not care considering there seems to be only two people signed onto the email feed, but here's the deal. I will have at least three more movie reviews shortly. Sorry for the delay but I had things like Christmas, a wedding, honeymoon, and it can be hard to remember to write or see movies through all of that. Since that is all over now, I should have a review of The World Is Not Enough, Deja Vu, and The Painted Veil shortly. More will follow probably including some self-critical essays on where I stand in the whole review-criticism spectrum. Anyhow, just letting you know that the site isn't dead. Also, I hear good things about Children of Men...see if I can get that critiqued as well. Peace!

Wannabe

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