The Lost City

I loved Godfather part 3.

I know I'm in the minority.

But I think that movie is really ambitious, and the ideas, and themes were very effective.

I loved how Coppola explored the idea of the higher the Corleone Family went into supposedly legitimate, and respected society, the more corrupt the world revealed itself to be.

Even the church, and religion weren't beyond corruption.

It also explored how the sins of the father would come back to haunt the family.

Generations of violence catching up to deal it's most tragic blow.

All in the package of a Godfather movie.

Yeah, some of the execution was off, and losing Robert Duvall was a huge blow to the story. But I still liked the movie for what it was.

Although there was mixed opinions about the actual movie. Everyone was in agreement that Andy Garcia was fantastic in the film. He received an academy award nomination for Best supporting actor, and everyone saw him as the next great leading man in the same mold of Al Pacino, and Robert DeNiro.

When Francis Ford Coppola was asked why he cast Andy Garcia in the film, his response was "He looked, and acted like a Corleone."

It doesn't get any better than that.

So.....what the hell happened?

A few flops like Steal Big, Steal Little, Desperate Measures and Gangster, and suddenly Andy Garcia is playing bitch to George Clooney and Brad Pitt.

The Lost City was a movie that I've heard about for many years.

It's been well known that it was a dream project for Andy Garcia.

His life work, and ambition.

I remember reading an article about how disappointed he was in the movie version of the Mambo Kings. He felt that the movie failed to capture the authenticity of Cuban heritage, and the community.

He basically felt it was Cuba, the cliff notes version.

So for years I looked out for The Lost City. I wanted to see what kind of movie Andy Garcia can make, how he would share the Cuban experience on film.

The results are disappointing.

The Lost City tells the tale of a Cuban family caught up in the chaos of Cuba's transition from the corrupt, oppressive government of Batista to Fidel Castro's communist dictatorship.

The main problem with the film is that it's obviously working with a limited budget.

It's also much too ambitious for a first time director. There's too much in the film going on, too many plot lines, too many characters, and not a strong effective through-line for the film.

It's like Andy Garcia wanted to put everything he loved about Cuba, and movies in one film.

EVERYTHING.

There's plenty of Cuban music and dance, Garcia's character owns a nightclub.

The story, also features his two brothers, who take two drastically opposing viewpoints to bring democracy to Cuba.

It's also about a family dealing with the chaotic times.

There's also a love story between Andy Garcia and his brother's widow.

There's Andy Garcia's friendship with a noble police officer.

There's Castro's army looming in the mountains.

There's Batista's corrupt Government.

There's the workings of the Cuban nightclub, which includes a friendship with a nameless comic, played by Bill Murray.

Finally when things go bad we ALSO see how the family is destroyed, and how Andy Garcia is forced to leave the country he loves, to go to America.

Oh yeah, there's also Meyer Lansky, played by Dustin Hoffman, hovering about.

So a lot of stuff.

What we get is a bunch of storylines, ideas, and characters mixed up in this confusing, and ineffective history lesson.

It's just too much content, and not enough story or character development.

The audience is not given enough time to really become attached or sympathize with any of the characters.

We're too busy trying to absorb what's going on in the film.

All the characters ends up feeling so distant.

It honestly feels like it wants to be an 8 hour mini-series.

But what we get is a chopped up version of that script.

There's some interesting stuff in the movie. Garcia's performance is engaging, although he's obviously spreading himself too thin.

Bill Murray is effortlessly doing excellent work in the film.

But he's not in it nearly enough, and his character isn't important enough to really contribute to the main story. He just goes around ironically commenting on the proceedings.

Some of the scenes, and imagery are well executed. Shots, and locales are interesting. Performances are adequate and serviceable.

But in all honesty, the whole thing ends up being just mediocre, and forgettable.

Make no mistake the movie is ambitious, and it's heart is in the right place.

But it's simply too much movie.

For everyone involved.

I get the sense that if Andy Garcia had just pulled back. Maybe just choosing one aspect, or storyline to film, the results would have been much more positive.

Instead we get a mess.

Yeah it's sometimes interesting, even at points effective........ but ultimately a flawed mess.

Unfortunately.

It's available now on DVD.

Brick

Being a classically trained actor I've participated in many high concept Shakespearean works.

Off the top of my head I remember being involved in a production of 12th Night where the world of the play was set in Alice in Wonderland. I also did a production of the Scottish Tragedy, that was set in an apocalyptic military future.

I even remember watching a musical version of Much ado about Nothing, where they inserted musical numbers using Motown classics.

Yeah, seriously.

When it comes to Shakespeare.....everybody wants to be original.

When watching these productions I always try to ask myself how do these high concepts enhance the story, and themes of the play? And how does putting these concepts into the production illuminate the author's original intent?

Most of the time it doesn't do anything to the play.

Usually it just ends up looking cool, and audiences walk away thinking to themselves....."that was original."

Which is not a good thing.

When considering a movie like Brick. I ended up asking myself similar questions when watching the film.

Why is the film noir genre, being put in this world of high school?

How does this enhance the themes of the story?

What, if anything are the story tellers trying to say about the genre by putting it in this world?

Sadly, the answer is....it does nothing.

When it comes to Brick, the movie is unfortunately all style......And no substance.

Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a young high school outsider, who is trying to figure out why his ex-girlfriend was killed, and who was involved. The usual suspects include the big boss-the Pin (Lukas Haas), the thug-Tugger (Noah Fleiss), the dame-Laura (Nora Zhetner), and the loose cannon-Dode, (Noah Segan).

It's obvious writer/director Rian Johnson is talented.

He has a good ear for dialogue, and he knows how to structure a story well.

He also has an interesting eye as a director, and really has a talent for clever transitions.

As a showcase for his skills Brick is a success.

But in terms of a well told story, and overall film, ultimately the movie really doesn't contribute anything, not to mention does nothing for the genre.

By putting it in the high school world, the whole exercise feels just shallow.

Like kids messing around.

The stakes are never high enough, to really take anything seriously.

The dialogue, situations and circumstances just don't fit, and doesn't ring true. Not to mention that technically the actors simply don't have the life experience, and world weariness to truly inhabit the film noir stereotypes.

What were left with is a parody with no comedy.

The movie is not a complete failure however. I find it admirable that the actors, and crew felt so strongly about the project. They approach the material with a sincerity, and seriousness that is commendable.

In terms of a film noir, the story is, at times, interesting stuff.

But by putting it in the high school world however, we are constantly reminded that we are watching a stylistic film. Situations seem familiar. But the story tellers are trying to awkwardly fit it into this absurd world. What's worse is that when we want them to explain how the genre fits in the world. The film makers gloss over the particulars hoping we won't notice. For example, there seems to be no parental figures in the film for the main characters. The one time there is a parent, it's done as a comic bit.

Authority figures are few, and far between.

The one scene where there is an authority figure, in this case an assistant vice principal, (obviously subbing for an assistant D.A.), the whole situation and scene feels fabricated and insincere. Like it was put in just for the sake of having an noirish assistant D.A. type scene with the protagonist.

After awhile the whole movie feels that way, scenes are presented just to accommodate the needs of the genre, instead of the needs of the actual story.

After awhile the thing just starts to get really annoying.

Like a bad production of Lord of the Flies.

A bunch of brats running around acting like they are adults, who think they've earned the right to behave the way they do.

I kept hoping that an authority figure would show up, and start slapping these little brats around.

That a real drug lord would show up and start beating the shit out of these punk kids who are playing like they are hardened criminals.

I'd like to see Tug try to kick the shit out of a Sam Jackson type. Or the Pin trying to boss around a Ving Rhames type.

It's just absurd.

Why should anyone take these kids seriously?

I know that the film makers tried not to make this a Bugsy Malone type affair. But that's exactly what they've created.

Who knows maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe the point is that we aren't suppossed to take these kids seriously. That the movie is meant to illustrate the folly and recklessness of youth.

But I honestly don't get that impression.

I really believe that we're suppossed to take these characters seriously, that we are suppossed to respect these characters as big players in the world. That the world is growing fast, and it's a youth oriented, and controlled society.

Which is a interesting and noble point.

But the truth is the movie's world doesn't honor or embrace the fact that these teenagers are ultimately just youths, who must answer.... eventually..... at some point to older authority types.

The story tellers eliminate the adults entirely. The teenagers ARE the adults in this world.

Which ultimately doesn't ring true on any level.

Who knows it could be that it's just a generational thing.

Maybe the movie isn't supposed to speak to me. Maybe I'm too old for this movie.

Wow, let me just say that reeeeaaaalllllly sounds strange to me.

However, I recognize I am older, and if that's the case,the movie is really just a marketing exercise to please, and entertain teenagers.

In any case, I can't say I enjoyed myself watching this film. Truthfully, I just kept getting annoyed by the whole exercise.

But like I said, it's not a total waste of time.

I guess if one is looking for something stylish, yet not very substantial. I guess this is the movie to watch.

But truthfully, there are plenty of other film noirs that will entertain one, no matter what the age. Like the Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, and Chinatown. If one is looking for a modern noir check out Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang or The Big Lebowski.

I'd definitely recommend catching one of those great films, before throwing this mediocre movie on.

Miami Vice (2006)

If there was ever a television show that deserved a big screen adaptation it's Miami Vice.

In the 80's the show was the essence of cool.

Fast cars, cool clothes, attractive women, and the exciting, action packed lifestyle of undercover officers entertained TV viewers for years.

With the recent popularity of bringing old TV shows to the big screen, it was only a matter of time before someone would have the bright idea of dusting off the 80's neon t-shirts and white blazers.

There were rumors that film makers would play up the 80's vibe. Maybe even make the movie a straight parody, much like they did with the 70's show Starsky and Hutch.

Thankfully former executive producer Michael Mann had other ideas for the franchise.

Apparently Michael Mann was well aware of the popularity, and modern day potential for the franchise. While I was viewing an HBO behind the scenes special, in one of the segments, Michael Mann remarks how many actors had often brought up the idea of him bringing Tubbs and Crockett to the big screen.

With his success with the genre in movies like Heat, Manhunter and Collateral. I can see why many actors would like to revisit the franchise with Mann at the helm.

But I can understand why Mann wouldn't want to revisit Miami Vice.

Why revisit the past? When he has such a bright future.

It's almost a no-win situation to go back.

Luckily for us he decided to take the risk.

Although far from his best work, with pacing issues and an uneven story, the movie is still able to deliver the modern day Michael Mann thrills, while incorporating the trademark Miami Vice cool.

The movie features speedboats, jet planes, attractive women, exotic locales and plenty of action.

What more does one need in a summer movie?

I noticed that in articles about the film, reviewers have noted that the movie bears little resemblance to the original t.v. show.

My response would be....... What exactly are they watching?

The movie feels exactly like Miami Vice.

The camera angles, the action, the camaraderie, the unusual supporting characters, the back room deals, and the vicious heartless drug lords.

There's late night meetings on roof tops. Important phone conversations. Shady characters in Miami night clubs. Plenty of eye candy, with sexual tension with the opposite sex. Crockett and Tubbs in a Ferrarri.

My thinking is that maybe people have just forgotten what the original show was like.

Thankfully Michael Mann updates the franchise by putting it in modern day. Sure it's less flashy then the 80's, but the stakes are now higher and darker.

When talking about the movie it's impossible not to comment on the amazing sound design.

When a character fires a gun. The audience feels it.

Literally.

In so many movies nowadays the sound of a gun firing is almost as familiar as street noise, and traffic in a film.

Not in this movie.

When a gun is fired it almost jolts the viewer out of their seat.

We are instantly aware of the potential damage that a gun can cause in this film. It's loud, violent, and lingers in our ears, while jolting us with it's bass.

And believe me there is plenty of gun fire in this film.

The film features excellent action sequences. As well as painfully mounting suspense. The movie really accomplishes showing the viewer the tone of this lifestyle, and the toll it takes on an undercover officer.

The film isn't perfect however.

The film suffers slight mis-steps in it's pacing.

A subplot with Farrell and Gong Li going to Cuba, feels a little long.

Also some of the performances are uneven.

Particularly Gong Li, who obviously struggles with the English language throughout the film. Although it gives the movie a more worldly feel to have Gong Li in the film. Because of her difficulty with the language, it almost feels a little like stunt casting.

Colin Farrell also struggles a little bit with finding the right balance of world weariness, and street wise cool. Although I will say, I find this to be one of his better performances.

Jamie Foxx probably shines the most here. He's affable and amusing, while carrying a slightly intimidating presence. It's a nice follow up to his Collateral performance.

Overall, I'd be tempted to say this is the best movie of the summer.

Although for some reason, I don't feel completely comfortable with that statement.

Maybe it's because this summer has been so mediocre.

I almost expect something else to be better.

But the truth is....... There isn't anything.

So I'll go ahead and say it.

Miami Vice is the real deal, and better than all the movies out there right now.

Be sure to check it out.

V for Vendetta

Here we are, already in August and there hasn't been one movie that I can confidently say will be on my top ten list.

The wait is over.

V for Vendetta is beyond a doubt one of the most interesting, thrilling, and most moving movies that will come out this year.

There's a lot to like about this movie. It has a great story, thrilling suspense, exceptional performances, quotable dialogue, and exciting action pieces.

Quite simply, it's the best movie I've seen this year.

A mysterious lone figure known simply as V, (Hugo Weaving) uses his considerable abilities, which includes martial arts, to cause havoc, and protest the totalitarian society and corrupt leadership of future England.

His complex and detailed plan to bring down the government, is side tracked by the presence of a young woman named Evey Hammond, (played by Natalie Portman).

Can Evey put aside her fear and listen to her heart in order to help the heroic V? Or will the relentless Inspector Eric Finch ,played by the excellent Stephen Rea, stop V from fulfilling his plan to change the world.

When considering the film it's impossible not to notice the political statement the film is making.

The movie is making a rather obvious comment about the current political climate, there are inferences, and analogies throughout the film which echo the current affairs of the world.

There's issues dealing with the corruption of the media, the way politicians use tragedies to solidify power, and the government's use of ignorance and fear to pacify the masses.

It's really controversial, and subversive stuff being discussed in the film.

But those issues are packaged in a great, action and suspense filled film.

At times the movie is even quite romantic, and moving.

It really is the essence of what great art is all about.

It holds up a mirror to society, demanding audiences to consider important issues, all the while entertaining, and thrilling people looking for some harmless fun.

I really don't want to get into specifics and plot lines, I believe the movie should be watched with a fresh perspective.

But the film really features some impressive performances.

Especially from it's three leads.

Stephen Rea in particular really shines in the role of the tortured Inspector Finch who is trying to uncover the plot. There are scenes of great revelation and emotion that really showcase his abilities. I'm hoping that when awards season comes along that his performance is not forgotten.

Hugo Weaving does a fantastic job in the lead role. It's especially impressive considering that his performance is mostly done vocally. Since for the most part, he spends the film hidden behind a mask. I believe that even some of the physical work of the character, was played by someone else. Since Hugo Weaving took over the role from James Purefoy shortly after filming started.

It's a fantastic performance that really carries the film. He creates a haunting and memorable character that stays with the audience long after the film ends.

Natalie Portman shines in the role of Evey. It's a challenging role that has her exploring different extreme aspects of the human condition. It's nice to see her return to the more demanding character work that was such a trademark of her excellent early work. It's obvious that she is making strong and interesting choices in her career. It's nice to see her recognize outstanding material, and taking risks that might intimidate some of her fellow peers.

It's unfortunate that the film received notoriety about the hero of the film using terrorists tactics.

The film really isn't about that.

Ultimately the film is about hope.

It's about how humanity, and the people as a whole have the ability to achieve it's greatest potential.

How the masses can positively affect the state of affairs by understanding the greater good of all, not just the few, or the people who have power.

It's about standing up, and taking a strong position against ignorance and fear.

It's about how the government should serve the people......not the other way around.

Overall, it's just an outstanding film, and a movie that I heartily recommend.

I have no doubt that the film will land on my top ten list.....Maybe even on top.

The DVD is available now.

Run and buy it.

The Benchwarmers

Um.....yeah....not good.

I don't want to go too much into how bad this movie is.

It would be too easy to attack this movie on that level. It's obvious that logic, reality and comedy for that matter, aren't part of this movie's world.

What I would like to discuss is how far the Happy Madison group has slipped.

Happy Madison is the group of comedians which consists of ex-SNL cast members Rob Schneider, Adam Sandler, David Spade, Dana Carvey and Jon Lovitz.....and if one wants to throw Norm McDonald in there too... that's fine .

Make no mistake about it....they are a talented group.

But lately I'm confused about what exactly this group of talented comedians feels is humorous?

Watching a movie like The Benchwarmers, one gets the sense that they don't even think the material is funny.

It's like someone is making them perform at gunpoint.

Indeed, reading a recent review of the DVD, the reviewer noted that David Spade does a less than enthusiastic commentary on the disc.

So what's going on???

The early works of the company like Happy Gilmore, Deuce Bigelow, and Tommy Boy were not admittedly mentally demanding material....thankfully.

They were low budget comedies with silly, over the top skits in absurd, crude, situations.

They were unabashedly stupid movies.

One could tell that the group could care less what the hell anybody thought. To me it just seemed like they were having fun, while trying to make each other laugh.

A movie like The Benchwarmers feels condescending and preachy.

The movie's moral is basically that kids should not be bullies.

The whole movie goes out of it's way to drive home that point....several times.

Are they honestly trying to teach us something.....or more specifically teach my kid something???

Rob Schneider?

What the hell??? I don't want Rob Schneider to teach my kid life lessons.

I'm waiting for the dick and fart jokes.

Since when did this group decide to make After School Specials?

It's like they suddenly care about what everyone's thinking.

What's even more depressing is that, not only does the group care about what the audience thinks about them, they all look like they aren't having fun anymore.

Like they hate what they are doing.

So what's the point?

It's not just this movie either, this has been going on for awhile now. I just caught The Longest Yard on cable the other night, and I swear Adam Sandler is trying to be Gary Cooper.

He wants to be a hero. He could care less if he makes anyone laugh.

I know he did Mr. Deeds and all, but Adam Sandler is not a leading man.

He's a comic.

He should only be concerned about making us laugh, not pulling on our heart strings.

Judging by the reception his movie Click got at the box office this summer, I'm not the only one who feels this way.

The truth is at one point, Adam Sandler was considered the most successful box office star in the world.

It's true, in terms of cost to profit margin his early movies are among the most successful movies....... ever.

But lately, the group has decided to deviate from the blue print.

It seems that lately the group is focused on making big budget so-called comedies....... with a message. An After school message.

The results are disastrous.

Serioiusly, I don't understand why they would think spending more money on special effects, and bigger, star-studded casts, would bring them more success.

If it ain't broke....why fix it?

It's really perplexing. Because the ideas are the same, but the execution is off.

Seriously....really off.

I mean there are fart jokes in the film, but what used to be funny, now feels awkward and mean- spirited. Even surreal moments in the film... like an albino character and a character who wears a speedo throughout the film don't feel like silly off-the-wall fun anymore.

It feels like desperation.

What's happened guys?

I'm trying hard not to be too critical here.

As a fellow actor, I know that comedy is the hardest thing to perform.

To move people emotionally in a drama, all a performer needs are good writing, and a dramatic situation.

Comedy requires talent, timing, and emotional availability....as well as good writing and an interesting situation.

But the truth is that this group hasn't been funny in awhile, and it needs to examine what their real goals in the entertainment industry are. They have the talent, and potential to do interesting, funny work.

But there's no trace of it here.....or any of their recent work.

The truth is the work they are doing now is not only, not funny but it's become insulting, and offensive.

Not in a comedic good way.

So here's hoping they figure it all out.

Because there's another group of comedians....which consists of Will Ferrell, Steve Carrell, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, and Luke and Owen Wilson who'd be glad to steal this group's thunder.

I'm sure to the Happy Madison group....that's no laughing matter.

Jet Li's Fearless

I was lucky enough to get my hands on an import DVD of this upcoming movie release.

The film is being billed as Jet Li's last Hong Kong Martial Arts Epic.

Which to me is kind of a bold statement considering there seems to be such a demand for this kind of material lately. But I can understand why he wants to walk away from this genre. It's almost like the classically trained actor who no longer wants to do Shakespeare. Too many Sunday matinee's wearing tights.

But in Jet Li's case, too many days wearing wigs, hanging on wires, and dressed in period costumes.

Judging from the trailer , it looks like the version I watched on DVD is going to be the same for the U.S. release. Unless..... they dub over the film with English, which would be pretty ridiculous considering the tone of the film.

The movie is a semi-biographical account of the life of Huo Yuan Jia. I can see why Jet Li was drawn to this material, it's an interesting true life story. For fun, I did a quick Wikipedia search to check out just how much of the movie's recounting was real.

Surprisingly enough the movie is pretty accurate in it's retelling of the man's life......to a point.

Apparently Huo Yuanjia was a martial artist who took up challenges by foreign fighting champions who ridiculed the Chinese people during a time of poor Chinese morale. Huo Yuanjia became a symbol of Chinese pride, and was renown for his martial arts abilities, and became the founder of the Chin Woo athletic association. A school that is world famous, and is still in existence today.

Where the film uses some artistic license is in of course....the action sequences. The film's action is choreographed by the world famous Yuen Wo Ping of Matrix and Crouching tiger fame.

The ending of the movie is also a little over the top, and over dramatic. Especially when compared to the less dramatic real life story. It also feels a little out of place, considering the way the film is being marketed....as an action film.

Which is what we usually watch a Jet Li movie for, the action. Which the film does feature. There are plenty of impressive fight sequences, and action. What's interesting is that this film takes a more realistic approach to the fighting then Yuen Wo Ping's other choreographed films. Of course when I say realistic, I mean that this film doesn't feature extensive wire work, and mystical flying sequences.

However what limited wire work there is in the film is pretty great, and the more grounded approach in the sequences is all pretty refreshing, and impressive to witness.

Funny enough in real life many of the fights that Huo Yuanjia allegedly participated in the film never happened, apparently whenever a foreign champion was confronted by Huo Yuanjia they would back off in reverence and intimidation, probably because they were all aware of his considerable skills.

As far as the story's structure....unfortunately it's pretty standard stuff. Although a foreign film, Ronny Yu's movie still feels very much like a Hollywood blockbuster.

The movie is basically a re-telling of the prodigal son.

A man lives a wild, and reckless life until a traumatizing event forces him to flee in shame, until he learns the errors of his way, only to return triumphantly.....A hero.

It's stuff we've seen a thousand times before. I also think that the movie's ending will turn off a lot of his U.S. fans who just want mindless action, and fighting.

They just won't like the melodrama and Chinese nationalism.

It's obvious that the story is close to Jet Li's heart because he produced the film, and chose this story to be the last martial arts epic of his career.

But the truth is that the movie doesn't feel unique or special.

It's ambitious in it's aspirations, but ultimately it doesn't transcend the genre like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and House of Flying Daggers , and to a lesser extent Hero seemed to do.

I recommend watching the film for the action, and fantastic fighting scenes, but don't expect Academy Award type consideration. This is a big Hollywood type movie in the mold of The Last Samurai.....except it's directed by Ronny Yu.

Tristram Shandy: A cock and bull story

Coming to DVD this week is an inventive, and unusual comedy from director Michael Winterbottom.

Tristram Shandy: A cock and bull story starts off as supposedly a film version of the The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentlemen by Laurence Sterne.

This book however has been notoriously referred to by film-makers and storytellers as being a novel which is unfilmable.... by any conventional standards.

After watching the first 30 minutes the audience realizes why.

The book is obviously a satire of procrastination, as the novel pretends to tell a life story of one Tristram Shandy, but in the storytelling, the events are always interrupted by sub-plots, and irreverent information which constantly distract the audience from what it thinks is the main story.

When actually the sub-plots and irreverent information is the main story of the novel.

Taking a cue from the source material, after 30 minutes into the film, director Michael Winterbottom takes a break from telling the novel's story, and then abruptly shifts the movie's focus into a mockumentary about the star of the movie.....real life actor Steve Coogan, and the behind the scenes "drama" of the cast and crew making the movie...... Tristram Shandy... directed by Michael Winterbottom.

Besides the inventive premise, and unusual storytelling. The movie features funny performances from comedic British Television personality Rob Brydon, and actor Steve Coogan.

They share a delightful, and hilarious chemistry that really carries the film.

The movie itself is witty, often times hilarious, energetic.... and very British.

Which is both a good and bad thing.

It's good in that the humor is very dry and intellectual, but the problem is, because it's sooo dry many audience members might feel that the movie is condescending, and pretentious. Especially if one doesn't have any knowledge of the actual novel.

Which is probably 98% of the audience.

But it's hard not to admire the satire, and wit of the film. Michael Winterbottom really nails the irony, humor and craziness of the film business. While Steve Coogan plays the difficult, and pretentious movie star to perfection. It's a brave performance considering he's playing himself so unflattering and petty. Especially for american audiences who probably aren't as familiar with his work. There's a possibility that a lot of people might actually feel that he's really like this character in the movie.

Which is part of the humor.

The movie is challenging and complex on many levels, yet is not afraid to resort to silly, off the wall hijinks, such as when Steve Coogan....the actor, tries to use sense memory to act out a scene which requires a hot chestnut in his pants, and crotch area. Or when he's forced to hang upside down, and inside a giant womb to replicate the birthing process for Tristram Shandy in the film.

It's a movie of many levels and really interesting considering the seemingly lack of originality in today's films. It's one of the reasons why the film has landed on a lot of critics best films list...So far this year.

I was also impressed by Michael Winterbottom's work.

Looking over his IMDB page I was surprised at how many of his movies I've watched, and what is even more impressive is how different they all are. This movie is light years from his most "Hollywood" movie the Claim or his dark mystery I Want You, not to mention the sexually explicit experimental concert film 9 songs. I'd say if one is looking for something in this movie which resembles his previous work, I'd say that the film shares the same frenetic energy of 24 hour party people.

But the movie is uniquely it's own. I'd say the movie is part Adaptation and what Roger Ebert compares the film to, part This is Spinal Tap.

But I'm not sure it's for everyone.

I think if one is in a stimulating mood, and are looking for something fun, different , and challenging, then this movie is for them.

But if they are looking for an Adam Sandler or Nacho Libre type kind of comedy.....then I'd say this movie is definitely not for them.

Overall, it's a fun and interesting film, and a movie I would heartily recommend, if only for the conversation it would spark immediately after.

Hot Clicks on SheNeedsIt.com!!!

     

The Matador

On the surface The Matador is the story of a hitman, and an unwilling accomplice.

But in reality the movie is about the nature of friendship, love, loyalty, and the lengths we go to protect, and honor our relationships.

With such a positive theme it's not surprising that although the film received very little publicity and support from the studio, it was able to generate good word of mouth, and even some Oscar buzz.

The film features an outstanding out- of-character performance from Pierce Brosnan who plays a hitman who suffers from guilt, panic attacks, and anxiety. It's an enjoyably comic performance that really showcases his talents. One minute he's a confident, inconsiderate, jerk, the next a crying, vulnerable, and scared wimp.

What really works for the film is the familiar comic situations the film evokes.

What's unique, and humorous is that Writer/Director Richard Shepard uses such extreme examples to illustrate those familiar situations.

When Pierce Brosnan's hitman character Julian Noble makes a late night visit to Greg Kinnear's nice- guy-next-door character Danny Wright, the audience recognizes the friend-in-need situation.

But what makes it comedic is that Julian Noble is a cold blooded killer, and the man he's asking for help is basically a stranger. Instead of ignoring him like any normal person, Danny is kind, sympathetic and feels obligated to help his fellow man.

As if they were life long friends.

In a way the film shares a kindred spirit with the excellent Kiss, Kiss, Bang Bang. Although not as witty, sharp ....or even as good, The Matador does parody buddy films....although not the same genre that Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang does.

The Matador is a parody of comedic films about loyalty and friendship.

It also shares a twisted sense of humor. Some of the conversations, and discussions that take place in the film are priceless. Again the audience relates to the characters because we recognize the situations, except in this film the cases are extreme. When Julian Noble asks Danny to help him assassinate a mark. Danny responds with the same reaction we'd give our neighbor if they asked us to help them paint their house.

The movie is not perfect however, although the movie is a brisk 97 minutes, the film drags in spots. It's also repetitive, and the so-called mystery in the film is not really that hard to figure out.

Where the movie excels is in it's performances. Besides the excellent Brosnan, Greg Kinnear really nails the good guy role. He has the innocence, and good natured charm that really offsets the rough Brosnan. Hope Davis also turns in a memorable, quirky, and grounded performance that really adds to the film.

Although far from fantastic, the movie is a solid, enjoyable, and unexpected comedy that will be sure to keep you smiling while occasionally laughing throughout.

Superman Returns

Arriving in theatres this week is one of......if not the biggest movies of the summer.

Warner Bros. is attempting to re-launch the Superman franchise, much in the same way that they successfully revived the Batman franchise with last year's excellent Batman Returns. Like Batman, the Superman franchise was effectively destroyed by two horrible movies. In re-launching the two franchises they tried to appeal to movie fans by using young, fresh, attractive actors in the lead, new and interesting special effects....to appeal to the younger crowd, and placed the franchise in the hands of successful, talented independent-film-minded directors who appeal to film geeks, and comic book fans.

But unlike Batman Begins which was a complete reboot of the Batman story, Superman Returns attempts to be a direct sequel to the first two Superman movies, while disregarding the unwatchable Superman 3 and Superman 4.

Tricky stuff, and Bryan Singer almost pulls it off.

Almost.

Superman Returns takes place 5 years after the events of the Superman 2 storyline. Superman a.k.a Clark Kent a.k.a. Kal-el has been away from Earth for 5 years after exploring the remains of the planet Krypton. Upon his return he finds that many things have changed. The world has become a more cynical, dangerous and darker place. Especially now, since his arch enemy Lex Luthor is a free man, and on a personal level, his one true love Lois Lane is now engaged to be married to a good hearted, attractive man. But perhaps most shocking of all to Superman is that Lois Lane is now a mother.

Obviously a lot has changed.

The movie plays out as an attempt to reboot the franchise, yet still pays homage to the first two films directed by Richard Donner and Richard Lester.

The results are mixed.

What's cool about the movie is that Bryan Singer REALLY tries to tie in the first two movies.

The famous John Williams score is in place. The production design harkens back to the first two films. Even the opening credits feature the eighties movie style logo and effects.

I was surprised how sentimental I felt seeing images, and references hearken back to the original films. It's obvious that Bryan Singer really loved those movies.

Which is also a big problem with the movie.

The movie just doesn't feel confident enough to stand on it's own merits. It constantly references back to the original films....to a fault. At some point the audience starts to want something different and unique. It starts to feel like Deja Vu.....the whole movie.

Especially concerning the character of Lex Luthor. For me I would have liked Bryan Singer to reinvent the character completely. What we get here is the same character that Gene Hackman played to enjoyment in the first two movies. A Lex Luthor who is comedic, and hardly a serious criminal mastermind. Not that Kevin Spacey is that bad mind you. But for me, if the character is going to be the same, why not bring back Gene Hackman? What's the point of bringing in Spacey if he's not going to re-invent the character. I assume there was some issues with Hackman's age. But there's even a line in the film where Superman refers to Lex as old man.

Also in terms of story and script, Lex Luthor's motives, and master plan is just ridiculous, stupid and illogical. Especially considering he's apparently come into plenty of money when the movie begins. I know that some of his appeal as a bad guy in the three movies is that he's insane, and a megalomaniac. But when this movie plays out as sensitive and heart felt, it's really jarring, and disappointing that they couldn't have come up with a better motive and incentive for Lex Luthor to cause havoc.

I really think we haven't seen Lex Luthor's menacing side in these movies.

To me, as written, he just comes off as an annoying punk who didn't get enough attention when he was growing up. I think Gene Hackman really nailed the role to comic effect, but honestly Spacey struggles to find the compromise between being enjoyably slimy and insane, and being a serious threat to Superman and humanity.

I almost think.....actually I KNOW that the movie doesn't even really need Lex Luthor. There are plenty of obstacles, and drama for Superman in this film which are a lot more interesting than any kind of global megalomaniac plan that Lex Luthor has.

I think when people say that the movie feels long, it's because of the scenes with Lex Luthor. He really doesn't contribute anything to the main story. He's just a device to create havoc.

I believe the movie would have been fine as it is without Superman having Lex Luthor to deal with. The world in the movie has plenty of catastrophes and drama for Superman to try and resolve.

Especially when it comes to his personal life, which is really what appeals to the audience. It's always been the staple of the Superman story to show how he tries to balance his Clark Kent persona with his true identity as Superman. If one throws in the love story, the triangle, general crime in the city and natural catastrophes....do we really need to see Superman deal with a silly Lex Luthor and his idiotic plan?

In terms of performances, Brandon Routh does a capable job of stepping into Christopher Reeve's shoes. He doesn't have a complete grasp of the Clark Kent character yet.... but hey I'm going to cut him some slack. These are big shoes he's stepping into. Christopher Reeve really nailed the role. And it's admirable that a newcomer like Routh is boldly stepping into those shoes. I'm thinking since this is the first of several Superman movies Routh will learn to make the character his own, and really contribute something interesting to the Superman myth.

Also stepping into difficult shoes is Kate Bosworth. Whom I've always found affable, and capable in the films I've seen her in. I think Margot Kidder really created a fun kind of free spirited dame, that really complimented Superman, not to mention Clark Kent.

Kate Bosworth takes a different approach to the role. She plays her more vulnerable, and down to earth, one can say that Lois is more sensible and mature now that she's a mother, which is ironic considering Kate Bosworth is only 23 in real life and probably significantly younger than Margot Kidder when she first played the role.

Her Lois is also heartbroken since Superman left her 5 years ago without a word. Which really adds an interesting dimension to the film. The stakes are higher now in the relationship, it's not just a giddy crush.

It's hard to say which is a better approach to the character. Certainly Margot Kidder's portrayal is more enjoyable, but it's hard not to appreciate the grounded work of Bosworth.

Interesting.

I think I'll just appreciate both performances, and not really compare and contrast the characterizations. Because they are so different. I'll just say that they are both interesting performances to a complex character.

James Marsden also does fine work here. As the fiance of Lois Lane his portrayal, and the script really make his character affable, and in his own way even heroic. I really appreaciated the care given to his character. I mean it really could have been easy to make him a jerk or prototype deadbeat boyfriend that the audience can root against. But this movie doesn't sink to those depths. As in life, matters of the heart are complicated in this world. Just because one is Superman, doesn't mean he's the perfect man to have as a partner.

In terms of special effects, and action the movie is pretty great. For me it's the best movie of the summer....so far. Pirates of the Caribbean comes out next week, I'm sure that will challenge Superman for that title.

But overall I really enjoyed myself with this film. I admit I was surprised about how sentimental I felt about the Superman films. Which makes me wonder how it plays for the younger crowd, who didn't see the first movies in the theatre. I'd say that overall, it's the second best movie of the franchise with Superman 2 being my favorite of the bunch.

Now....... there is an issue that I'd like to go into that delves into spoiler territory. So if one is reading this and do not want to read a spoiler please stop reading now...... I mean it.




Major Spoiler Alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!****************





In terms of the heritage of Lois Lane's Child, I don't think the twist connects well with the other movies. For one thing, Lois supposedly forgot everything that happened after Superman kisses her in the second movie. All the events of the second film, including the love match between Superman and Lois. I guess one can make the argument that the kiss only erased the memory that Clark Kent is Superman. But how does that make sense in terms of logic? How would she know who the father is, as well as how the baby was conceived? I would think that Superman's fake identity, and those events kind of go hand in hand, don't they?

I guess..... I could be...... overanalyzing a comic book movie....just a little bit. But I wonder why the writer's didn't do something....anything really to explain that hole in the story's logic. To me it's a pretty big hole, that could easily be explained with a short speech.

In any case, it's something for me that needed to be addressed, and I was disappointed that no effort was made to explain it.....hey....maybe on the DVD Singer will say something about it on the commentary track.





End of spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!************




So as a summer movie I really enjoyed myself here, I'm even planning to go watch the film on Imax- 3D sometime next week. I look forward to the future of Superman on the big screen. Although it's a far cry from the amazing work of Batman Begins, and despite the fact the movie has huge holes and problems, it's still significantly better than X-men 3, and Mission Impossible 3, and a movie I recommend for everyone to check out for some summer movie popcorn fun.