PHILLY-DC TRIP

DAY 1

We arrived in Philadelphia late morning. We found a gabby cab driver that showed us the sights on the way from the airport. I don’t think I’ve ever had a cab driver in NYC that spoke English as a first language. Maybe Philly is different. He pointed out the University of Pennsylvania campus and their old stadium that reminded me of those turn-of-the-century ballparks. I somehow thought Penn was way out in the country, and it probably was two hundred years ago. Now it's Metro Philadelphia.

Trish came to town for a work-related conference at the convention center. The Marriot near there was full so we stayed at the Omni one block from Independence Hall, a much better location for seeing the sights. And we didn't waste time. The first order of business was getting lunch at City Tavern, recommended by Sir Saunders. I tried their special brew lager and Trish refrained knowing she had to register for the conference later in the day.



The beers there are made from recipes found in George Washington and Thomas Jefferson’s archives. I’m not sure if I was having a George or Tom, but lager is my favorite and I enjoyed it. The period bread they served was memorable too. It was heartier than common bread today, even heartier than steak house dinner rolls.

After lunch we took the subway to the convention center. It allowed Trish to register and get a feel for the way she would have to go the next two days. It was only two stops from where we were staying and not hard to find. Although I had nothing to do with the conference they gave me a badge anyway to boost the numbers for the trade show part of the event. For the most part, the trade show was a snooze. It certainly wasn't as interesting as the poker trade show leading up to the World Series of Poker main event. In Vegas they were drawing you into their booths. Here they were pretty lax about it. We did get pulled into the booth that green screened us into the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Our plan was to see Independence Hall, but it turned out that you have to be in line at 830am to get tickets for the day and they were long gone by mid afternoon Tuesday. Instead we checked out the Constitution Center on the next block, located between the U.S. Mint and the Federal Reserve Building. The museum begins with an intro show done up pretty nicely with projectors, gobos, and an actor presenting the story of the constitution. I don’t know what the show director had in mind, but our host was long on the phony drama with too much inflection. What ever happened to the straight forward sincere approach?

From there the museum is hard to rate. If you didn’t know the history of the Constitution it might be an interesting and educational experience. For an old pro it wasn’t really worth the $12. One highlight was the loop video of Ben Stein answering questions about the document. It’s humorous, but also pretty insightful. The best feature of the museum is a sculpture room where every signer of the Constitution is brought to life around the room. As you can see, we had some fun with it.



Trish had a pretty stern look for Alexander Hamilton, the villain of the recent John Adams series on HBO.















I enjoyed meeting Franklin.



We then went to Franklin’s museum, but it had already closed. We did get to see the frame of his house which was torn down in the early 1800s by his son in law.















To keep the Microbrew motif alive we visited Triumph Brewery, a brew pub not far the from the hotel. It was the hippest brew pub I have ever seen which pleased Trish and the beer was again fresh and tasty. It had the most unusual bathrooms. Rather than male and female rooms, it was one big room with individual compartments and a first come first serve approach. Trish kind of liked the idea and then she was kind of disgusted thinking about it further.

DAY 2

We were able to see Independence Hall the next morning before Trish reported to class. It looked just like JOHN ADAMS and 1776 depicted it.





The Liberty Bell is housed in a separate building across the street. It’s a long building with the history of the bell leading down to the bell itself sporting that big crack we learned about in elementary school. When we got in line outside we were behind 3 Asians from a tour group. What we didn’t know is that the group was 30+ and they had every intention of crowing all 30+ in front of us by virtue of having 3 in line already. They kept coming like an invading Army. After the number reached 20, I expressed my vocal displeasure, but they ignored me of course and kept piling in.

Had there been a line at the bell once we got inside, we would have waited, but it was a free for all. So instead of Bogarting our way in, we settled for a picture on the side with the crack barely visible and then from behind where no one wanted to be. It’s such an unlikely icon when you come to think of it. It rang after the signing. How many other things happened in relation to the signing that aren’t remembered?




We enjoyed the Reading Terminal Market for lunch. It’s an indoor farmer’s market and food stop next to the Convention Center. We tried our first Philly Cheesesteak. And although it portrayed itself as a prominent place, the owner was pictured with Bob Dole and Tom Ridge, the sandwich was no better than the one I get at a local sub shop. I had the same opinion when I had one the next day at another place. Neither was as good as the local sub shop near Sea World.









Tricia’s afternoon class schedule gave me some time to wander the city. I walked around for a while, saw the exhibit at the Federal Reserve Bank, and eventually wound up at the Art House movie cinema. We have been to the movies once since Abigail was born and we hoped to find Batman on the trip, but he wasn't playing anywhere near our hotel. So I saw a French movie called THE LAST MISTRESS. I rarely see anything without reading reviews, but foreign films rarely even make it to the U.S. without being somewhat good. Checking now, Rotten Tomatoes gives is 77% positive and I find that it's playing on only 28 screens. It’s the story of a 19th century guy trying to shake the bonds of his mistress as he prepares to marry the pretty and youthful heiress. It was enjoyable enough except that it seemed like I had seen it all before, a combination of Dangerous Liasons and Enchanted April.

DAY 3

I woke up early and hit the empty gym. When I was almost finished on the treadmill, two older guys wandered in seemingly together, but the conversation told me differently. One guy was the reserved type. He turned out to be 85 and looking at least 10 years younger. The other fella was in his early 70s and talked nonstop like a salesman and it sounded like he was interviewing the other guy like a talk show host. He told his whole life story. After college he worked for a pharmaceutical company, then a medical magazine, then an HMO, then his own company, and he retired rich evidently. I could tell because he took his grandkids to some sort of Sesame Street theme park and complained about the cost. Only rich guys complain in the particular way he did. Poor people are so used to blowing money that they think nothing of it.

Junto E came to meet up with me for lunch and we took in the Reading Market again to my delight. He meant it as a surprise, but I ruined it by eating there the day before. We found a nice Italian place and we chatted for an hour about what’s been happening with us lately. Then we walked to the Art Museum famous for the Rocky steps. It was 1.8 miles according to Google maps, but I hardly noticed it too engulfed in conversation with E. It was a surprisingly thorough museum. It had a great sampling of impressionists Van Goah, Monet, Manet, Renoir etc.

Me at the Rocky Steps.


PHILLY & DC TRIP

E’s living in the heart of Amish country and I use to live very close to such a community in Indiana. The Amish go through this right of passage where they raise hell as teenagers drinking and smoking for a few years and then decide whether or not to join the community as adults where they then have to mind their manners. There is such a documentary about the experience called Devil’s Playground. About 85% return to the flock, because if they don’t re-join they are totally excommunicated from family and friends. E has such a friend that dropped out and became a cop. There is a sitcom there I just know it.

I enjoyed our conversation, but it ended too soon. E wasn’t on vacation and had to get back to work. I hope that we will see E and family in Orlando in the near future.

I went back to the hotel and finished the new Easy Company memoir by Buck Compton. I’ve slowly been reading these kinds of books since watching Band of Brothers again last summer. When Trish finished with classes we went to see another French movie, TELL NO ONE, a thriller. And I’m on record previously saying that the French make the best thrillers now with Hitchcock gone. I can’t pinpoint the general reason, but French Thrillers find the right tone and our hero seems to be in real danger rather than Hollywood danger. TELL NO ONE is another example of the rule. Early in the film a man’s wife is murdered and 8 years later she sends him a message. Rather than go on I have to remind myself that I owe the blog 6 months of movie reviews.

DAY 4 On to DC

We decided to extend the trip a few days by taking a train to DC, a place Trish had never seen. It was my first Amtrak trip and I enjoyed it quite a bit. First, the two hour trip cost just $88 for the both of us. Rental car agencies wanted $140 for a one way rental. Second, the train was pretty empty so there was little noise and no overcrowding like you see in 40s movies. It was also my first time in Deleware and I’ll count it even though I didn’t actually stand on the ground. We stopped in Willmington to pick up passengers and it seemed a lot like Orlando, with industrial areas on one side and a trendy downtown on the other side. I didn’t remember where in Delaware Marci grew up.

I designed the second half of the trip with the idea that we wouldn’t have a car. Amtrak to Union Station, subway a block from the hotel and eventually the subway to Reagan Airport Saturday night. Unlike most subways, Washington has this convoluted system where each area is a different cost and you swipe a card to get in, but you also swipe a card on the way out so that you can be charged. There are peak rates and discount rates so you have to have a legend to get it right.

What do you do in DC when you only have two days? Since we had just seen Independence Hall we went to the National Archives to see the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It was a real investment in time because they only allow so many people in to see the documents at once. The constitution looked pretty decent, but the Declaration is so faded you could barely read it. Hancock’s signature jumps out as you’d expect, but it was sad to see how poorly the rest of it looks. The Magana Carta was signed in the 1200s and it didn’t look much worse.

On the way to the Archives we walked by the White House and it was a sad sight. The Clintons blocked off traffic in front of the house in the 1990s and that made it easier to see, but in the post 9-11 world it’s nothing but barricades and security checks on the road leading up to it.















We spent an hour in the National Gallery before being booted out at 5pm. Luckily the air and Space Museum was open until 7:30. There we saw a great exhibit on the Wright Brothers, a history I knew little about. I knew they owned a bike store, but I didn’t know that they first owned a print house and newspaper. I also didn’t know that they waited 5 years after flying before showing the public, trying to get someone to buy it lest it be copied during a demonstration. The plane is right in the room with the story. A good all around exhibit.



On a whim we decided to board the metro and take it down to the ballpark. The Reds and Homer Bailey were in town to face the Nationals. I read that tickets were easy to come by and although I didn’t know what station to exit, it became evident as other fans boarded the train. The train lets you off not far from Centerfield and we bought tickets in Left field an hour before the game and only sat 7 rows behind the fence right next to the foul pole.


















It afforded us shade before the game started and a view of Adam Dunn strolling toward fly balls. It was the first MLB regular season game I’ve attended since seeing the Yankees and Marlins in Game 4 of the 2003 World Series. In short, Homer Bailey was knocked around pretty good and the Nats won 5-2 or something like that.





We left after the 7th inning to beat the rush to the train and it was a fiasco anyway. The city was running some sort of line maintenance and we waited 15 minutes for a train, which by that time became crammed like an olive jar. Send trains to the station where the ballpark is dumping fans. Save maintenance on the line for two hours. You hear about DC being run poorly and it was a great example.

DAY 5

We slept later than normal the next morning, a rare day with nothing to get up for. Our intention was to head to the Ronald Reagan building and eat at the food court so highly touted in Frommers, but we arrived to learn that it doesn’t open on Saturday until 11:30am. We settled for a stale and tasteless pretzel from a vendor near the Washington Monument.

Last time I was in DC, the Washington Monument was closed for rehab. This time you could take an elevator all the way to the top, but we skipped it. I figured after being captive for so long at the Archives, we’d be better to walk on by.

A definite highlight was the World War II monument. It’s a striking area, and it was placed in a most appropriate place between the Washington Monument and the reflecting pool.



One side commemorates the European theatre and the other side the Pacific theatre. Each has important battles and quotes about the campaigns. Surrounding the structure are wreaths to the U.S. states and territories that participated in the war. The fountain water was chlorinated and very clean, which isn’t the case with the reflecting pond behind it.































From the WWII we headed toward the Lincoln Memorial and it was quite a walk along that dirty reflecting pool. That thing is full of geese and feathers. The sides are littered with bird droppings as pictured below. The pathway beside the pool is beaten dirt path. The whole thing looked so low class. It’s a great example of the government insisting on doing things outside of their constitutional mandate, while neglecting our national treasures. It’s simple though, taking care of the monuments has no constituency, unlike all the government waste.




The Lincoln Memorial was quite busy, unlike my trip in 2001 when John and I got there before 8am. I read the Gettysburg Address again because how often do you get to do so in such a grand manner.






Next we went to the spooky Korean War Memorial. Only spooky because the soldiers faces look ghoulish with crazy eyes and distorted faces. It was another reason why I was glad the WWII Memorial was straightforward.




















Now we took the long walk to the Jefferson Memorial, stopping midway to see FDR. The FDR Memorial is really too big and spread out. Put me in the minority maybe, but I don’t think we need an FDR Memorial. His legacy lives every week in our payroll taxes. I did have some fun with the “Brother can you spare a Dime” statutes though.
















What’s interesting about the Jefferson Memorial is that the Jefferson statue has a perfect view of the White House and Vice Versa. It’s one of the few views of the White House in the city. I enjoyed reading his writings, but the letters were bleeding and dripping down the wall. This memorial takes some heat for being too similar to Lincoln, but I like the similarity.






















We kept going past the Jefferson and it took us to the Holocaust Museum, a place I know I should see, but a place I dread going into. Seeing Ann Frank’s attic 5 years ago was tough enough.

We walked to the Smithsonian metro stop and took the train to Capital Hill where we enjoyed quiet pub grub and then headed for the Library of Congress. Our original plan was to tour Congress, but I learned that afternoon you must stand in line for tickets early in the morning and then you can see a 30 minute guided tour. Pre-9-11 you could simply go through security and tour at your own pace. There is a ton to see. Statue galleries, the old Supreme Court room, etc. That the terrorists have deprived us of this is enough to attack a dozen countries.



The library of Congress offers Jefferson’s books and a nice exhibit of Bob Hope memorabilia. Not as good as the Capitol, but better than living in a third world country.

Our last stop of the day and the trip was the National Portrait Gallery housed in the same place as the Museum of American Art. The Portrait Gallery has a great collection of famous Americans, some iconic like Gilbert Stuart’s George Washington.
A special display featuring Katherine Hepburn was especially interesting in that is contains her 4 Oscars.

It would be easy to spend 4 days in DC. I’ve been twice now and still haven’t seen everything that I wanted to. A year ago we may have stayed longer, but we had already been away from Abby for 5 days and it was time to get home.

Here is my favorite picture of the whole trip.

RECOUNT A Movie Review

RECOUNT is an HBO movie about the 2000 election. Kevin Spacey stars as the Gore lawyer who becomes a key player in the recount fight. It’s a compelling movie in so many ways, but it’s too often dishonest about the actual events. If you didn’t know the history well you’d be certain that Gore had an idealist staff trying to do the right thing while Republicans had a ruthless machine set to fix it for Bush. That theme is summed up with a meeting between Warren Christopher (John Hurt) and James Baker (Tom Wilkinson). Hurt expects that they are going to negotiate the details of the recount. Baker says that there is no negotiation. If Bush wins the recount the election is over. Christopher says ok and the meeting ends. Christopher is treated as an idealist only interested in how America looks while Baker wants to win.

The Gore team decision to mine for votes in predominantly Democrat counties is not treated as the least bit opportunist and when a Republican on TV suggests it, the movie treats it as just another talking point and of no substance. Spacey and Leary sit in a bar late in the film and Spacey delivers the big line that sums of the theme. “I want to know who won this election, who won it?” But in the action of the film Spacey doesn’t want to know who won it, but how it can be won for Gore.

The trickiest part for the producers was how to blame the Supreme Court decision on Republicans when Democrats brought the matter to court in the first place. They do this by showing James Baker filing some sort of Federal lawsuit early in the film because he knows the Florida Supreme Court is full of lefties and he knows the case will find its way there. And though Baker’s suit goes nowhere and the U.S. court responds to the decision by the Florida court, we’re supposed to blame Baker for his earlier appraisal.

The Spacey people gasp when they read the verdict and they scratch their heads when the court says that this case is not to be used as a precedent that it counts for this election and this election only. In a piece of exposition, one staffer pipes up that it’s the first time in the history of the court this has ever happened. This is made out to be sinister when any constitutional lawyer knows that the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t like to make rulings in overtly political cases, especially elections. This is strictly for self-preservation. Nothing in the constitution gives the court any particular power. Neither the legislative nor the executive branch even has to listen to the court. It’s become a tradition in this country that we do listen, but pushing too many boundaries is not a recipe for long term success. The one point barely remarked upon is the real quandary Democrats faced when it went to the high court. Liberals have counted on the court to give them most of the things voters do not want. Gore sends a message in the movie not to knock the court. It’s treated as statesmanlike instead of opportunistic. If Democrats stopped believing in the court then they would lose the only reliable leftward tilt this country has seen in the last 40 years. It’s pretty obvious to me that the Supremes weren’t happy with the Florida ruling and would have been happier to see this settled in the state legislature. They took the case to undo a bad ruling, but didn’t want the baggage of deciding future elections.

One of the most enjoyable parts of the film is Ed Begley Jr. as David Boise, the eccentric and brilliant lawyer for the Gore side. He’s a bit clumsy but lovable. One of the least enjoyable parts is the cartoon performance of Laura Dern as Katherine Harris. The case can be made that Harris was a political lightweight, but Dern plays her as a naïve fool easily led down the wrong path by a shrewd political operative. The tone is way too farcical for the rest of the film.

We only see the candidates from behind or hear them on the other end of the telephone. Removed is Gore’s odd vocal tone and kindergarten teacher way of talking to people. Bush, on the other hand, sounds like a cowboy character actor needing directions to Amarillo. Repeated in the film is the exchange between the two when Gore takes back his concession. The thing about the exchange that I remember from the time is Bush irritated that Gore takes the concession back and Gore saying, “You don’t have to get snippy.” I found that so appropriate from Gore, such a schoolmarm thing to say. I could even hear it in my head imagining the way he would say it all indignant. There isn’t a very masculine way to get that line out, but the producers tried their best here and it sounds like the wrong choice of words for the tone they use.

The movie doesn’t make someone like Jim Baker unlikable. Baker is talented and charming as a facade for his villainy. Talking to another Republican operative later in the film he admits that he was once a Democrat. Asked to tell the story he says his wife had died when he was 40 and a Republican friend asked him to help on his congressional campaign. Baker told the friend he was a Democrat, but the friend just didn’t want to see him so upset, so Baker joined up. When asked who that man was, Baker motions toward a picture of Bush 41. It’s a lot more subtle way of suggesting Baker is stealing the election for personal reasons and it makes him likable without making his side seem worthy of the office.

You do get the impression that the people fighting on both sides are doing so more to win the game than for the person or ideology that person represents. I think that’s a pretty honest portrayal of the way politics works on the inside. So even if the history here is selective, the process seems about right and it’s worth watching for that reason if nothing else.

MOVIE REVIEWS LATE 2007 Part 2

I’m way behind. Dude's recent post got me going.

---------------------------------------------

BLACK SNAKE MOAN (2007) Christina Ricci is a nymphomaniac whose boyfriend is shipping out in the service. Not a good combination we can guess. The first plot point is nympho girl refusing her boyfriend’s best friend. He gets angry and beats her up and leaves her for dead on the side of the road. Along comes Sam Jackson who nurses her to health and then ties her up to heal her of her other affliction. And somehow it all has a happy ending. It’s recommended for those who like seeing Ricci scantily clad and like feeling guilty about it even more.

RED ROAD (2006) A Scottish film where the DVD gives you English subtitles by default and you’ll appreciate it about 1/3 of the time. Our hero Jackie monitors security cameras in a high crime area of Glasgow. She’s suffering from the death her husband and child and early on in the movie she discovers the dude who is responsible. Using her power with the cameras and some cleverness, she tries to get even. I can’t say much more without ruining it, but it’s a nice change of pace overall and worth the time.

V FOR VENDETTA (2006) –The basic plot has our masked hero blowing up things and creating general havoc in London set in the not too distant future. It takes a while for us to learn that he is a revolutionary fighting against a fascist English government. It seems that the current dictator and some pals took over Britain after a series of terrorist activities that they themselves orchestrated. That could have actually worked as satire, but this movie takes itself seriously. A little research revealed that the original story was written in the 1980s and it was a nuclear attack and not terrorism that brought about the events our hero fights against. So it was really a reaction to Thatcherism, they just updated the bugaboo post 2001. The big ending that I don’t mind spoiling is V blowing up Parliament, the oldest house of representative government on the planet. For a movie like this to work, it has to have a measure of plausibility. You have to imagine that a country could actually take such a turn. Fascism will never return in the form of militarism. That card was played and defeated by the very same England. Fascism can only return in the crisis of health care and the environment, things that are hard to oppose. In this form it’s no more viable than medieval serfdom. Now forget the politics and the film is stylish and Natalie Portman’s prison sequence was pretty inventive and quite effective. It really had a lot of things going for it except believability.

PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC (1928) Carl Dreyer’s Joan film was thought lost until the early 1980s where a copy turned up in a mental institution. This is not a life of Joan, but her trial and execution only and if I had not acted in that Joan of Arc play back in college, I think I would have been lost on the background and characters. Nothing here is explained. The politics behind Joan’s trial are not discussed either. I think the story works better in the context of her whole life because it’s more of a tragedy after you’ve seen her heroism. I have to suppose any Frenchman in the 1920s already knew the story and must have understood the tragedy without the prologue. As I have said before, I prefer silent comedies over silent dramas where the broad acting brings intentional laughs. This might be one of the few times where that level of intensity works in a silent drama. There is nothing entertaining here although you can appreciate technique and it will only cost you 80 minutes.

THE LEOPARD (1963) – This is my first Visconti movie and many consider it his masterpiece. I didn’t read anything going in and I was surprised that it’s a costume drama, sort of an Italian Gone with the Wind. Both GWTW and LEOPARD are set in the 1860s, both movies are about a way of life ending, and both movies are epic length. I guess I was expecting all Italian directors of this time period to be practicing neo-realism. What is weird about this movie is that it stars Burt Lancaster of all people and he’s dubbed in Italian. If I’m from Italy I probably don’t notice, but it’s Burt Lancaster and I know too well what his voice sounds like and when he opens up and I hear a husky Italian voice come out of his mouth it feels weird. There is an official release English language dubbed version and I would rent it and see the whole three hours again if I knew it was Burt Lancaster’s voice. I’m interested to see some other Visconti movies to know whether or not this is typical, because this one didn’t really rock me as I had expected, though any guy will appreciate Claudia Cardinale’s presence.

TALK TO ME (2007) – Don Cheadle plays an ex-con who lips his way into a job as a radio DJ in 1960s Washington D.C. The movie is based on the true story of Petey Greene, but rather than a pure biopic, the film tries to be a panorama of politics and race relations in the late 60s. Near the end it changes focus entirely and follows Petey’s manager played by Chiwetel Ejiofor. Cheadle proves capable again and Eijofor is every bit his equal. Like most biopics they have plenty to say up front about the rise of a person, but no easy resolution. Sometimes historical figures have not the decency to die a hero or martyr for the screenwriter. Watch it if you’re in the mood for the material or skip it with little regret.

SPIDERMAN 3 (2007) – The first movie in the series was alright. The second movie was an improvement focusing on the conflict between being a hero and leading a normal life. This third film comes out of nowhere as an “everything but the kitchen sink” fiasco with too many villains, too many love interests and too many subplots. They even re-write history a little by having someone else kill Uncle Ben. The Spiderman stories are interesting for their more complex villains, but after three films, that becomes a liability. All the back stories become redundant and you long for one guy to be pure evil just for variety. The character of Spiderman ends the trilogy as more of a psychologist than a super hero. And that could have been fine had they focused on Peter Parker’s complex relationship with the new Goblin. I suppose that was too cerebral for the producers who wanted action scenes that would play better overseas. So we’re introduced to the Sandman and Venom two more bad guys that don’t mean it. They really set themselves up for a great third movie and didn’t deliver.

I AM LEGEND (2007) I would usually skip this at the theatre, but Sir Saunders and the boys were going to see it so why not. I thought the trailer looked interesting and the reviews were decent too. It based on the same source material as THE OMEGA MAN, and this one has better production values. Just a character with the whole of Manhattan to himself gives the movie an intriguing pull. It also has Will Smith going for it, a real movie star in a time of few. The plot has Smith as last man on earth fighting a gang of vampires that only come out at night. The movie grabs you in many kinds of ways. I especially fell soft for the dog, having lost my own this past year. I AM LEGEND is a vehicle movie in the best possible way.

CHRISTMAS CAROL (1938) – Gene Lockhart seems a bit too old to play Bob Cratchet and the translation isn’t nearly as grim as later ones. I guess that a plus after seeing ignorance and want between the legs of that second spirit in so many films. Lionel Barrymore was supposed to star as Scrooge, but the arthritis that would later render him to a wheelchair prevented it. If you can find a copy you have to hear the Barrymore radio interpretation of this material. Reginald Owen steps in and does a decent enough job as Scrooge. The 1951 version outdid this.

CHRISTMAS CAROL (1999) Patrick Stewart as Scrooge this time. He’s got the accent down from birth. The rest of the film follows as expected. I kept thinking that this could be a signature take on the tale, but despite Alistair Sim’s 1951 version, I still think the best telling of this material is yet to come.

ONCE (2007) – A Movie Review

Bad movies can be easily reviewed by describing misfire scenes and phony dialogue. Good movies are a little tougher, because you have to describe why it works for you. Remarkable movies are nearly impossible, because remarkable movies make the simple sublime. ONCE convinced me that good movies can still be made with a small budget, a simple script and a few honest performances.

Guy, a talented struggling Dublin street musician meets Girl, a piano playing Czech immigrant. What happens next has to be seen to be appreciated. It’s best described as honest or real or at least warm. The leads were both musicians who had never acted but you’d think they were the two biggest stars in Ireland.

Of all the Junto Boys I am probably the least interested in music, and the music here is great. As a musical I would certainly take it over CHICAGO, HAIRSPRAY, and THE PRODUCERS. Though I have a lot of movies yet to see, ONCE is so far the best film I have seen in 2007. I'll comment again after seeing Juno, No Country for Old Men and There Will be Blood.

MOVIE REVIEWS LATE 2007 Part 1

I have a backlog of movies back to early November. Here are few to chew on:


THE PAINTED VEIL (2007) – Just when you thought the world was finished adapting Somerset Maugham books to the screen, Edward Norton and Naomi Watts give it one more try. Maugham was big in his day and a lot of his work was made into movies in the 1930s ands 1940s. This story was a Greta Garbo vehicle way back. Here Norton plays a British doctor working in China in the 1920s. Watts is forced to marry Norton by her parents during the first 10 minutes of the movie. She soon falls for the married Liev Schreiber and is discovered by her husband. Norton gives her the choice of accompanying him on a trip to the heart of China to cure a cholera epidemic or face the public humiliation of a divorce. She makes the trip and while there Watts sees the goodness in her husband as he heals the sick and she eventually falls in love with him. The movie is a reminder of the limits of modern drama in the anything goes era. The fact that someone’s reputation meant something in the old days made situations like these perilous. People use to need redemption and that could make a whole story. It can still theoretically work in a period piece with the right tone of seriousness, but this movie does not achieve it. If you like the subject matter or Maugham novels give it a try. Otherwise you’re not missing anything.

DOWN IN THE VALLEY (2005) - Edward Norton again. This time he’s a modern day cowboy with a secret. He quits his job at the filling station to tag along with a group high school kids going to the beach. Norton goes because of Evan Rachel Wood and they soon begin a love affair. Wood’s father, the always solid David Morse, doesn’t like him much but Norton easily wins over her brother Rory Culkin with his cowboy ways. Bruce Dern and Geoffrey Lewis show up later in small roles. I’m not sure what drew this many decent actors to the material. Norton plays the cowboy in a Gary Cooper sort of aw shucks way which works for what it’s worth, but the relationship with Wood never seems real. Her continued affection for him makes less sense as you get to know him. Independent films are allowed to be more unpredictable, but like so many indies, this movie uses that freedom to be surprising rather than authentic and the last 20 minutes or so are not believable. In retrospect, the cowboy’s secret must have been what drew Norton to the material. He just didn’t get a decent third act to go with it.

A MIGHTY HEART (2007) –The western press prides itself by writing of the enemy in equal terms with America. If nothing else a Daniel Pearl movie should remind the press which side they are on. Pearl was just trying to get the story, but he was an American to the terrorists and just as worthy of death as a soldier in uniform. Angelina Jolie plays Pearl’s wife in this film and she sorts out what happened to him. Jolie is decent as the protagonist, but we know the ending already so the slow reveal feels more like a delay than plot points. I think it will be a long time before a terrorist movie can compete with United 93.

BLACK BOOK (2006) – Paul Verhoeven returns to The Netherlands to helm this story about the Dutch resistance during World War II. The main character Rachel is a Jew who died her hair blonde to pass as gentile and woo German officers for the intelligence it would bring the resistance. Later in the film her German notices her dark roots and pegs her for a Jew but doesn’t care. Are there no dark haired gentiles in Holland? The film is very episodic with locales and characters changing often especially before our heroine settles in with her own Nazi. It has an extended epilogue and at 145 minutes, there was ample room to cut another 20 minutes. Still, it’s pretty entertaining and Verhoeven’s Hollywood experience shows, because although the film is shot in Dutch, it looks and feels very Hollywood.

SUPERBAD (2007) – Judd Apatow/Seth Rogen have an ability to mix the profane with the heartwarming and SuperBad continues the tradition of 40 Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up. Two high school kids lament their impending separation as they get ready to go off to college. Their final exploits together include scoring alcohol for the big party and winning over the girls they like. Those desires are real ones and it makes you root for the characters. But much of the action is farcical including a subplot involving a couple of sheriff deputies. Still, I laughed a lot and the relationship with the principles was touching.

KNOCKED UP (2007) – It’s hard to figure out what Katherine Heigl would see in Seth Rogen’s bum character in the first place, but after a one night stand they’re going to have to get to know each other, because Ms. Heigl is having his baby. Crude jokes notwithstanding, the film has real heart summed up in Rogen seeking advice from his father played by Harold Ramis. Ramis doesn’t have any advice. He’s been divorced 3 times. He just knows that he loves his son. About every ten years someone comes along and redefines comedy with a new style, Mel Brooks in the 1970s, the Airplane guys in the 1980s, the Farrelly Brothers in the 1990s and now Apatow/Rogen. What we know is they all burn bright and after a couple of films wear out a little with familiarity. I wonder how long they have.

DAZED AND CONFUSED (1993) – I pushed this to the top of the list after I bought the HD DVD player. A decent enough high school film with funny moments, but I wouldn’t have guessed that Richard Linklater was behind it if I saw it on TV. Supporting performances by Parker Posey as the nasty upperclassman, Ben Affleck as the bully, and Mathew McConaughey as the graduate that can’t stop hanging out with High School kids. The leads are people we hardly recognize. It all takes place during the evening of the last day of school. Had I watched it in a batch of other high school films I don’t think I would have pegged it as the classic it is supposed to be.

LAND OF THE PHAROAHS (1955) – A rare Howard Hawks bomb that broke the streak of 10 or 12 hits in a row, this movie put Hawks into a 4 year sabbatical in the mid 1950s. I had never sought it out prior, but I recently read a Howard Hawks biography and figured I might as well give it a whirl. A mostly British cast is led by Jack Hawkins as the Pharaoh. James Robertson plays the architect that he enslaves to build him a tomb in the form of a great pyramid that will be impossible to rob. Joan Collins stirs things up midway as the girl from Cyprus that Hawkins makes his second wife. There is a great anecdote in the Hawks book about Joan partying it up so much during the production that she gained 10 pounds and they had to disguise it. Martin Scorsese considers it a guilty pleasure. It’s not a terrible movie but not exciting either.

THE DINNER GAME (1998) – French film based on a stage play and it feels like one with almost all the action taking place at a single Paris apartment. Every week a group of snooty Frenchmen hold a dinner trying to bring a guest who is the biggest idiot of the night. The movie is how this idea backfires against a publisher who lures an accountant/idiot to dinner. The accountant makes the publishers life all the worse and yet teaches us all some humanity. A bonus is the movie is only 78 minutes long so it’s not stretched like the material would be with a Hollywood production.

RESCUE DAWN (2006) – Based on the story of Deiter Dengler, a German kid during World War II who decided to become a pilot after watching the allies bomb his country. Dengler immigrates to American and becomes a Vietnam era flyer shot down on his first mission. Director Werner Herzog had already made a documentary of this material a few years prior. Christian Bale leads and Jeremy Davies co-stars for Dude’s double take. I was expecting more with a Bale/Herzog collaboration, but it’s still a good enough movie worth seeing. English language makes it more accessible too. Except for a scene knocking the CIA late in the action, the movie is surprisingly pro-American. Didn’t someone tell the German Herzog that Brian DePalma and Oliver Stone would have made the other side the good guys?

LAST MOVIES I SAW IN 2007

I have a lot of movies to review, but here are the two I watched last night.

THE KINGDOM (2007) – I didn’t expect much from this what with the Tomatometer at around 50%, and its obvious play to the masses trailer and marketing. But you can’t really understand modern film by watching nothing but Indies and message pictures.

Movies like THE KINGDOM are the modern day equivalent of forties films like Guadalcanal Diary and the Story of G.I. Joe that try to tell the story of individuals in a time of war. The difference with modern film is the tendency toward “the enemy is us” approach or the moral equivalence between our side and theirs. While I disagree with that worldview and it’s a deal breaker as a premise, it’s only a mild annoyance as an attribute, and this movie only touches on the idea. It’s more interested in having our heroes solve the mystery. The premise is that an American compound of oil workers and their families in Saudi Arabia are attacked by a mad bomber and a stateside FBI team led by Jamie Foxx wants to travel to Saudi Arabia and investigate.

The conflict and politics behind whether Foxx and his team can go to Saudi Arabia is a bit overplayed, especially in that Foxx’s career is at risk for some reason. But the FBI director played by Richard Jenkins delivers a wonderfully written speech to the Attorney General who is against the trip. Jenkins explains how as a young soldier General Westmoreland told them all to write their obituaries and Jenkins explains how knowing you are going to die changes the way you approach life. And knowing you won’t have a job forever makes it easier to make the right choice over the popular one. I wish I had written the speech, because it’s my own philosophy about such things though I have never articulated it quite so well.

Of course our heroes wind up in Saudi Arabia to investigate and they are met with wary Saudis some they eventually win over. The team consists of Jennifer Garner who can’t deliver believable dialogue though she seems competent removing shrapnel from bodies, Chris Cooper the explosives expert on board to deliver the countrified common sense, and the resurgent Jason Bateman, a computer expert and smartass. Jeremy Piven is the American Ambassador who plays a variation of his character Ari on Entourage.

The conflict of the two cultures is played decently and the mutual respect gained after a period of time is to the Hollywood standard in such matters. There is not much surprise anywhere, but Foxx and company are compelling enough people and the mystery is revealed at about the right speed. The big minus is the overuse of that frenetic camera. The point of being in the audience is not to be a character in the film but an observer. When will Hollywood kill this annoying device?

The big climactic action scene is played out decently with good tension, but there is a weird sitcom type moment right after the resolution. That kind of thing works better with Bruce or Arnold. Here it seemed discordant.

Overall I think this movie can be enjoyed if your expectations are middling. One piece of advice given by a co-worker who saw the movie, he felt like is was tilled ground already since he watches a lot of 24 and the like. I have never seen a episode of 24 so I am much fresher eyes.

EASTERN PROMISES (2007) Viggo Mortensen stars for David Cronenberg again and Viggo has another secret. He’s the driver for the Russian mob in London. The leader of the mob is the unassuming restaurateur played by the always interesting Armin Mueller-Stal. Naomi Watts is the spunky female trying to get to the bottom of why a young pregnant Russian girl is dead.

I’ll admit that I don’t always get Cronenberg and I think it’s because I’m not a horror fan and even his non horror movies use horror violence instead of action movie violence. The technique is disruptive to the language of film and screams out “Cronenberg” at key moments in a movie. I’ll further admit that I liked both of his last two films despite that.

I really liked the premise of A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE and would have liked the film more had they bypassed the bizarre William Hurt confrontation. EASTERN PROMISES has good enough premise, but the overall handling of the film is better I think and more rewarding.

MOVIES SINCE JULY

HOAX (2007) - Richard Gere stars as Clifford Irving, the guy who forged Howard Hughes’ autobiography in the early 1970s. The story is also chronicled in Orson Welles film F FOR FAKE. HOAX is much more watchable than director, Lasse Hallstrom’s THE SHIPPING NEWS, which was my last attempt at his work. On the negative side, I think that the dependable Gere only scratched the surface. The chutzpah it would take to pull off a fraud so big would require a larger than life guy. DiCaprio pulled it off in CATCH ME IF YOU CAN. Gere plays it affable enough, but not nearly as grandiose. Alfred Molina plays the researcher sidekick that helps him with the con. Marcia Gay Harden is cast as the wife and accessory to the crime. The lovely Julie Delpy gets a scene or two as Gere’s on-again, off-again mistress. It made me want to read the book.

CINEMANIA (2002) - A documentary about several eccentric Manhattan residents obsessed with films. One guy knows the running time of every movie including the times of alternate versions. Another guys plans to see 5 films everyday so he has to work subway schedules, pack different clothing for different environments, and bring Peanut Butter sandwiches. Another guy is a print snob that avoids 16mm. An older lady is known to fight with the staff and collect movie memorabilia. Except for the guy who admits the inheritance, the rest of the gang lacks a means of support and they live how you’d think. They’re easy to write off as eccentrics, but one guy in particular sums up the pretentiousness of certain foreign films versus other foreign films that are true classics. I thought it was about the best analysis I heard on the subject. The film ends with a screening of the documentary with them in attendance.

COOL (2004) - The only other Theo Van Gogh film available at Netflix. Here a crime gang of kids rob and steal and wind up in reform school. The two main characters fight with one another over the same girl and you know how those things go. Bad boy is the leader of the gang. Good boy is reforming in reform school. I didn’t like it as much at May 6th, although it’s better than the this kind of material would be from a Hollywood production. Van Gogh has a refreshing style in both of these films that make me wonder why he didn't have a larger following. May 6th was better than most of the stuff I've seen at the Enzian. COOL was better than half.

MUSIC AND LYRICS (2007) - Hugh Grant plays the former 80s music star who can still make a living off of his name although it’s not always in the most dignified ways. The latest teen pop tart wants him to write a song so that they can record a duet and our hero jumps at the chance although he is purely music and no good with lyrics. Miraculously Drew Barrymore, here to water the plants, has a way with words and reveals this as she does so. If you like these two actors the movie will not offend you, and may occasionally make you laugh. I find them both winning enough that the movie was about what I expected.

AMERICAN DREAMZ (2006) - American Idol and other reality shows are ripe for parody, but that golden opportunity was lost with this uninspiring comedy. Either Mandy Moore is a great actress or she is naturally irritating like this character. I’ll have to remember to ask myself next time I see her. Here she plays the nobody longing for stardom at any cost. Chris Klein plays her lovesick boyfriend in that same way he plays everything from the popular jock in ELECTION to that popular jock from AMERICAN PIE. Hugh Grant has a tough job trying to parody Simon Cowell. I don’t like those kinds of shows, but Cowell himself is surprisingly self-aware and although you can copy his derision, he seems to have few ticks and mannerisms. There is also a terrorism subplot played for laughs. A parody of the Apprentice may have been easier than this. Avoid!

DARWIN AWARDS (2006) Winona Ryder and Joseph Fiennes are back from their Siberian exile and the party leaders decided to star them in something not too terribly difficult but clever enough to warrant their participation. Fiennes is a police profiler and fan of the Darwin Awards. He’s smart and he can handle himself but he faints at the sight of blood. This leads to him losing a serial killer he apprehends and gets him kicked off the force. He then talks himself into a job of insurance profiler, convincing the company that he can profile Darwin like tendencies and save the company millions. Winona plays the cynical insurance adjuster that gets assigned to him. It’s gory at times although its played for laughs. A lot of the Darwin winners are recognizable faces. All and all a decent effort with a few laughs.

THE GREAT MOMENT (1944) - The last of the Golden Era Preston Sturges films I hadn’t seen. Here Sturges decides that Joel McRae is the inventor of anesthesia, when I thought that Paul Muni invented it. Soon I realize that it has to be McRae because William Demarest is the sidekick and McRae gets a wife that Muni would never marry. Muni marries the ones that bring him pie in the wee hours, whereas McRae’s wife accuses him of being a rummy when an experiment or two knocks him out cold. If I had to name movies with the most abrupt endings in the history of film, this would certainly make my top five along with Cassevettes HUSBANDS. Distinctively Sturges, but not his best.

BRICK (2005) A different take on high school life. Nobody ever attends any classes and the school action take place on an empty football field, empty parking lot or other semi secluded places in and around campus. Our guy is pressed into being a detective after his ex-girlfriend calls him for help and then turns up dead. Rather than try for parody the movie takes this Chandler/Hammett premise and plays it out in a straightforward manner. We get the fem fatale that doesn’t fool our gumshoe, the crime king pen that our hero gets close to, and a number of hat tips to the masters. Worth mentioning is the visit to the principal’s office that is direct comment on Sam Spade’s visit with the District Attorney in Maltese Falcon. The other Hammett plot device is how he plays both sides against each other like in RED HARVEST. I don’t know that there was anything about it that stands out but it was an interesting idea.

FRACTURE (2007) I notice the more I see Anthony Hopkins films, his character quirks are actually Anthony Hopkins quirks. He almost always does that pause and grunts to himself during a movie. it’s sort of his “I don’t care what you are saying” schtick. I don’t mind it because I like him on screen and it reminds me that he is a movie star in the old tradition. And this is a movie star vehicle. Hopkins kills his cheating wife and then devises a plan to get away with it. The hotshot D.A. on the brink of leaving for a high paying private sector firm suddenly becomes the Hopkins dupe that could ruin his future plans. The plot involving the legal system makes Grisham look reasonable. Decide how much you like Hopkins and you’ll know whether to seek this out. The style is there the substance is not.

ZODIAC (2007) A pretty solid effort from David Fincher (Se7en) returning to the serial killer genre in this based on a true story film. Jake Gyllenhall is winning as the cartoonist that becomes obsessed with the case for years much to the detriment of his private life. The solid Robert Downey Jr. plays the ace columnist also hot on the trail until his personal demons end his quest. The mystery itself is never fully answered so it leaves you a little disappointed especially after spending nearly 3 hours to get there. Does that give away too much? Still, it’s smart and above average.

SMOKIN’ ACES (2007) - A movie that could not possibly exist without the influence of Quinten Tarantino. A bunch of characters and subplots and hitmen all trying to kill the dude who might testify against the mob. Fast paced, cameo ridden and fun to a point if you like the style, but not terribly inspired.

REIGN OVER ME (2007) - Adam Sandler in a dramatic role of a dentist who loses his family in the 9-11 attacks. Don Cheadle plays his dental school roommate who runs into him by chance and tries to lend a hand. Sandler has dropped out of society and doesn‘t remember Cheadle, he also ignores his in-laws and blocks out the memory of his family. It’s a very real premise and both Sandler and Cheadle are at their best. The problems arise mostly out of inconsistencies and movie devices. We get a useless subplot about model-esque patient of Cheadle’s who comes on to him and then cries sexual harassment. Not only does Cheadles just happen to share a psychiatrist with the accuser (in NYC?), but the patient later recants and plays into Sandler’s rehabilitation. Come on. Jada Pinkett Smith plays Cheadle’s wife, a character that exists simply to give Cheadle something to feel guilty/angry about and then thankful for. Cheadle’s parents also exist for similar reasons. Sandler’s in-laws have a little more purpose plot wise, but they aren't given enough to do. Most movies get superfluous because they lack substance. This movie seems to do it to avoid the substance. If you like Sandler and Cheadle it might be worth it anyway, but it could have been much better.

BOBBY (2006) (A Movie Review)

I can imagine that Bobby Kennedy’s assassination had a profound effect on America and especially so to the American Left. My mother who shook hands with Bobby a few months before his assassination talked about it on several occasions during my childhood. She wasn’t very political but Camelot wasn’t about politics but royalty and Bobby was the crown prince.

Forgotten is that he worked for Senator Joe McCarthy and was even best man at his wedding for crying out loud. Bobby knew all the angles fighting commies with Uncle Joe in the 50s and then prosecuting the Republican leaning Teamsters in the 1960s while ignoring the corruption of the Democrat leaning AFL-CIO. When Civil Rights looked politically viable he was for that too and when the Vietnam war became unpopular he hated it.

Bobby's assassination means that he is the perfect President that never was. He would have ended the war and racism and poverty and healed all that ails us. Idealism requires that Bobby wasn't an calculating union busting McCarthyite turned dove, but a true believer. He wasn't Humphrey or McGovern or other Democrats that would have bungled the message, but the one we would have listened to.

And to Emilo's credit the archival footage he chooses here is really impressive. Bobby connected with people in a way that candidates no longer do. But the tough reality is that Bobby had very little chance of winning the 1968 Democrat nomination. The primaries were a smaller part of the delegate count back then and the party insiders were going to nominate VP Humphrey regardless of the voters. But rather than be realistic, a certain part of the Left imagines Camelot II stopped by inefficient gun control legislation. That night wasn't just another tragedy for the Kennedy family, but a turning point where the country was forever lost.

The film though is about that day in the Ambassador hotel and the people that spend it getting ready for Bobby’s arrival. Therefore most of the movie could have been made independent of Bobby storyline since so many sub plots make it seem more like an Arthur Hailey story. Rather than go into the mundane lives that are shattered when the real hero is fell, let’s just say that it comes off pretty well and though it’s not saying a whole lot, it’s Emilo’s best movie yet. His goal of making Bobby significant works for a guy like me who thinks that even an underdog win by Kennedy wouldn't have shifted the country all the much.

MAY 6th (A film Review)

You’ve heard of Theo Van Gogh, Great Grand nephew of Vincent. Theo was shot by a radical Islamist back in 2004. Theo was a columnist and a movie director, a career that doesn’t seem to have much of a parallel in the United States unless you count Sean Penn’s trips to the Middle East. Theo was a supporter of Pim Fortuyn, the Dutch politician himself gunned down two years before. They both wanted restricted Muslim immigration fearing that Muslim fundamentalism was slowly changing the liberal landscape of Holland. But Pim Fortuyn’s killer was an eco-terrorist, one who prayed at the other great multicultural religion, the environment.

May 6th is the day the Pim was shot and the movie is about the forces behind the killing. Our hero is a tabloid photographer outside a radio studio shooting cheesecake shots of a model while unbeknownst to him Pim is inside giving his last radio interview. Pim is shot leaving the interview and our photographer’s proximity gives him a lot of accidental evidence about the scene of the crime, ala BLOWUP (1966). Since going to the cops is never any fun, our hero instead tracks down the people in the photos one by one and tries to solve the mystery of what happened that day.

Unfortunately, what happened borrows heavily from the Oliver Stone JFK approach. Find some dissent from orthodoxy in a politician’s record and low and behold, the secret cabal is standing by waiting to cut his throat. Here the greenies are just dupes for businessman who put them up to it. How are the Dutch ever going to have an independent film culture when they keep borrowing Hollywood villains?

Despite the hackneyed conspiracy theories this is a solid picture with a lot of fine smaller performances. Our hero’s detective work moves at a good speed, less so than Hollywood breakneck and yet not so slow as to lose the viewer. Instead of aha scenes where Charlize and Denzel study the same paper and look at each other and say, “does this mean. . . ?” our hero is solitary in his search. Other people seem slightly amused at his obsession or indifferent and when the bad guys turn up they don’t wear $2000 suits and have half page of dialogue to clue our guy in real good. The heavies act like people, more powerful than our hero, but still semi-unsure of themselves in a situation they didn’t anticipate.

The best attribute of the movie is the hero’s journey. You follow and root for him throughout and I was sorry to see the thing end, because so many of the ancillary problems are left unsolved like real life.

AllMovie.com says that Van Gogh’s work has received scant worldwide critical attention although he was praised inside the Netherlands. If MAY 6th is representative of his work I hope they release the rest of his filmography. Netflix has one other Van Gogh title and I will cue it forthwith.

DIE HARD 4 BOURNE 3

I saw them back to back last weekend. They were both entertaining and they make great companion films.

The Bourne movies follow the idea that the American government’s power is so absolute that they can manipulate world events through the use of their mind-altered automatons. The latest Die Hard movie takes the approach that the government is so inept in seeing possible dangers that private individuals like John McClain have to step up to save the country.

Neither idea is new, but using Damon’s earlier quote about “smart” movies, which one is the smart movie? The action in both movies is equally implausible with the one difference that Bruce Willis stops for the occasional punch line.

In the Bourne universe the world is so beaten down by our prowess that they can barely live their own lives. We have these assassins all over the world ready to push the hair trigger on any perceived threat. And we must have hundreds of them, because you can reach one in any decent sized city in the world.

In McClain’s universe, the government red tape and inaction spawned the bad guy angry that no one would take him seriously inside the government. When the madman attacks no one really knows how to respond or what might happen next.

I think the Bournce universe may have been truer during the cold war or it was at least possible. Maybe the CIA held out against the Russians until Reagan could provide the death blow. But the events of 9-11 suggest that the Bourne universe is a total myth today. That’s probably why conspiracy theorists say that American attacked itself. Because if jihadists can destroy the World Trade Center then their vision of obtrusive CIA domination in the world is bogus.

If you accept that Islamists attacked on 9-11 then the Die Hard movie is the smart one jokes and all. Bourne Director Paul Greengrass made the exceptional United 93 last year and that movie suggest a DIE HARD worldview. No one was ready for the attack that day.

I really like the Bourne movies, despite the overused super close up frenetic camera. I like the series because I want the CIA to be that engaged in the world. Bourne wants us to question the validity of CIA power, but I can hate the villains inside the system and still support the idea and goals behind it as a net win. Every organization run by humans is going to have the flaws of humans. CIA abuse is a natural by-product of people having power over people. The best we can do is run the bad eggs out, which happens in every installment.

I think the filmmakers fail to understand their own implications when they attack government agencies like the CIA. If people are abusing power in the CIA, then there is no reason to think that doesn’t happen in every other government organization. And therefore, it would be foolish to give the Federal government any task that can be handled in some other way. If the film makers want to stop government abuse then you have to reduce the size of government, something we all know they certainly oppose. To follow their logic, bureaucrats in other government agencies are heroes there to help, but those in the CIA are megalomaniacs like on Pinky and the Brain. A more simplistic view of government would be hard to find.

Of all the Bourne movies I think this is the weakest mostly because he returns to American and the action scenes in New York City seem a stretch. Would the CIA really order their gunmen to kill people in front of New York cops? At least in Berlin I can rationalize the lack of oversight.

You can’t beat the first Die Hard movie, but the current one is certainly better than the third one. Bruce Willis said a few years ago that he gave up action films. I’m glad he’s back because fewer people can pull them off anymore.

INGMAR BERGMAN 1918-2007

I’m not as versed in Bergman as I should be. Maybe his death will give me a chance to visit his work some more.

THREE STRANGE LOVES (1949) –You wouldn’t figure it for a Bergman film, but the love –triangle subject matter was treated in a much more European manner although I remember the interiors and cinematography seemed like a 1940s Hollywood. It just happened to be one of the few Bergman movies the Pensacola library owned and it’s overall mediocrity kept me from trying other lessor known films like THE MAGICIAN.

WILD STRAWBERRIES (1957) – This was my first Bergman film. I couldn’t figure out how a man’s travel with his daughter-in-law could make for a classic film, but I gave it a run. It turned out to be a great introduction to Bergman, because his approach to material is usually superior to the plot itself. It had a funny effect on me at the time. I liked it a great deal and I wanted to watch it again soon after. I decided that I watch some of his other films first, but his best films were unavailable in Pensacola. I’ve slowly watched a few here or there on Netflix, but I have a way to go. I would still consider it to be my favorite of his movies.

THE SEVENTH SEAL (1957) –It’s hard to set a film in the middle ages and make it work. I can hardly think of another off hand. Bergman not only captures small villages and great areas of desolation, but intertwines the black death quite well too. This was the first one I saw on Netflix and it’s understandable why it’s his most iconic. Death as a character could be quite hokey in the wrong hands, but Bergman makes it believable and haunting and compelling.

CRIES AND WHISPERS (1972) – After THREE STRANGE LOVES I thought I would check out something more well know and Cries and Whispers was nominated for Best Picture and Director. A movie full of death and near death and pain and remorse can get to you. For as much as it was supposed to be ground breaking, it not really compelling enough for the effort. I think I gave up on it after 45 minutes. It did more than anything else to quell my Bergman appetite for a while.

FANNY AND ALEXANDER (1982) – This is the one I’ve seen most recently. Although 3 hours long, the story arc and tertiary characters work well enough that it didn’t seem overlong. I understand he did a 4 hour version for Swedish TV. It also helped me to understand why critics point to certain Woody Allen traits and call the Bergmanesque. Woody’s scene at the end of Match Point where the Tennis Player talks to deceased is a clear homage to Bergman and one I understood after watching this film. Although F&A is longer than most its also less dark than the others I have seen.

TOM’S MOVIE REVIEWS SINCE MAY

*** Superior Film
** Solid Effort
* Same ole
# Sleep Aid


***A MAN ESCAPED (1957) – I decided to try another Robert Bresson film after getting enjoyment from PICKPOCKET last time. The setting is World War II, our hero is a French resistance member in prison and dying to get out. The plan and the time that it takes to find a way out are the gist of the movie. It’s all in style and tension and Bresson serves up another winner.

**ARMY OF SHADOWS (1969) – French Resistance again, but this time from my pal Melville, of Le Samurai fame. The Nazis were not kind to the Frenchies that didn’t play ball. It follows the journey of a resistance fighter raising money and pulling schemes. Like the Andy Garcia movie I review later, it’s uplifting and scary watching a guy trying to get his country back.

*BREACH (2007) – Based on a true story of Robert Hanssen, the FBI agent turncoat in bed with the Russians. Chris Cooper plays Hanssen effectively. Ryan Phillipe is cast to annoy Dude as the young aide planted to get the goods on Hanssen. Cooper/Hanson’s intelligence and observation are so keen that he proves to Phillipe that he can tell when he’s lying and soon thereafter fingers him for snooping around in his office. That’s on the first day and it makes Phillipe’s quest look hopeless. But after that scene, Cooper never really calls the aide out on any of his lies or suspects any of the subterfuge. The setup is solely to make us uneasy in their confrontations rather than introduce a real character trait that will play out later in the plot. The actor that plays Phillipe’s wife is supposed to be East German but her accent sounds Scottish when she bothers to use it, and her looks are not the least bit European. I have to comment on the politics. William Hurt already starred in the TV version of Hanssen’s tale and while I’m sure that would have been enough usually, this movie arrives so that Hanssen’s personally conservative manner can be construed to be a part of his overall deficiencies. He chastises Phillipe for noticing the beauty of another woman and pressures him to bring his non-catholic wife to mass. He also comments on not liking to see women wear pants and disparages Hilary Clinton. Only a rotten spy could think these things. CIA spy Aldrich Ames gave something like $5,000 to the Democrat National Committee and that didn’t get mentioned in his TV movie starring Timothy Hutton. The reliable Laura Linney is kind of wasted as the boss that puts Phillipe up to all this. The rarely seen Anne Archer plays Cooper’s wife. Overall it’s probably a little smarter than the typical piece in this genre, but there is nothing new in approach. It’s just a matter of waiting around for the capture.

*THE GOOD SHEPHERD (2006) – We have moles in the CIA too, but before we get to that director, Robert DeNiro shows us the early history of the CIA through a young agent played by Matt Damon. It follows along pretty nicely for the most part, but becomes too much near the end when the web encompasses Damon’s family. Did we really need such melodrama? Good turns by John Turturro as the loyal aide, Michael Gambom as his college professor, and Alec Baldwin as his contact in the FBI. It has all the style and presence of a great movie, but the plot eventually gets in the way. No amount of makeup makes Matt Damon look 50 years old. The scene with his grown son makes them look like school chums. Like BREACH it begins with a flashback. Does no one read Syd Field? I guess it’s rare to see any biographical movie not flashback. WALK THE LINE is another recent example.

**THE LOST CITY (2005) – Actor/Director Andy Garcia is entirely out of step. How else do you explain that this biographical movie doesn’t begin with a flashback? But that’s not his only deviation. Unlike regular Hollywood that embraces Castro and idolizes Che, Garcia makes a movie about what frauds they were. He doesn’t sugar coat Batista and his corruption, but instead shows how that corruption brought about an opportunist Castro who proved even worse. Since the OCEANS movies are more about attitude than character and since Garcia hasn’t made any other A list movies in ten years, I forgot what an effective actor he is. And if you think about him being 2 years older than Alec Baldwin and still capable of playing leading men, you wonder if he hasn’t been blacklisted for his political beliefs. Maybe he’ll get a documentary in 20 years about this injustice. The acting is uneven in the other performances and cameos by Dustin Hoffman and Bill Murray are entertaining but although disruptive. Hoffman just always seems like he’s acting to me even when he’s entertaining. Murray is really quite a hoot, although there is no real purpose for his character and the tone changes in any scene he’s in. It’s funny what passes as bravery these days. Michael Moore is considered brave for making movie’s that aligns with every Hollywood prejudice. Sure sure the Cuban revolutionaries had some missteps, but this is wonderful health care. Actual bravery is portraying Che in a negative light when your peers think the opposite. I mean OCEANS director, Steven Soderbergh is making his next movie about Che and I don’t think it will be about how he liked shooting people for the kick it gave him. I expect a wonderful little movie from Soderbergh, directed much more skillfully with a softer poetic side of the brute, pure fiction of course but a boon to those T-shirt makers. Garcia’s movie is a little long, but the cinematography is first rate. And you root for Garcia the whole way especially as he puts himself in peril by opposing the revolution. This movie gives you the cost of utopianism, the people trampled, the families split apart, the businesses lost all so the worker’s paradise can begin. It’s a grown up movie about what really happens in socialism and the cost of romanticizing it.

*SUPER SIZE ME (2004) – If you need to learn that eating McDonalds is bad for you maybe this is educational. For me, it’s just funny to watch him eat Big Macs and act surprised at the results. Seeing his vital signs wither after a month of McNuggets shows the resilience of the human body more than anything else. The implication in the movie is that the grim reaper had a hand on Morgan’s shoulder. But we all know that people eat like this for years without dying. Maybe I could get famous by making a movie about how taking a bath makes you wet.

Spurlock has good personality and I've been meaning to rent that show he does for F/X. But SUPERSIZE ME is moral superiority masked as journalism. It's no surprise that he gets fat, but does he need to show us his vomit out the car window but to let us know he's really taking one for the team? He also tries to create a drama around his health checkups like he could suddenly die of a heart attack. I don't know if such a movie really educates anyone about junk food. If that's its purpose then it should have been less dramatic. I tend to think this is really a call for government intervention. The way he makes it seem addictive can be little else than a plea for help from the nanny state. I thought I was getting a funny movie about a guy eating too much junk food, but its more like an advocacy campaign masked at entertainment.

**LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA (2006) – I think patriotism can boil down to one moment in this film. Were you happy the first time Americans bombed the Island? I found the Japanese soldiers very compelling and their challenge daunting. But when the bombs fell I could only say, sorry boys, you were born in the wrong century. It’s a tribute to Eastwood’s filmmaking that he didn’t let the sympathy that would be very easy to feel for individual soldiers translate into a hope that they’d beat back the Americans. And the Japanese are sympathetic. They don’t want to be on the island either. Some of them have been to the United States and they remember it fondly. They expect to die and want to do so honorably. The material surprises me considering Eastwood said that his friendship ended with Ronald Reagan after Reagan visited the Bitburg Cementary in 1986. Does this movie mean that Eastwood is ready to forgive our enemies in World War II or just ones that bombed us in the first place? Overall the movie is a little long. There isn’t much going on. We see flashbacks on the two main characters and learn a little about a few others. It’s not a movie that many people would have attempted. I felt that it was a solid effort overall, although I think I would have nominated FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS instead.

**LITTLE CHILDREN (2006) – I got the impression from marketing and nominations that this was some sort of intense drama when it’s actually a sly and subtle comedy. The main characters played by Patrick Wilson and Kate Winslet are the Little Children of the title. Both have child/adult relationships with their spouses, Wilson especially, and that frustration leads to their eventual affair. The subplot of child molester Jackie Earle Haley is also an example of adult infantilism as he still lives with and is cared for by his mother. His mother is worried about Haley. She sends him off on a date with a disturbed but otherwise sweet girl. He’s going to need a new mother when his real mother dies, she reckons. The date goes well at first. The two talk easily and the troubled girl opens up. He’s gentle with her and they quickly form a bond. What happens next only happens when a writer is having fun with us. And he’s having a lot of fun on this one. The last part of the movie is just nothing but symbolism on top of symbolism. There’s the obvious breaking of the porcelain kids. Haley’s solution in how to be a good boy made a bell ring in symbolville. And that the leading man misses his clandestine meeting with Winslet due to a skateboarding accident isn’t without meaning either. It’s almost like the movie opens with the children being sent out to play and although they all get dirty and hurt, they all come right back home to the parents.

*THE SENTINEL (2006) – It’s today’s generic modern action/suspense movie. Take a decent idea and fire it up into an interesting plot and then start adding elements that make the whole thing a cartoon and somewhere settle for an ending that’s forced, hollow, or uninspiring. Secret Service Agent Michael Douglas saved Reagan’s life and was subsequently passed over for promotion. Currently Douglas is taking it out on the country by banging the First Lady (Kim Basinger). Since we know that Douglas is capable of such treachery then it shouldn’t be surprising that his former best friend and fellow agent, Kiefer Sutherland, hates him because he suspects that Douglas was banging his wife too. That’s not even the plot just the background. The plot has some other secret service agent conspiring to kill the President and frame Douglas for it. So Douglas has to escape the clutches of Sutherland to clear his name. Chase, gunplay, explosion and Douglas gets to Basinger who believes him and she eventually tells Sutherland that Douglas is a good man even if he’s capable of banging a first lady. Would you be surprised to learn that Douglas makes it all the way to Toronto on the run and then almost single handedly saves the President’s life? Would you further believe with a line or two of dialogue that Kiefer suddenly believes that Douglas didn’t bang his wife and that they could be friends again? Somewhere in there we also get to believe that Eva Longira is an agent too. Still it’s entertaining enough once you forgive the writing shortcuts.

*NOTES FROM A SCANDAL (2006) – Cate Blanchet plays the free spirited teacher coming to a new school and Judy Dench plays the veteran that takes her under the wing. Though British the conflict is somewhat topical with the U.S. school system. Blanchett shows that she can play more than graceful beauty. Dame Judy has that presence you expect. Those two make the movie more interesting than its mediocre material would let on.