APRIL 2007 Movie Reviews

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

(Editor’s Note: Written before the recent French Election.)

Not long ago Dude said that he didn’t give up Perrier after our run-in with the French. For me, overpriced Perrier was easy to give up and not drinking French wine was a pleasure. The only thing that I couldn’t and didn’t give up. . . French films. Of continental European cinema, the French seem to please me more than any other. The next two films are two good reasons of why.

***PICKPOCKET (1959) – Robert Bresson didn’t make many movies, but he’s revered as a master among a sub group of auteur critics. PICKPOCKET is a barely 75 minutes and with so little dialogue it’s more like a silent movie than a foreign language one. Our hero has a compulsion for picking pockets and he has no moral qualms about doing so. The money scene has our hero and two confederates working a train station ballet like. After the film I watched Paul Schrader’s introduction in which I learned that Bresson uses non-actors which means Bresson is one hell of a director because it worked and that usually doesn’t.

***Le SAMURAI (1967) This is a great film noir that I had never heard of until Netflix recommended it. Alain Delon stars as the hired assassin who is spotted leaving a job. The police suspect him and that suspicion worries the mob that hired him enough that they try to kill him first rather than get caught in the web. I had never heard of director, Jean-Pierre Melville, but it turns out he was an actor in Godard’s BREATHLESS, the famous French new wave film. Melville now has my attention and I’ll try a few more.

**VOLVER (2006) – The most enjoyable Almodovar film of the four or so I’ve yet seen. Penelope Cruz, her daughter, sister, mother and aunt are struggling with their past and their future. I’ve seen enough of his work now that I can safely say that Almodovar is incapable of showing a normal and healthy male/female relationship. TIE ME UP, TIE ME DOWN is about a guy who kidnaps a girl and turns her into his lover. TALK TO HER has a male nurse raping the comatose girl who gets pregnant and wakes up. In ALL ABOUT MY MOTHER, mother and father are divorced because father is now a drag queen. VOLVER gives us the incest story that nearly repeats itself. Here if you step away from the gentle flow and your rooting for Penelope Cruz, much of the plot is laughable and yet Almodovar’s slight of hand makes it all seem so reasonable. That is a remarkable talent.

*WHO GETS TO CALL IT ART? (2003) – I thought this was going to be a documentary about the politics behind the modern art movement. Instead it’s a movie about a guy who actually got to decide if it was art or not, MET curator Henry Geldzahler. So the title should have been a declarative instead of a question. The movie is much in the mold of MAYOR OF SUNSET STRIP another obscure 60s figure that was nonetheless in the middle of much that was happening. The best part of the movie is the little vignettes with pop artists from the 1960s and how Henry was involved in their discovery and fame.

*SUPERMAN II (Richard Donner cut) (1982+2006) – When the original Superman was released to DVD a few years ago, Richard Donner said that he had shot more than half of Superman II simultaneously with the first movie but was fired after the first film was complete. Richard Lester took over and scrapped most of Donner’s footage. Fans on the internet started clamoring to see the Donner version and the studio yielded and hired a guy to put all that footage together. Despite the fact that Donner has to use a good portion of the Lester footage to bring his work to completion, the new cut is different in certain plot points, but not so different overall. I watched it with comic book guru, Sir Saunders, and he wasn’t convinced it was any better than Lester. I think that’s about right.

*ICE STATION ZEBRA (1968) – Several years ago with the release U-571, I asked co-workers to name their favorite submarine film. It’s hard to compare eras and even languages, but those who had seen DAS BOOT liked it best, followed by most who had seen HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER. Those of us who had seen RUN SILENT, RUN DEEP or OPERATION TOKYO discussed those for a while too. I even remember a guy standing up for CRIMSON TIDE. One guy was adamant to the point of conviction that ICE STATION ZEBRA was without a doubt the best. I figured that kind of passion was worth giving it a look someday. When Howard Hughes bought the Dessert Inn and purchased that Vegas TV station he made them run ICE STATION ZEBRA constantly. So I watched it while recovering from surgery. I found it a little pretentious actually with an overture and intermission despite being less than 3 hours. Rock Hudson is predictably solid as the captain. Jim Brown plays a badass Marine Officer in wooden manner. Patrick McGoohan shines as usual as an Intelligence guy along with Ernest Borgnine playing a Russian of all things. It was overlong and dated, and not charming dated like a 40s movie, with chessy sets that left no doubt that these actors were sleeping in their own beds each night. It’s a shame the plugger left the company because I wanted to ask him what exactly he liked so much. Maybe the worst Submarine film I have ever seen although not without some TOWERING INFERNO like entertainment value.

*THE ILLUSIONIST (2006) – Companion move to THE PRESTIGE, where another guy becomes a magician back in the old days. Edward Norton plays a smart Edward Norton, Jessica Biel plays Jessica Biel and Paul Giamatti plays a police chief. It’s kind of like a Mamet film with slight of hand and cons and what not. I heard it wasn’t good compared to THE PRESITGE, but it was alright actually although it fades from the mind quickly.

*MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA (2005) – If you saw The Last Samurai then you know how Hollywood makes a movie in period Japan. Just replace sword fights with pretty girls and you have the essence. It was certainly better than the preposterous Cruise movie and a decent example of characters living through an era that ends abruptly. Ken Watanabe trades his Samurai sword for business clothing and he makes a decent hero to our precious geisha.

*THE BREAKUP (2006) – Vince Vaughn is perfect as the loutish boyfriend who half listens to and usually disappoints his girlfriend, Jennifer Aniston. Aniston is also perfectly cast as the girl easy to fall for due to her cuteness but impossible to stay with due to her stick in the mud personality. This was marketed as a big comedy, but it deals seriously with a number of the issues between people who break up. Aniston didn’t really want to split from Vaughn, but his insensitivity made her play hardball. Instead of apologizing, Vaughn escalated the fight and refused to budge. Trish commented that it must have been funny that they were dating while making a movie splitting. I replied that Vaughn must have thought, wow I’m with Brad Pitt’s ex-wife. And then a few months later, wow I can see why she’s Brad Pitt’s ex-wife. Trish, who has a soft spot for Aniston, thought my comment cruel and I promised never to repeat it to Aniston.

**WHITE HUNTER, BLACK HEART (1989) – Had this movie come after critics “discovered” Eastwood in UNFORGIVEN it probably would have received much better marks. 18 years later is holds up quite well like many of his underappreciated films from the 1980s. Eastwood plays a character loosely based on director, John Huston, and it means that he has more dialogue than any three typical Eastwood films. The plot revolves around whether Eastwood can bag an elephant before he has to commence shooting his “African Queen” movie. I especially enjoyed the scene where he tells the lady that she is much too pretty to interrupt, mostly because Dude once did a pretty good impression of that scene when we were sitting around at his house.

FLAG OF OUR FATHER (2006) - (A Movie Review)

I tired to read FLAG OF OUR FATHERS when it hit the bestseller’s list a few years ago. It wasn’t easy. Instead of coherent story about the men in the battle and the aftermath, it was too much about the son’s journey to get to know his father. I thought the grown kids in Eastwood’s BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY were discordant and worried that I’d be in a similar fix here. Luckily, Eastwood and/or Haggis did a great thing by minimizing the role of the son. It probably saved the film because the story of these men is really powerful emotionally and it benefits from Eastwood’s subdued manner. The battle scenes are the believable hell. The army politics seem right-on. The national war-bond drive politics seem authentic too. The juxtaposing of War Bond Drive with flashbacks of their action on the island is well done and reveals character information as the right times.

Also a big help are the great cast of character actors throughout. Guys like Barry Pepper as a tough but kind Sergenat, Gordon Clapp as an officer working in the invasion plan, and even John Polito as Mayor Laguardia seem like real people although in minimal screen time. The three “heores” of the film played by Ryan Phillipe, Jesse Bradford and Adam Beach seem just as real.

Critics tend to see what they want to see in Eastwood movies. They’ll applaud what they see as an enlightened “right to die” message in MILLION DOLLAR BABY, but ignore his message about welfare cheats and personal responsibility in the same film.

Here they get locked into the politics behind the war bond drive and the phony hero aspect trying to make correlations to Iraq although the film never takes a definite stand like most Hollywood lore. It’s just presented. Yes, raising that flag was not heroic and yet you’re treated like a hero, but listen up son, you have a chance to be a hero by helping raise money in the war bond drive or we’ll otherwise lose the war. It’s hard to make an argument that they didn’t do the right thing.

FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS is a winner every step of the way and I think it’s his best movie of the decade.

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH (A Movie Review)

At the beginning of the film, Al Gore says that a 6th grade classmate of his asked the teacher if Africa and South America were ever joined since they look like they fit. Gore tells us that the teacher said no, but he doesn’t blame the teacher because the scientific community didn’t believe in Pangaea at the time. So near the end of the film when he says that the scientific community is unanimous in their belief that man is the cause of global warming, what are we to take from that as an audience? Has collective wisdom suddenly become infallible?

But this is not just a film about global warming. It’s a film about how a man finds a cause to redeem himself. You see, Al Gore is no demigod as he was led to believe. Things do not always go his way. There was nothing he could do to prevent the lung cancer death of his beloved sister (his protector). He was not able to stop his son from being hit by an automobile in a near fatal accident. And he couldn’t win the 2000 election despite a great economy that should have made it easy.

He does not much dwell on his down-to-earth wife or the children unstriken. He doesn’t see the fortune he was born into that allowed him an Ivy League education and a ready-made career in politics. He feels that the great things, the important things have always eluded him and you can tell he feels like a failure. We already know these biographical details of Gore’s life, but he presents them again in this movie to explain what led him to this great cause.

These problems are not unique to Al Gore. Baby Boomers have spent 40 odd years since the tumultuous 1960s trying to make sense out of their lives. His is the generation that questioned the collective wisdom of our forefathers and found greater meaning in the secular religion of social justice. Social justice did not end the human problems that have been with us since time immemorial, but marching felt good. Forget the details, the process gave meaning. And the best thing of all is that you don’t have to achieve results to be victorious. We can celebrate the gains made in the 1960s and still turn around and say there is so much more to do. Win/Win.

And unlike a dead sister, an injured child or a lost election, the disaster about to befall the earth is nebulous in the specifics so he cannot possible be defeated. The world is either destroyed (our fault) or saved (his victory). It’s a moral issue, you see. It’s unethical to destroy the world, don’t you know.

He takes issue with a person who worked in the Bush Administration who changed a global warming study done by the EPA. This gentleman worked for the oil industry before working in Washington. When he was made to resign for making the changes and he again went to work for the oil industry. The oil industry, you see, is in the business of burning as much carbon as possible, because that’s how they make their money. And people who make their money in a particular way see the world in a way that helps them make that money. Gore thus presents profiteers as the enemies of enlightenment, but he fails to understand the implications of that charge.

If the side that makes money is against these findings, and scientists have to feed their children too, then there shouldn’t be any money available for the kind of research that comes to conclusions opposite of the money. Therefore, you have to conclude that there is money on both sides of the issue.

So imagine you are a scientist who takes a grant from some organization and you come back and say, look there is contradictory evidence and I can’t say one way or the other. Do you imagine that you will get a second grant? How will you feed your children? No, you say there is evidence that points in whatever direction that gets you the second grant. It’s easy to do, because a large study will have evidence that points in every which direction, the key is the analysis of that data can go in any direction. Your job as the researcher is to have your numbers on one side that no one understands and your conclusions on the others that follow the prescribed direction. Money gained from profit or research spends just the same. And what if your conclusions are wrong? I mean hey we’re on the safe side, right. It doesn’t hurt to burn less coal. No harm.

That may sound cynical, but the cynicism is on the other side. If the proponents of any argument want to point to profit as motive behind their adversaries findings then it is only logical that the side leveling the charge be looked at in context of the money made from their propositions. Al Gore is not in this to make money, he has his money. He can laugh at a Bush cartoon that balances gold bars and the earth, because he has enough gold bars. But the people who are doing the research that he cherry picks have just as much of a financial stake in their findings as do the greedy capitalists that Gore disparages.

Take a guy like Michael Crichton, Harvard M.D. and popular writer of fiction and nonfiction. Like Gore, Crichton has his gold bars too and it makes not a difference to him financially one way or the other and yet he for some reason falls on the side of profiteers. What would Gore attribute Crichton’s motives? It couldn’t be that someone disagrees with the Vice President after seeing the data, because Gore already explained that no one anywhere does. Only money or ignorance blinds an eye to such an inconvenient truth.

At one point, Gore says you have to forget politics because it’s better to do the right thing than win elections. And yet, where was VP Gore when it was time to push the Kyoto treaty through the senate in the 1990s? Could it be that Kyoto might have hurt the American economy enough to cost him the 2000 election? And what do we make of the Chinese government that regulates search engines and the Internet that doesn’t mind Al Gore speaking in front of their people. His message doesn’t pose any threat to totalitarianism, we can assume. The Chinese will mow down their own citizenry to quell free elections, but Al Gore’s words are sweet music. What Gore does not mention is that China is exempt from Kyoto and if Gore disagreed with that he wouldn’t be speaking in China. It’s a moral issue in America, but why go and knock the Chinese when one bad word would lose you a billion clapping people.

After defeat in the 1860 election, Stephen Douglas volunteered himself to Abraham Lincoln to help prevent the Civil War. After Wendell Wilke lost the 1940 election he joined FDR in ending isolationism and supported lend lease among other things. So when America was attacked by Islamic terrorists, Al Gore produced a movie in which he explains that those who intend to kill us are merely a sideshow compared to the real war we have with the climate. That is an inconvenient truth if you’re riding the coattails of a dot com boom and would hate to see the economy tank due to economic restrictions. It’s not so inconvenient after you lose that election.

This is a film and movement born of narcissism. We were wrong in voting for Bush. He’s fighting the wrong war. Gore even quotes Winston Churchill predicting the Nazi menace, but fails to see the parallels to extreme Islam. The Churchill quotes are used to boost his crusade against the enemy in the mirror. Luckily he loves the world enough to save it even though he was kicked to the curb. We need to stop listening to that jackass in the White House and start fighting the combustion engine.

It’s not a coincidence that he cares not to fight radical Islam and their threats to Western culture, because he decided way back in the 1960s that Western culture wasn’t worth defending. It can come and go as far as he’s concerned, just as long as the sunset is pretty and bunny rabbits are jumping.

The title accuses us of ignoring inconvenient truths, but Gore too ignores the things that do not adhere to his world view. Rather than answer the critics point by point, he disparages their motives. When he can’t paint someone like Michael Crichton as an opportunist he just ignores their existence. He would accuse Bush and war leaders as simplistic boobs who do not know the nuances between sectarian and secular Muslims, but he offers no room for nuance and gray area when it comes to his beliefs. His presentation is as black and white as a Pentecostal preacher warning of Sodom and Gomorrah.

It’s not enough for Gore to present a solid argument, answer the critics and begin a dialog on what can be done to make the world better. The movie is lecture version of Rambo pointing to charts explaining the treachery of the Vietcong and how they must be overcome. It’s just the format that people on his side of the aisle jump to label simplistic and simple-minded.

What’s most unexpected is that Gore does not see how his feelings of powerless over his sister, his son, and the 2000 election have predisposed him to find a proactive cause like saving the world. He sees his crisis of the mind as a virtue that freed him to champion a great cause, instead of a hindrance to a rational and objective view of the world. He doesn’t seem to understand that his pre-disposition is the opposite of objective science. Like the researchers who get their grant money through uncovering a crisis, Gore’s redemption would only be through saving the world.

Like most doomsayers that never get their comeuppance, Gore will be praised for his altruism, ignored for his personal environmental behavior, and seen as well-meaning when his predictions of doomsday do not materialize. This movie will be a document of how much he cared, nothing less.

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH is an astonishing look into the soul of a man who came of age in the 1960s and forty years later is still trying to reconcile the meaning of his own life. And with knowledge of 2000 years of world literature to fall back on, the best he could present is this simple CHICKEN LITTLE story. If Bush were one to present his midlife crisis in cinema, I would expect at least the equivalent of a Tom Wolfe novel.

CIRQUE Du SOLEIL’S LOVE (A Stage Show Review)

The average person is well-familiar with Beatles music and that creates a sort of built-in audience. Their catalog is big enough that a lot of interesting subjects can be explored in the storytelling. Most important is the amount of life-affirming music to choose from. McCartney is a master of using that catalog to create a great concert experience.

LOVE begins with BECAUSE from ABBEY ROAD, a somber song no doubt, but made disjointed here by a mix that goes dead silent in between lines. On stage we see somber pageantry. Thankfully it then picks up with GET BACK, but it never sustains any kind of uplifting mood. On stage, a big thing is made of the Liverpool bombings during World War II that coincided with the band member’s birth. The stage is made to look like buildings and rooftops and the staging shows the whole thing being blown to smithereens.

The fun of the Beatles crazy or downbeat music is that those tunes are sandwiched between songs with other temperaments. Here we get nothing but long stretches of one depressing tune on top of the other. Glass onion, Eleanor Rigby, Julia, I am the Walrus back to back to back to back pretty near the beginning of the show. You don’t know how welcome DRIVE MY CAR became after that lineup. A short portion of THE WORD made it next and it was too short-lived. If you’re going to call the show LOVE, the song THE WORD is a great choice for a sequence, because it’s not overplayed and yet has a great catchy sound. They might get 30 seconds out of it here.

The most brutal part of the show was an attempted comedy bit using the song BLACKBIRD. Four people fly into the stage dressed as blackbirds and a Frenchy guy recites the song like a poem as the birds struggle to fly. It was a pathetic attempt at humor and a poor choice of material.

Later in the show the whimsical LADY MADONNA and OCTOPUS’S GARDEN get some time on stage. Four George Harrison numbers, SOMETHING, HERE COMES THE SUN, WHILE MY GUITAR GENTLY WEEPS, and WITHIN YOU WITHOUT YOU are featured pretty prominently I suppose to make quota.

The one really truly great sequence is the choreography that accompanies A DAY IN THE LIFE. That piece was inspired in a way that nothing else in the show can match.

The stunts are ho-hum especially compared to La Nuba at Disney. The big stunt near the end was cancelled due to safety net issues so I may have missed the most exciting thing. While they were trying to fix the problem, the video screens showed us the cartoon rendition of Yellow Submarine as the song played. The only other stunt sequence was a rollerblading part that was a re-tread of every other rollerblading number you’ve seen.

The first time I saw Cirque du Soleil at Disney I said wow. When I saw the same show the second time I thought it was decently done. When I went back a third time I could barely stay awake. This was far less exciting and the musical selection was mostly disappointing. As a big Beatles fan I can appreciate the more obscure songs, but I can’t forgive the mood they chose. How this show could have used GOOD DAY SUNSHINE, GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE, GETTING BETTER, and WE CAN WORK IT OUT to offset the negativity.

Trade thrills for gloomy pageantry and upbeat music for downbeat music and you have a synopsis of LOVE at the Mirage, a missed opportunity to say the least. I should have seen PENN AND TELLER instead.

FEB/MARCH 2007 MOVIE REVIEWS

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

***DOWNFALL (2004) – The last days of Hitler down in the bunker with chums like Goebbels hanging around to the bitter end. It’s told partially through the eyes of the young lady who comes to work as a secretary for the lunatic in 1942. Her memoir is part of the source material. It gives you an opportunity to root that she’ll get the hell out in time while we hear sober Nazis plead with Hitler to surrender to the Americans before the Russians take over the city. DOWNFALL is to the bunker what DAS BOOT is to the submarine, compelling despite being told from the viewpoint of our sworn enemies. If you see only the occasional foreign film, put this one at the top of the list.

**THE WORLD’S FASTEST INDIAN (2005) – Sweet film with Anthony Hopkins as amateur mechanic from New Zealand that dreams of taking his modified Indian Motorcycle to race in the Great Salt Flats. Inspiring and while it’s doesn’t blow you away, it leaves you with a good feeling.

*WINTER KILLS (1979) – From the Richard Condon novel (Manchurian Candidate), this black comedy about younger brother (Jeff Bridges) of JFK like President and the circumstances surrounding his assassination begins in all sincerity and then becomes increasingly absurd up to the climax. John Huston plays the father and a lot of cameos are sprinkled throughout. Had it maintained more subtlety and provided its surprises more believably, it could have been a minor classic. Instead, it’s so in your face by the end that I turned on it.

*THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY (1964) – James Garner stars as that charming con man that he does best. Julie Andrews in only her second role shows the kind of range and career she could have had if Mary Poppins and the Sound of Music hadn’t defined her. Garner plays scrounging junior officer in England during World War II, who manages to stay out of the fighting by being invaluable to his General. Andrews plays the dame that hates his open cowardice but somewhat likes the idea that he won’t be heroically killed like her late husband. It’s scripted by Paddy Chayefsky, so you get comedy wrapped around some legitimately serious issues. James Couburn shows up as Garner’s best friend. Not really worth seeking out, but it won’t sting if you happen across it.

*MY ARCHITECT (2003) – Documentary by the illegitimate son of noted architect Louis Kahn who dropped dead in New York’s Penn Station just around the time he was becoming known in design circles. The son, Nathanial, grows up and goes on a journey to learn about his father, his father’s other children, and the legacy that he left. Kahn had three separate families although he never actually left his wife. What’s interesting is how none of his scorned women blame him for anything. It’s something about the genius they all saw in him that allowed them to forgive him any transgression. The architecture itself is only somewhat interesting as Kahn seemed to get by on his personality more than anything else. Louis sort of comes off as a heel rather than hero so past Nathaniel’s own reckoning you don’t really feel any satisfaction.

**KNIFE IN THE WATER (1962) – Roman Polanski’s gained international attention with this his first full-length film. A husband and wife are heading to a weekend on their boat when they pick up a young hitchhiker. The psychological games between the husband and hitchhiker make up most of the film from there, with the wife providing the sexual tension. The film really keeps you wondering how much the competition will escalate and it never crosses the line of believability although much of the shenanigans seem petty. I wonder how Polanski made such a movie under Polish communism and what would a person in 1962 Poland do for a living to own a nice sailboat. The confines of that boat help create a really interesting tension that makes the movie worthwhile even if the plot is almost nil.

**Z (1969) – Nominated for Best Picture in 1969, this movie is loosely based on a Greek political assassination in the mid 60s that brought down a noted progressive politician. Yves Montand stars as the quiet yet charismatic leftist that gets knocked off early on so that the mystery of his downfall can unravel. The movie, shocking at the time I’m told, reveals how the right-wing government was complicit in the great man’s death. After seeing Oliver Stone’s JFK, this seems like kindergarten. I have to think that the politics are largely responsible for the reputation of this movie, although it’s put together decently enough to be compelling. It makes me wonder though what’s the best movie ever made that shows the overthrow or assassination of a beloved right-wing figure?

**FUNERAL IN BERLIN (1966) – The second movie in the Harry Palmer series is a solid follow-up to IPCRESS FILE. Michael Caine is recruited to East Germany where he is to help a defecting Russian general. Despite his superior’s excitement over this opportunity, Caine doesn’t buy the General’s story and tries to figure out what’s really at work here. The movie also tells us more about Palmer’s origins as an agent and introduces to us an old friend of his. Caine is charming as the hero and either of these first two movies are worth seeing.

# ROOM 666 (1984) – Wim Wenders “documentary” shot at the Cannes film festival where noted directors of the day, Spielberg, Godard, Herzog expound in front of the camera about the future of film and their hopes for the medium. A good enough idea, but the subjects are mostly rambling and not terribly insightful. Thankfully shorter than an hour, but still a labor to get through.

**LA MOUSTACHE (2005) – Interesting French film starring Vincent Lindon who decides to shave his moustache and is surprised that no one notices. An American film with this premise would be about how the world was conspiring against our hero. The charm of European movies is how it’s never automatic. Maybe our hero is right, maybe our hero is crazy. The shame of this movie is that the question never really gets answered and reality itself becomes open for interpretation. I don’t mind ambiguousness if you can make me 90% sure I know what happened and can suppose the rest. Here, the whole thing becomes so dream-like that any interpretation is possible. That’s the only minus.

*THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED (2005) – Documentary about the MPAA and the subjective rating system. It succeeds when it compares movies and talks to directors about their problems. The history of the system and process is little-known and worth exploring. But there just isn’t enough material to make a whole movie about that, so the filmmakers decide to stake out and learn the identities of the secret MPAA board. The detective game could have been riveting, but it plays instead as a half-ass cable reality show. It gets worse when the movie becomes a soapbox for people to whine that sex is purged while violence flourishes. The system is not perfect but what system is? At least it’s a market response to film content instead of a government one. But, wait . . . the endless cries of censorship culminate in a guy saying he wishes that the government controlled movies because government censorship could be litigated in a court of law while the MPAA cannot be touched. So it’s better to allow real censorship with the hopes of lawsuits than a market solution that might close the question. Theatre owners like the current system because it loosened the content of movies while shielding them from angry parents. And since most movies are watched on DVD and most never have a theatrical playing, this whole exercise was kind of pointless. The unrated DVD is a big market and makes a lot of people watch the movie twice. A film about real censorship in world cinema would have been more poignant instead of this cry-baby piece.

*HOLIDAY (2006) – Kate Winslet, Cameron Diaz, Jack Black and Jude Law in this romantic comedy that benefits for its lack of the Frat Pack and Jennifer Aniston. Winslet trades her English Country home with Cameron Diaz and her Hollywood mansion for two weeks during the holidays and they both might meet-cute and fall in love with the male leads. The film deserves an honorable mention simply because Eli Wallach gets a pretty juicy supporting role and shines throughout. Also, get this, his character is a retired Hollywood screenwriter who is going to accept an award and they never once mention that he was blacklisted. Movies from 1975 on had hereto convinced me that every 1950s screenwriter had been blacklisted and I am almost incredulous to learn that one guy made it through the whole decade in tact. I can only guess that Wallach had that tragedy removed from the script because the typewriter would have no doubt included it even beyond the wishes of the scenarist.

*16 BLOCKS (2006) – Standard police fare with Willis as the believable alkie cop trying to protect a witness who is to testify against crooked cops. David Morse supports as the calm heavy that he seems born to play. Mos Def (that’s a person’s name?) is the annoying chatterbox witness that would have gained more sympathy by shutting up which thankfully he does as the movie wears on. Decent but a little overrated maybe due to Richard Donner’s participation or simply the conflict of bad cops that critics seem to believe more so than honest ones.

*INFAMOUS (2006) – The second Capote bio-drama that promised to be more about his entire life but in reality treads the same exact Kansas ground as CAPOTE (2005). It does spend more time in the trendy Manhatten circles with plenty of cameos by socialites, but it’s otherwise unsurprising. Toby Jones benefits from his diminutive presence versus the larger Phillip Seymore Hoffman, but other than the solid impersonation, Jones doesn’t get the emotional moments as well as Hoffman does. The movie also makes a mistake in casting Daniel Craig as Perry Smith. Craig is too powerful and masculine for Capote to overcome, whereas earlier portrayals of the character by Robert Blake (IN COLD BLOOD) and Clifton Collins (CAPOTE) were almost childlike. The issues here are more superficial and the stakes don’t seem as high. There is a funny bit about Capote claiming to have beaten Bogart at arm wrestling so that the whole town then tries to beat Capote.

*DARLING (1965) the movie that put Julie Christie on the map would seem prime for a remake with so few great female parts, except that Christie’s promiscuity that made the original interesting and controversial is very tame in relation to the average celebrity’s real life experiences. The movie mostly demonstrates what use to be outrageous and how flippant characters would eventually get their comeuppance. Today, the character would just seem to be an example of a valid lifestyle choice that you dare not criticize.

**ROCKY BALBOA (2006) – Spending your career cashing in on cartoon action movies doesn’t get you much respect in Hollywood, especially when you aren’t overtly leftwing. Once in a while Sylvester Stallone would show up in a character part like Cop Land and be quite convincing, but he only really gets to act when he writes his own material. This last Rocky film is surprising especially after his last abortive attempt at re-defining the franchise. Rocky V was so terrible that it could very well have been his burial. ROCKY BALBOA is not by any means great in the conventional sense, but it has such an understated honesty that it’s one of the most enjoyable surprises out of Hollywood in a long time. In the past, Rocky has used boxing to fight bullies and even the cold war, but here his heart as a fighter is used for his own redemption. If you liked any of the Rocky movies you should appreciate if not really enjoy this one.

*DaVINCI CODE (2006) – The most interesting thing about this story is how popular it is. A hardcover best seller for three years is rare and then followed by a movie that grosses $200 million makes DaVINCI CODE something like a modern day GONE WITH THE WIND. I haven’t read the book and I skipped the movie in the theatre, but this franchise is just too much a part of the zeitgeist to ignore forever. I don’t know where the book and movie vary, but a scene in the second half of the movie demonstrates why I think it’s so popular. When trying to decode an Isaac Newton puzzle, Tom Hanks realizes the answer is APPLE. It’s not Newton’s laws of motion or thermodynamics or calculus that you have to know to understand the mystery, but the thing you learned about Newton in 4th grade. The same goes for the DaVinci references in the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper. You don’t have to know anything about DaVinci or Newton other than the most superficial or famous icons of their existence. The movie takes cultural and historic things that you are so familiar with that it makes you feel smart. And I think it’s that play to personal vanity that separates it from simple potboiler to international sensation. Umberto Eco used the Templars as the Center of his early 1990s novel, FOCULT’S PENDULUM without anywhere near the success. And it’s not like Eco wasn’t a bestselling author, he wrote the popular NAME OF THE ROSE. But FP takes a great deal more analysis and brainpower to get through. I have had a copy sitting here for years that I have yet to crack. A friend told me that Dan Brown is the Grisham version of Eco and although I haven’t read Grisham either, the comparison seems apt. I think the movie is probably the best way to catch up on the hoopla without the time investment. Still they could have done us a favor and made it 30 minutes shorter.

*A GOOD YEAR (2006) – This movie is much more of a comedy and a slapstick one than I would have expected. I saw it a week ago and it’s already mostly forgotten. A familiar story with venal Crowe returning to the place of his childhood to remember his better upbringing and the lessons he forgot. Albert Finney is the kind uncle shown in flashback As you’d expect, Crowe’s change of heart is rewarded with the love of a fetching French woman. The title is confusing unless the book was significantly different. The whole story takes place in a week or so.

*HOLLYWOODLAND (2006) – Detective Adrien Brody looks into the death of actor George Reeves AKA TV’s Superman. Ben Affleck is decent as Reeves in flashback as is Diane Lane and Bob Hoskins. It doesn’t really go anywhere and there isn’t much payoff, but they do a good job of recreating that period.

**THE PRESTIGE (2006) – Another worthwhile Chris Nolan effort pits Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale as rival magicians in Victorian England. Both are excellent as is Michael Caine as the mentor to both. Based on the acclaimed 1990s novel that even incorporates David Bowie as Nikola Tesla into the plotline. The Prestige is interesting for the story twists, approach and style. On the special features, Nolan sounds very much British while his screenwriter brother, Jonathan, sounds like an American. It turns out that their father is British and their mother is American and they grew up In Chicago which explains the Batman locale.

*MARIE ANTIONETTE (2006) – Sophia Coppola’s third film is probably her least interesting. Kirsten Dunst is affable enough as the Queen we’re all taught to hate, but the movie is slow going with King Jason Schwartzman a dolt who doesn’t seem interested in his arranged marriage. You could almost hear the incredulous screams from fraternity houses as he turned down her advances. The movie also suffers in my opinion from Coppola’s choice of modern musical montages in place of a classical score.

*INVINCIBLE (2006) – Typically inspiring and mostly predictable story of everyman Philadelphia native who succeeds in his long shot tryout with the Eagles. You root for Wahlberg all the way. Another member of the recent Disney subgenre of underdog sports stories like MIRACLE and THE ROOKIE.

JANUARY 2007 MOVIE REVIEWS

A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT (2004) – Audrey Tautou is engaged to a soldier thought dead during World War I. She doesn’t believe it and spends the film trying to track him down. It’s a simple enough story and lot more gory than you might expect. The winning Tautou is a good guide for the trip if you don’t mind the subtitles. You can probably figure the answer to her quest but the actual resolution was little less than Hollywood.

SIMPATICO (1999) – Jeff Bridges and Nick Nolte star in this film based on the Sam Shepherd play about a couple of guys who rose in the horse racing industry in not the most ethical ways. Bridges is now a successful horse breeder and Nolte plays his disheveled persona haunted by the past. Sharon Stone reminds the audience that pretty just gets softer but sexy can oh so often lead to haggard. Those three characters are shown in present day and played by younger actors in many flashbacks. Albert Finney is very good in a smaller role. Shepherd’s frequent device of taking two opposing characters and have them turn into one another is present here for the good or the bad depending on how many times you’ve already seen it done.

WINGS OF DESIRE (1986) – Wim Wenders film set in West Berlin features and angel that slowly realizes that he’d rather be human. Shot mostly in black and white and spoken in German with some really good WWII era footage mixed in. The film offers a quit dreamlike quality that really brings you into the slow action. Peter Falk is featured as himself making a movie during the story.

CITY OF ANGELS (1998) A remake of Wings of Desire. Nick Cage is an Angel living on earth who falls in love with doctor Meg Ryan who is crushed after losing a patient. Despite the generally negative reviews I thought that it captured a decent tone, is visually interesting, and the relationship as it unfolds between the leads is compelling. I wasn’t in love with the resolution, but I think it suffers mostly in comparison to the German original.

+THE QUEEN (2006) – Stephen Frears brings to life an elusive figure with depth, kindness and insight. Helen Mirren is great as the queen and although I cared very little then or now as to how the Royal Family handled Dianna’s death, I enjoyed the politics of the whole affair and sympathized with the Royal Family’s situation. Without taking anything away from Diana who always seemed a caring person, Elizabeth II went through World War II in a time when she couldn’t really be sure that her country would remain in tact. The royal family had the duty of being strong for the nation through their quiet dignity and this Diana reaction must have really been unsettling. How things change. The portrayal of Tony Blair also gives this dish some sauce and it was an enjoyable 2 hours altogether.

CHILDREN OF MEN (2006) – I read a really interesting review of this 1990s novel a few weeks ago that said it was a modern day classic more relevant than BRAVE NEW WORLD. The book was written by PD James, British Baroness and author of many detective novels who decided to write a change of pace story. What if you lived in a society where worldwide infertility meant that no new babies have been born for 18 years? Here you get to find out following hero Clive Owen and stopping by for laughs Michael Caine. It moves swiftly and the nonstandard resolution won it an Oscar nomination for best screenplay.

L’AVVENTURA (1960) – Michelangelo Antonolini’s breakout film that made the Sight and Sound top ten poll in 1962, 1972 and 1982. The plot is simple. Members of the Italian Upper Class take a boating trip, stop at an island, and misplace one of their party. On the surface the story is about their search for the missing member, but as the story goes along she is less and less important to the people than their current mundane pleasures. Similar, I suppose, to Renoir’s RULES OF THE GAME the story of bored affluent people getting through their lives.

LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE (2006) – This is a good enough movie, but I think it’s Best Picture nomination is simply filling the minimum 1 indie film per year quota much like IN THE BEDROOM that has all but been forgotten from movie minds. Greg Kinnear continues to surprise me with the amount of work he gets, here as the father and wannabe motivational leader. I’m also surprised that a casting director thinks that Kinnear would ever marry anyone like Toni Collette. The usually reliable Alan Arkin gets to chew some scenery as does the increasingly likable Steve Carrell. Abagail Breslin as the title character shows herself a decent kid actor. I will probably appreciate the movie more if I ever have kids and/or broken dreams.

THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA (2006) – Based on the book that Trish just read, Meryl Streep plays the title character as an unforgiving fashion magazine editor that seems to have been nominated by virtue of a look here and an emotion there. Or it could be that she’s simply Meryl Streep. Anne Hathaway reprises that thing she does when she begins a movie as the plain girl and is Eliza Doolittled up in short order. I’m surprised that the movie made over $100 million considering that Streep is hardly box office magic and so few people read books while the plot is predictable and so-so inspiring. Maybe it works better for 20ish females or those who have been so in the past. The movie makes gives Streep pathos and ability while showing her harshness as a product of being a female in the tough business world. The book simply made her as a mysterious figure that didn’t seem to be doing any work and yet yielded much power and wrath. The difference seems to be one of comedy (the book) versus melodrama (the movie).

IDIOCRACY (2005) – The notorious Mike Judge film that has sat on the shelf for two years trying to find distribution eventually found home video instead. The follow-up to OFFICE SPACE has a few clever things going for it, namely the future of a society where dimwitted people breed like roaches and smart effective people are always putting it off. Luke Wilson is cast well as the modern day average guy who is frozen for five hundred years only to wake up as the smartest guy on the planet. The shame of the movie is the people in the future are just a little too stupid and Wilson doesn’t get a chance to exploit his genius in a way that might have been fun. Somehow this future society of fools has great technology that seems to trump everything Wilson tries. No explanation as to who created this technology although there is one funny part about how Gatorade replaced water much to the detriment of plant life. It’s a real stinker and the idea done right would have been a classic.

(+) Denotes exceptional film

PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS (2006) (A Movie Review)

As an original screenplay this movie would have needed a great deal of work to comply with the usual leftwing prejudices necessary for production. As a true story I’m assuming that the real Chris Gardner didn’t allow any of that. How else do you explain a struggling single father trying to get ahead without any help from government institutions? The businessmen in the film that give him an opportunity are all portrayed as generous and decent people despite Gardner’s lack of formal education and color.

There closest things to a villain in the movie is his wife that doesn’t believe in him. Making his challenge tougher is his insistence in raising his son as a single parent rather than have him grow up without a father. Despite everything against him and only his own wits and will, he realizes his dream.

A couple of other things that go against the liberal orthodoxy are the hippy girl that steals from him and an obviously mentally deranged homeless guy that society allows to walk the streets. He himself is not forced to the streets because of evil capitalism, but the IRS that empties his bank account, ostensibly to make the country “more fair.” Even then it’s not the government to the rescue, but a church mission that gives him shelter.

The movie is an inspiration that gives a person hope that the pursuit of happiness is worthwhile and attainable. In America these stories are not unusual, but they rarely get told because the establishment is more invested in the people that are left behind.

Politically it shows that conservative movies are remotely possible in mainstream Hollywood if the story is great and a powerful star is willing to appear, assuming still that no identified Republican is singled out for praise. It also helped that the foreign born director, Gabriele Muccino, making his Hollywood debut was probably not up on the current Hollywood bugaboos.

Will Smith is winning in the main role so you care about him and how it unfolds. The son of Will Smith proves to be solid too. Nothing about the movie stands out as exceptional save the fact that it isn't disappointing which these days is more and more rare.

CSA: CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA (2003) – (A Movie Review)

The premise was interesting. A British Documentary looking at the history of American in the last 150 years since the South won the Civil War. There are plenty of considerations about what the country would have become in such an alternate history, but this documentary is only interested in the race question, and the whole movie unfolds as if race is the only factor in public and private life.

Here are the plot points: Abe Lincoln and the abolitionists run off the Canada. All remaining northerners are required to buy a slave or pay a heavy tax. Then the Confederates invade and take over the brown people in Central America. Then they befriend the Nazis.

There are some over the top commercials between the feature including the most oh boss stephinfetchit characters plugging one product or another. They’re designed to make you laugh and shame you at the same time for laughing.

The political Left in this country will rehabilitate Arafat, make excuses for Castro, pretend Chavez is anything but a tyrant, cry at Saddam’s execution and yet they still hate Robert E. Lee. And isn’t it funny that Lee freed his slaves voluntarily while the heroes of the Left enslave as many as they can.

I could have forgiven the politics which I assumed would be leftist if only they offered some subtlety and variety. The style was decent and some of the parallel historical events like Kennedy/Nixon were clever, but it wasn’t enough to make up for the obvious one joke premise.

THE BOYS ON THE BUS (1973) by Timothy Crouse - (A book Review)

The Boys on the Bus is a very entertaining look at the reporters covering the 1972 election and the system in which they worked in. If you want to know how the press room in the White House smelled this is your book. If you want to know how reporters interact with each other after the press conference ends this is your book. In addition, Crouse offers great portraits of important journalists covering politics in that era, many of which are still working or known today – David Broder and Bob Novak would be two prime examples.

Crouse demonstrates that most journalists during the campaign were to the left of center politically and he argues that it didn’t really show up in the reporting. He criticizes the press for their inability to offer any kind of news analysis in their stories. The White House was so masterful in presenting information that straight reporting made it very easy to manipulate the press. Plus McGovern’s inept campaign led the politically sympathetic reporters to lose all respect for his ambitions. There’s a funny scene where the reporters kick McGovern’s press secretary off the bus, something that they would never consider doing to the evasive but professional Nixon man, Ron Zigler.

Crouse moves the story along briskly and I poured through it faster than an average book on this subject. I would argue that it’s more influential to members of the press than ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN. Not every reporter is going to do the long and hard legwork that Woodward and Bernstein did in that classic. But any reporter can apply news analysis. It’s as easy as filtering the news through their own opinions, or simply tackling the kinds of stories in line with their own prejudices.

Dan Rather’s insistence that the forged National Guard documents were “fake but accurate” demonstrates news analysis at its most arrogant. But reporters usually take a side by presenting a charge like, “this bill will starve children” and then asking the opponent why he’s for starving children.

The reporters working today frequently deride stories that don’t line up with the goals or filters they’re married to. Even if reporters thought the Swift Boat Veterans campaign against John Kerry was politically motivated, they didn’t even bother to refute the specific charges because they didn’t want the charges to become part of the mainstream argument. Dan Rather would rather chase around forged anti-Bush documents presented by shady figures than give voice to Kerry’s fellow servicemen.

It was a kind of parity for reporters playing sports commissioner, hoping that presenting Bush’s military record as shaky, and refusing to look into Kerry’s record would swing enough centrist votes to the left. The reporters knew that Kerry’s only chance at winning the election was picking off those kinds of Reagan Democrats. It’s not too unlike the racetrack making the better horse carry eight extra pounds in the saddlebags. Had both stories been treated equally either by ignoring them or giving them equal voice, Bush was more likely to have benefited at the polls.

That’s probably why the press made so much hay with the detention at Guantanamo Bay, the Abu Grab prison scandal, and terrorist the surveillance program. If they could liken Bush to Nixon then they could take the moral high ground rationalizing their approach as better for the country. Simply reporting the facts would limit their ability to sway the public to their enlightenment and what if that led to another Watergate? The 1972 press failed to save the country, but we won’t!

All the seeds of modern political reporting are an outgrowth from Crouse’s criticism of the lapdog press. That’s the real genius of this book. You can see how it was effective enough to convince reporters that the ends justify the means. The process of reading BOYS is a joy and its influence certainly puts a lot of modern day reporting into perspective.

NOV/DEC 2006 MOVIE REVIEWS

NOV/DEC 2006 MOVIE REVIEWS

+CASINO ROYALE (2006) – 007 means license to kill and you would hardly know it up ‘til now. The film series began as spy capers and evolved into suave jokes and explosions. This movie actually gets back to the books. I’m not sure how much of the plot is followed, but it’s very welcoming to see a tough Bond that doesn’t mind killing people. The casino showdown is decent as too with the poker being believable enough until the last hand that included too many players. Eva Green makes a great Bond girl with her own brand of smarts and librarian brand of beauty. What’s best here is that they all seem like real people and that makes the overindulgent stunts much more tolerable and it also helps to forgive the length. I liked the first Timothy Dalton movie and hoped that the movies were moving into a tougher direction, but the second Dalton disappointed and I hope it doesn’t happen here too especially with Bond trailing penguin films.

BORAT (2006) – Sasha Cohen is a creative comedian and I enjoy his Ali G show on HBO. The shame of this movie is that Borat is less interesting to me than the Ali G character and although the confidencess here are all-new they are hardly unpredictable. But I could have forgiven that if the movie wasn’t full of so much filler about his “homeland” and hanging out with the sidekick. Once you realize the Pamela Anderson scenes were set up too there isn’t much here in my opinion. Rent the Ali G show discs and watch him interview James Lipton, Pat Buchanan and Buzz Aldrin. .

DETOUR (1946) – Famous B movie featuring typical 40s acting, no stars and a thin script and yet Roger Ebert calls it a treasure. The direction is somewhat interesting even if the situations seem forced. At 67 minutes they were doing all they could to stretch it into feature length and they do so with very few sets and a lot of dialogue between two characters. The star is Tom Neal who according to Allmovie.com made more than 20 movies that rate less than 2 stars. I would maybe give this 2 ½ in a good mood.

PROOF (2005) I was in NYC during the summer of 2002 working a freelance project. Jennifer Jason Leigh was starring in this play not far from our hotel. Since we had a free night and everyone agreed on theatre, I thought it would be an easy sell. First neither of them had heard of Jennifer Jason Leigh and second they just had to see a musical because that’s what you see on Broadway. So we paid $50 (half price) to see the insufferable FULL MONTY re-written as a musical set in Buffalo. I felt that even the movie version was overrated preferring the quirky English comedy WAKING NED DEVINE much more. Half price is sometimes still too much. Back to Proof. . . It centers on Anthony Hopkins death and the flashback of his math genius coupled with his fight for sanity. G. Paltrow plays his daughter made up to look dowdy and J Gyllenhall is the semi-nerdy math student wanting to rummage through Hopkins numerous notebooks to find genius. The center of the story revolves around the authorship of a particular notebook and it’s complicated by the romance between the youngsters and Paltrow’s sister Hope Davis trying to take her back to New York. Directed by John Madden of Shakespeare in Love who seems to seek out literary adaptations. A decent experience overall.

DERAILED (2006) – Could be the title of any Jennifer Aniston movie and they finally decided to use it. It sure doesn’t have much to do with the plot except that the leads meet on a commuter train. They could have called it Hollywood wills Jennifer Aniston to have a film career or Clive Owen needed the money or that quirky French Vincent Cassel needed to play one more charming villain. If you ask why I seem to seek out Aniston movies the question has two answers. Trish still likes her and I keep trying to disprove my own criticism that she has no sense of fun. Nothing changed after this film. The setup is slow and it’s billed as an action film while one punch is thrown in the first 30 minutes. Once the action begins things take a turn for the silly. You just can’t imagine the characters really doing the things that happen here. The best part of the film is that you can really believe a career in screenwriting is possible if your competition is this.

CHRISTMAS CAROL (1984) – George C. Scott brings his irascible manner to the character and it’s offset decently with more focus on his harsh upbringing. The advantage of a meaner Scrooge is the transformation is all the more dramatic. The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come could have used some better production values. His obvious prop stick hands drew attention during what should be the most frightening part though the staging of that scene seemed to work pretty well. I can never get over how Scrooge doesn’t realize that the dead man is him. Is it because I already know the story?

CHRISTMAS CAROL (1951) - Most critics consider this the best film version of the Dickens tale. Alastair Sim has an interesting take on the character making him less wicked and more indifferent leading up to the transformation. If the point of the story is that Scrooge was once a good man who lost his way it’s certainly more believable than the usual translation that scares mean Scrooge into being a puppy dog. It has a funny way of taking its time early and rushing the ending which I wasn't prepared for. Having seen most versions now I just don't know if they've ever made an entirely satisfying adaptation.

+MATCH POINT (2005) – Woody Allen the director minus Woody Allen the actor minus New York minus the jokes equals a surprisingly compelling Woody Allen film. Scarlett Johansson gets the ink as the young American insecure actress, but it’s Jonathan Rhys-Meyers that carries the picture as the brooding tennis pro getting ahead in life by marrying the rich guy’s daughter (Emily Mortimer). Things would be going just fine, except he is smitten with his brother-in-law’s girlfriend (Johansson). The London setting really seems to have freed Allen from his usual style although a little of it still exists around the edges especially the way characters come on and off the screen. It even has an Ingmar Bergman moment near the end that made me smile.

INTERIORS (1978) – Woody’s full-fledged homage to Bergman works for the most part although it doesn’t haunt you the way the master does. It focuses on three sisters their relationship and career problems and the breakup of their parents marriage. The well-off family spends much of their time at Hamptons Beach house which reminds you that their life isn’t so tough although they seem to disagree.

+UNITED 93 (2006) – This is not a movie I was looking forward to. If it hadn’t made those end-of-the-year top ten lists I may have skipped it altogether. Even when it came in the mail I waited 3 or 4 days before finally realizing that I had to watch it in order to send it back. I’m glad I did. It’s not just a movie of the harrowing experiences of those on the flight, but a recap of the entire day from the perspective of Air Traffic Control, the military and finally flight 93. It has some of the most natural acting I’ve ever seen helped along by having some of the real people play themselves. And it was full of information that I didn’t know. If nothing else, it’s a great human drama that every American would benefit from seeing.

LADY IN THE WATER (2006) – I’d consider 6th SENSE and SIGNS modern day classics. I even liked UNBREAKABLE more than most and forgave THE VILLAGE for leaning on its surprise ending. I like Night because the tone of his movies makes you listen and watch. I like that his movies are about the struggle of humanity and finding your rightful place in life. It’s the real human condition not the political human condition that stumbles into messages of socialism and peace through weakness. There’s a great film critic character that I think the critics hated, but boy was it right on. LADY is a fairytale fantasy and those kinds of movies can wear thin, but Paul Giamatti is his usual dead-on believable and the supporting cast keeps up with him well.

KISS KISS BANG BANG (2005) – Here we have Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer in the middle of a murder mystery complete with intrigue and plenty of laughs. The dialogue is clever and Downey does that famous deadpan reaction at just the right times. Each of the sections are titled after Raymond Chandler stories. The movie title was coined by Pauline Kael in one of her books. She said that 90% of all movies could be summed up in KISS KISS BANG BANG and regretfully few have anything else to offer but that. Here you also get laughs.

LUCKY NUMBER SLEVIN (2006) – This is an annoying movie with annoying characters for the first hour because so much of what you see goes unexplained and makes little sense. Once the story comes together in the last half I didn’t mind it so much and by the end I was appreciative of its clever resolution.

OCTOBER 2006 MOVIE REVIEWS

X-MEN 3: The Last Stand (2006) – It’s strange to take a psychological character study, make two competent financially successful films and then ignore what worked by making an impersonal action film, complete with foolish jokes right out of a Swartzenegger vehicle. You figure that Bryan Singer’s departure was a great deal of the problem. I don’t think he would have been happy with the script that was shot. I never read the comics books, but the first two movies were solid. A shame they ended like this.

THANK YOU FOR SMOKING (2006) I read the book in the 1990s and it was pretty funny, but maybe not a natural movie since the witty writing style was a biggest plus. Director, Jason Reitman makes up for it by punching up the dialogue. Another good decision was downplaying the central kidnapping plot element that was far less interesting than just the day to day happenings and charm of the lead character played note-on by Aaron Eckhart. Like many movies it gets going stronger than it finishes, but it’s witty, well-paced and only 90 minutes. The trailer suggested a movie that was close to an instant classic, but the film is simply above average being a rare smart comedy.

THE DEPARTED (2006) – Marty and the mob is always worth a look and this film stays entertaining a lot longer than Casino. The mole cop and the crooked cop is a great idea and it makes me want to see the Hong Kong original. Supporting performances by Marky Mark and Alex Bladwin offer some fun moments too. It’s just hard to think of Nicholson as a mobster for as fun as he is to watch. Still, I was on the road forgiving the movie anything until it ended the same way as PENN AND TELLER GET KILLED. It seemed more Hong Kong than Martyville.

FRIENDS WITH MONEY (2006) – Movie Stars are supposed to play themselves, but they are also supposed to be dynamic and interesting. Jennifer Aniston is a mystery. I have seen enough of her films to safely say that she has no sense of fun. She’s the girl on a date that you want to like, but her conversation is so dull that you understand why she doesn’t have a boyfriend. To cast her alongside Francis McDormand, Catherine Kenner and Joan Cusack must be some sort evil joke to prove that she isn’t an actress. The movie itself is forgettable. I saw it a few weeks ago and the best I can remember, it was about four women with varying problems.

RUMOR HAS IT (2005) – Sticking with Aniston again because Trish feels that she got the shaft in the Jolie thing. I have to ask what happened to Rob Reiner. Didn’t he use to make good movies? I’d have to head to back to A FEW GOOD MEN to remind myself. RUMOR was a clever idea for a movie. The Graduate theme had a lot of places to go and this movie went to the wrong ones. Costner playing within his bounds of regular guy does fine. Shirley MacClaine gets away with being a little too much. Richard Jenkins as Aniston’s father is solid in a quirky performance. He’s one of those guys you’ve seen a dozen times and finally put a name with him. It’s unsatisfying, but short which is at least something.

+BURDEN OF DREAMS (1982) – The story of making the film Fitzcarraldo is racked with problems. A political situation gets them kicked out of their shooting location early on. You get the idea that they are somewhat lucky to escape with their lives. A second location is found and a good portion of the film is shot and then he loses his principle actors and has to re-think the whole enterprise. Slowly the film focuses on the natives that act as extras and bearers of the equipment and props. They are very lucky to get the work which pays a great deal more than they’re use to. Still, Herzog has that romantic noble savage psychology in him. He regrets that his contact and contact by the west in general will ruin their culture. But do they even want to keep their culture? Work is sporadic and rival tribes are killing each other so gathering and cultivating food isn’t easy. Herzog integrates some of their culture into the movie by showing the process of making this nasty hooch that’s fermented by their own saliva. Klaus Kinski of all people is too grossed out to drink it on camera. The title comes from a quote by Herzog in the middle of the film. “If I abandon this project I would be a man without dreams, and I never want to live like that.” In some ways BURDEN is similar to LOST IN LAMANCH, the Terry Gilliam failed attempt to make Don Quixote. But BURDEN is superior because it’s not just about the difficulty of making a film but the difficulty of life and how overcoming obstacles is a human victory separate from the ends themselves.

DANIEL (1992) – Based on the book by E. L. Doctorow that pretty much re-writes the Rosenbergs case with a more innocent seeming family instead so as to imply that their execution was nothing but McCarthyism. Timothy Hutton plays the grown son in the 60s that goes from wanderer growing into war protestor right where his parents would have liked.

INHERIT THE WIND (1960) This was near the beginning of Stanley Kramer’s classic “the world’s on trial” period that began with the Defiant Ones and ended with Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. INHERIT is an actor’s showcase and was a must-see Broadway play in the 1950s. Kramer casts Spencer Tracy and Frederick March in the leads who are nothing but veiled representations of Clarence Darrow (Tracy) and William Jennings Bryan (March). Darrow takes the side of Enlightenment and Bryan the side of Puritanism. You could tell with the sound down that the emotional March is the heavy while the quiet and reasoned Tracy is our hero. Tracy frames the Darwin battle as a free expression question which probably seemed like a very liberal sustainable idea. Today you could make the same movie with some college administrator PC advocate thumping his code of conduct book versus some student who held an Affirmative Action bake sale.

DON’T LOOK NOW (1973) – I had just recently heard of this classic chiller based on a book by Daphne du Maurier (Rebecca) and we decided to watch it on Halloween. Donald Sutherland is a restorer of classic architecture and he and his wife (Julie Christie) travel to work on a church in Venice shortly after the death of their daughter. Soon the wife meets a psychic that warns them to leave the city. The husband doesn’t believe in such nonsense so what explains all the weird stuff he sees? The movie is noted for a racy sex scene between the leads and the Venice setting couldn’t be better for this material.

WEDDING CRASHERS (2006) – My favorite Frat Pack movies are the ones with Vince Vaughn, the only real unapologetic actor in the series. Next I like the Wilson brothers, Luke before the more popular Owen. Two out of three ain’t bad here although the insufferable Will Ferrell shows up for a cameo at the end. There isn’t much about this movie that strikes as real. To crash weddings is one thing, but to give speeches and pose during the cake cutting is a Bugs Bunny short. So if you can deal with that and characters shouting the truth to each other one room from the people they are duping then you will get some laughs. You also get Christopher Walken as the father, Jane Seymour as a Mrs. Robinson spoof, and Rachel McAdams as the fetching object of desire. I can’t say that it was good and yet I laughed quite a few times at all the nonsense.

(+ denotes exceptional film)

Summer Movies

CATCHING UP ON MOVIE REVIEWS

TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES N.M. (1998) – Kiefer Southerland’s directorial debut features a shaky script that takes the film into more contrived areas as it proceeds. The good news is the acting rises above the material with Sutherland leading the way as the boss a hold-up gang that spends the movie on the run. Vincent Gallo is great casting as the creep with a decent heart. Kevin Pollack is a kidnap victim that starts to identify a little too much with the criminal life. In short, this is a Tarantino rip-off that can’t match the wit.

THE NAKED KISS (1964) – I think Samuel Fuller must be an acquired taste, because although he is well revered by foreign critics and indie movie makers, I just don’t see the greatness in these rough B-movie efforts. His leading lady (Constance Towers) is 10 years too old for the part of a prostitute who waltzes into town and for no apparent reason goes straight and dedicates herself to a kids hospital. The leading man Anthony Eisley is the sheriff. He’s fighting attraction to Towers, doesn’t believe the conversion and wants her in jail. The screen presence and acting ability of these leads seems about right for an episode of the RIFLEMAN. You could put a cowboy hat on either of them and they’d look like extras in any number of early TV shows. When I’m retired and have nothing but time, I will watch some Fuller movies with the sound down to see if his directing style actually rises above the shoddy plots and acting.

MELVIN AND HOWARD (1980) An early Jonathan Demme film that won Best Original Screenplay and best supporting Actress (Mary Steenburgen). In fact, Steenburgen won about every accolade as the flaky wife of Melvin. The movie is based on a story of a man that claimed to have picked up Hughes in the desert one night and drove him to Vegas. Robards plays Hughes early in the movie with the typical zest you’d expect. Paul LeMat plays Howard as the nary-do-well husband and father that is surprised to wind up in Hughes will years later. I’m not sure why the movie is so highly rated. It seems to be nothing but a pitiful white trash escapade.

ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW (2004) – This is a movie of little character situations with some scenes that really play well and others that seem entirely unreasonable. The writer/director Miranda July also plays the socially inept artist female lead. John Hawkes plays her male counterpart, a recently divorced father with two kids trying to adjust. The conventional part of the story has these two misfits trying to get together and it works pretty well. The story of the kid’s adjustment to divorce is also decent, and the relationship between Miranda and gallery owner is compelling. But you could pretty much cut every other character and subplot out of the movie and not miss it.

CALIFORNIA SPLIT (1974) – An entertaining film from the hit or miss Robert Altman. Elliot Gould and George Segal meet each other in a California poker room and decide to team up as gamblers betting the ponies and playing cards. This atmosphere usually makes for an entertaining beginning and in the hands of a decent director this material works the whole way through. The central question the script poses is whether it’s action or results that these men seek. It also answers one of the central questions as to why good players go through bad streaks. When you play well and win money the action becomes a drug and if you don’t watch out you start to crave the action over the money and then you give it back.

+CACHE (2005) Often times I’m at a loss for something interesting and I let Netflix talk me into this recent French psychological drama starring Juliet Binnoche and directed by Michael Haneke. Without giving away too much, Binoche and her husband are being semi-stalked by someone from the husband’s past. The movie really gets the subtlety right and the mystery plays out at a very good pace. One of the most interesting facets is the unspoken question of whether Binoche is having fling with a family friend. You get to answer it for yourself.

THE PIANO TEACHER (2001) – After enjoying CACHE, I immediately rented Haneke’s earlier acclaimed film. American audiences may recognize Isabelle Huppert from I Heart Huccabees. Here she gives a disturbing performance as the Masochistic title character. It has less of the nuance that I enjoyed in CACHE and some of it is down right mean. Thankfully I saw it second or I may not have tried Cache. Based on these two films I would probably give anything future Haneke film a chance even if I know that I won’t be the right audience for all of them.

EIGHT BELOW (2006) – Researchers on Antartica have to leave some dogs behind in the dead of winter and the movie follows the survival of the dogs. The movie sustains excitement, and sorrow proving once again that you don’t need named actors or even dialogue if the story is solid enough. It doesn’t hurt that we have a sled dog ourselves.

THE MATADOR (2005) – This is Pierce Brosnan’s second attempt at turning his glossy James Bond persona into a darker version of the same character. I thought that the first try, THE TAILOR OF PANAMA, worked quite well and he doesn’t really disappoint here either. Brosnan has a license to kill here like Bond and he’s the symbolic matador killing the bull. Greg Kinnear shows up as the everyman that meets Brosnan on a business trip and they become friends sort-of despite a few misfires at first. It’s resolved in a typical American movie way which is not a criticism but a good way of understanding the American outlook on life. The French director Haneke would have found a much more bleak way to end it and that would have been in line with the way the French see the world.

THE MODERNS (1988) Alan Rudolph explores the ex-patriate American culture in 1920s France. I don’t think Nick Hart played by Keith Carradine was a real person, but many of the others characters – Gertrude Stein, Hemingway – are. A few years later, Rudolph tackled the same time period for “Mrs. Parker and the Viscous Circle” which I like better. Carradine makes a surprisingly effective leading man and the young Linda Fiorentino is solid object of affection, but the story itself goes from lighthearted to dark and then to silly and then to contrived. I seldom like it when serious bitter rivals evolve into comedic bitter rivals followed by timely deaths that solve the nature of the conflict for the characters.

HAPPY ENDINGS (2005) - The title refers to the kind of massage that Kevin Costner was trying to get in Scotland. An ensemble cast including Lisa Kudrow, Maggie Gyllenhal, Tom Arnold and Jason (Son of John) Ritter go about their lives in whatever way touching upon the lives of one another. The main plots are Kudrow possibly re-connecting with the son she gave away and Tom Arnold being taken for a fool by Maggie Gyllenhal who is either pregnant by Arnold or his son Ritter. The situations are handled with both humor and sadness with a decent overall style.

+MY VOYAGE TO ITALY (2001) – Martin Scorsese divides the film into 2 parts and 243 complete minutes to explore the greatest of classic Italian cinema with commentary on directors, actors, and stories. The major players are Fellini, De Sica, and Rossellini, with Antonioni and Visconti showing up for laughs. I found it somewhere in the first hour and was so engrossed I didn’t realize 3 hours had past. The films are interesting in themselves, but it’s Scorsese’s commentary that pulls you in and keeps you watching. This was especially true in the postwar Bergman/Rossillini collaborations and Fellini’s 8 ½, a movie I appreciated much more with Scorsese’s take.

MEET THE FOCKERS (2004) – While Marty is busy telling film history, Bobby is playing MEET THE PAYCHECK. The once interesting actor is not only willing to play a cartoon version of himself, he’s willing to do so in sequels. Scorsese answered by casting Jack Nicholson in his latest DeNiro role. Other Oscar winners, Hoffman and Streisand show up for cheap laughs. Episodes of My Name is Earl seem more plausible.

+FANNY AND ALEXANDER (1982) – One of the few cinematic treats I have left to look forward to is watching the entire Ingmar Bergman output. I believe this is the 4th film I’ve seen after Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal, and Three Strange Loves. The movie is 188 minutes and paced so well that it never feels overlong. Fanny and Alexander are two young kids that deal with the death of their actor father and the introduction of the strict clergyman stepfather. Plenty of temperamental theatre characters make for some lighthearted subplots.

(+) denotes exceptional film.

That Spike Lee Joint

I watched a good deal of the Spike Lee Katrina Documentary on HBO. This documentary is long and it’s full of a lot of angry people immediately after the storms passed, but the anger wasn’t directed at anyone in particular. So Spike uses more recent interviews to help direct the anger at the closest possible Republican. Let’s see, the Mayor is a Democrat – Governor is a Democrat – President is a Republican – Yeah, it’s the federal government’s fault.

But attaching the blame to Bush isn’t as simple as hoped because there seemed to be a contradiction about what the federal government should have done. On one hand Nagin clearly says that Gov. Blanco refused to give Bush the authority to send the National Guard. Blanco all but admits that she refused to cede control by refusing to answer the question directly. The Blanco problem is further compounded by the revelation that Nagin and Blanco have been political rivals since he supported her opponent in the most recent election. Though the documentary doesn’t spend much time here, there seems a great likelihood that Blanco kept the Feds waiting simply to make Nagin look worse.

After spending too little time on that nugget, the documentary produces people that say Bush should have ignored Blanco and sent troops anyway. So it’s still his fault. But wait, not long after the troops arrive we hear many interviewees complain about the behavior of the troops in action. Some citizens felt like Iraqis living with an occupying army. Though never stated, it seemed pretty likely that Bush circumventing Blanco would have been ripe for a police state accusation.

We hear an anecdote about the great LBJ coming to town after a 60s hurricane for a photo-op. But then Bush is criticized because his appearance is a photo-op. The end result is that the documentary gives a voice to so many different complaints that you can choose any villain that you want and Spike certainly chooses Bush.

Nagin’s lackadaisical approach to the coming storm was a big blunder. The shot of those flooded school buses a few days later and the realization that they should have been carting people out of town Saturday night was not given any play here. Still, Nagin comes off as a pretty decent guy that seemed more interested in solutions than politics while Blanco seems more interested in her power and shifting blame.

The average viewer is supposed to gather that America’s racism let the people in New Orleans down. If Lee believes that people can only survive in New Orleans with Federal hand-holding, then maybe he’s accidentally asking us if we should go to the trouble of re-building New Orleans at all. Why are we to think it won’t happen all over again the next time? Does the average taxpayer really want the responsibility every time a storm is brewing in the Gulf? If I were to believe the tone of the overall film as reality then I would vote to bulldoze the place and plant sugarcane.

A History of Violence (A Movie Review)

Viggo Mortensen has an impressive range. Having recently seen him as the no-good brother in Sean Penn’s INDIAN RUNNER, you would think he would be forever typecast as the loser. Here he plays the mild-mannered husband, father and small businessman and he plays it note perfect. When his restaurant is invaded by gunmen, his defeat of those thugs is a great heroic movie moment. As the rest of the movie unfolds, Viggo’s range is tested as he reveals more of his true self. He should have been nominated.

Unlike other movies based on graphic novels such as Sin City, and The Road to Perdition, a History of Violence doesn’t have that overly stylized art direction that takes you out of the realness of the story. Cronenberg makes up for this by inventing his own things to take you out of the story. For instance, Maria Bello and Viggo Mortensen by their actions do not seem to have been together long enough to have produced a high school aged son. There is some sort of excitement between them that exists in the world of newness. It seems like he is just recently in her life or he just returned from war.

When the violence heats up, we expect as an audience to see some gore, but sometimes the gore we see is stylized in the slasher movie mode instead of the cops and robbers mode. It draws too much attention to that style and leads you away from the act.

But the only truly groaning preposterous part of the film is the affectedness of William Hurt’s performance. Of course, Hurt made his career playing the driest of leading men and his attempt to give a character some spice is so offbeat and comic it just doesn’t match the action happening simultaneously.

The last thing, though minor, is that the son overcomes a bully we're to believe because he is the son of Viggo and inherited the same prowess. The only problem is that the actor that plays the son isn't quite right for the kind of transformation and it seems forced rather than natural.

For all I know maybe these are elements of graphic novels that fans have long ago forgiven or even expected, but this was actually a good idea and a more decent story than the average movie and I think that those certain elements detract from the overall result.

It’s a bubble film for me. Sometimes I watch these movies again and they grow on me enough that I forgive the imperfections. Other times, the imperfections scream louder subsequent times and I write them off. I’m wondering where this one will take me.

I've seen FORREST GUMP on TV a few times in the last couple of years, and though it was a movie that I critical of the time, especially Hanks voice choice for the character, I have since come to admire and enjoy it. Go figure.

PCU - Politically Correct University (1994) - A movie review

Puritanism has never been dead in America. It just takes different forms at different times. It’s an attitude more so than a belief system. It lives in people that insist the world be fashioned to their own pure standard. In Salem, women were burned as witches for not adhering. In New York City men cannot smoke a cigar in a tavern without the threat of arrest. In college campuses, students are expelled for holding affirmative action bake sales. Larger forms are the drug war and the Kyoto Treaty.

Those on the left that abhor Salem and even liken it to McCarthyism have no insight into their own Puritanism. Because what is Political Correctness other than an insistence of a pure adherence to today’s version of enlightenment? The reason you cannot smoke in a New York City bar comes from the same thinking that made the colonials dress modestly, both were designed to protect the body, although from different things. The students expelled for holding an affirmative action bake sale were performing a sacrilege against the latest tenant of secular divinity. So brings us to the slight and mostly forgotten movie, PCU.

Trish remembered this movie fondly from college and although I never had any interest in it, I was busy cooking and didn’t squawk when she put it on. I tried to simply ignore it, but I found myself laughing more than once. It was in some ways typical, but in other ways it showed a boldness.

It’s the only movie I have ever seen that treats the self-important PC groups as the intolerant and self-righteous creeps that they are. All the usual complaint groups are marching around campus as you’d expect they would be while a group of good-time Charlies led by Jeremy Piven do everything they can to disrupt these pretentious bastards. Piven and Co. are the heroes we already know from Animal House. They care little about school, but they like a good time and these PCers are ruining the fun around campus. The first act of rebelliousness is early on when the vegetarians are marching against the evils of meat and Piven’s gang lies waiting at the top of a building and then flings raw hamburger meat upon them, gross and yet not unappreciated by the audience.

Another explanation for the rebelliousness is that Piven’s one-time girlfriend is a member of the marching anti-men feminists. She’s lambasted early by another fem for having a relationship with that pig, but you can tell that she still likes him and is only going through the motions of sanctimoniousness. We know that Piven will win her back amidst the other chaos that is soon to follow.

Jessica Walter (Play Misty for Me) is the Dean of students that is trying to kick Piven’s crew out of school ala Animal House. And this is where the movie takes a Hollywood turn. David Spade leads the group of prep school types. He’s singled out as a “Republican” and he plans to help Walter get the Pivens kicked off campus. Not once in the film do Spade and his Republicans ever comment on the PC nature of the campus, instead they are solely designed to be the arch enemy of “libertarian” Piven and Co. I suppose this was the trade-off for getting the movie made. You can make fun of all the excessive PC groups as long as the real villain is still a Republican. That the Republicans and Piven would rather fight among themselves than find alliance against the totalitarians of correct thought is funnier than flinging the meat, because it's such a twister stretch for a writer.

Peter Biskind wrote a book about the politics of 1950s cinema that is quite fascinating. He looks at classic films, but also at popular films and cult films. He analyzes the different kinds of approaches taken by authority figures and places those attitudes into groups. If I were to write a movie about cinema in the 1990s, I would certainly include this movie because it gets to the heart of the era. Not only does it capture the shrillness of PC groups in a way that will probably never be tackled again, but it exposes the knee-jerk anti-conservative response of Hollywood on any subject.

PCU ends with the PC groups coming to their senses as Piven and Co. share in a George Clinton concert. The PC groups just needed to find their fun inner child, while the conservatives will never be fun. It’s significant because it shows that modern Hollywood values are less based on beliefs than attitudes. Anything conservative must be suspect, even their own conservative inclinations. Reaching out to the most anti-social liberals is more favorable than making common cause with those that they actually agree with.

The late Dick Schaap was on Crossfire in the early 1990s. The topic may have been what to do with Tonya Harding following the Kerrigan incident. Schaap and Buchanan agreed that Harding should be kicked off the team, but Schaap was so upset that he agreed with Pat, he kept insulting Pat by the way he kept saying he can’t believe he’s agreeing with him on anything and implying that Pat was a fool. I remember more about Schaap’s embarrassment than I do anything else. The same emotion was present here and therefore resolved in a most unrealistic way.

CLEARING THE BASES by Mike Schmidt – (A book Review)

Bob Costas had a great HBO special in May about Steroid use. While his panel of Tim McCarver, Joe Margan and Bob Gibson each had varying sympathies for the players, they all admitted that steroids were bad for the game. Costas thinks that steroids are the second biggest blight on the history of the game following the pre-1947 segregation, because both factors resulted in baseball not having the equal and honest competition that it deserved.

Schmidt’s book is here to take advantage of the controversy by allowing a clean player to weigh in on the happenings. Like most jock books we get a synopsis of his career as a platform to lay his inside opinion on. I remember the 1980s Schmidt from the Pete Rose and Tug McGraw era. I knew little about his beginnings and I was glad he caught me up.

As well as giving a career capsule, Schmidt also explains early free agency starting with Curt Flood on into Catfish Hunter and Dave McNally. On the one hand, Schmidt says the players deserved their freedom of movement and the ability to earn as much as the market would bear. But he also thinks the frequent player movement has been a negative for baseball. This duality of thought is a common thread through the book. Now a lot of people have ambiguous emotions about the way baseball has changed over the years and you can’t fault Schmidt the person for not being sure which is the greater good, but the point of writing a book is to make a stand on the issues not just say that you’re torn between them. Which is better Mike, free movement or guys staying put?

He was on record as saying in the past that if steroids were available in his day he would have used them. He now says that the comment was off the cuff and he wouldn’t have. Steroids are ruinous to the game, he says. But then he explains that the increase in home run production is just as much a result of a tighter wound and fresher balls, and smaller ballparks. So the real culprit can be whatever we want it to be.

The most interesting story is Schmidt’s relationship with Pete Rose. Schmidt started intervening with Bud Selig a few years back and even brought Rose to Selig so that Rose could admit he bet on baseball. Schmidt says that Selig was happy for the admission, but less than impressed with Rose’s lack of emotion over the confession. Selig wanted Rose to feel badly, I guess. Though Rose still had a shot with Selig, his chances were ruined around the time Pete’s book was due to come out. The early leak of the book coincided with the HOF announcements where the Rose news overshadowed Selig’s buddy Paul Molitor being enshrined. DOOM!

I suppose the title is Schmidt's play on clearing the air with his thoughts, but I think Schmidt shouldn't have written the book until he could make some more definitive value judgements.

These are the kinds of books I grew up on, and the ones that taught me a love of reading, although they were mostly written by the likes of Sparky Lyle and Graig Nettles. They usually leave me less than excited these days. The only one from the last few years that stands out is the one written by Jim Kaat.

MUNICH (2005) – A Movie Review

Steven Spielberg’s great downfall is that he has sold his own talents too short and has spent too much of the latter part of his career trying to make “important” message pictures. Thank God Alfred Hitchcock never fell for such trappings. Spielberg doesn’t seem to understand that yes message pictures win Oscars, but that hacks can make message pictures. What other director could have made JAWS or RAIDERS as well as Spielberg? And when he makes these pictures he never seems to want to let them stand on their own. Even his better “important” pictures are ruined by Spielberg’s comments. The schmaltz that works for ET or Close Encounters is just a part of Spielberg and it winds up in everything. For instance, the real life ending of Schindler’s was a kick in the suit pants to say look this is important just in case you didn’t figure it out already. The opening of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN begins in modern-day Normandy so that we can later reflect on the importance of the saving. Give us some credit. Both were needless and became a substitute for the viewer’s ability to add his/her own importance to the events. In Munich the DVD allows you to watch a special introduction by Steven Spielberg. I could not even stomach the idea. If he made the movie correctly then it wouldn’t need a special introduction.

The two main drawbacks for me going in were the slow pace I read about and the source material “Vengeance” that’s factual content is widely disputed. It didn’t help either that Spielberg gave the impression in a number of interviews that the Palestinians haven’t been heard enough, followed later contradictory comments that he himself would die for Israel. The good news is that it’s a very human story and the pace is somewhat slow but not terrible. And although the Israeli hit squad members come away shaken by the act of vengeance, I didn’t stop rooting for them. Yeah some members may question their own actions and that is supposed to make us think about “what hast vengeance wrought,” but you are still allowed to make up your own mind. The Israeli government official played by the great Geoffrey Rush is sort of a heavy in his bureaucratic way, but I didn’t hate him either. I enjoyed the planning and execution of the retribution and the way the human elements were sprinkled within. Spielberg waits the whole movie to finally show us how the Israeli Olympic Team is murdered and he does it inter cut with our hero Eric Bana is flagrante delicto. Some may see that as artsy, but I found it disturbing when you think about how the victims were real people with living relatives. There were more subtle ways I think to show Bana breaking down. Do you think the parallel action is described that way in the book?

So, in short, I liked Munich more than I thought, but Spielberg’s pretentious phase still irks me.