Category: Reviews

  • Richard Donner made 1976’s ‘The Omen’ brilliant

    Gregory Peck tries to kill the devil in 'The Omen'
    Gregory Peck tries to kill the devil in ‘The Omen’

    It had been years since I saw The Omen. I wasn’t quite sure how much of it I’d actually remember when I sat down to watch it the other night, but surprisingly enough I remembered virtually all of it.

    What I didn’t remember, however, was how good a movie it was.

    Richard Donner crafted a brilliantly intriguing religious thriller. It is wonderfully paced, with some terrific scenes and strong acting. The young boy, played perfectly by Harvey Stephens, is stunningly creepy. That last moment when he turns to the camera and smiles is chilling. I was honestly surprised by how much I liked this film. I’m not a fan of these kinds of movies. I thought The Exorcistwas rather boring. Religiously-themed fright flicks just don’t interest me. But what Donner had created here, with screenwriter David Seltzer, was just outstanding.

    The Omen revolves around Robert Thorn (Gregory Peck), an ambassador with political ambitions, who “adopts” a young boy after his son dies at birth. He doesn’t reveal this fact to his wife, however, and things proceed pleasantly for six years. That is until their Nanny hangs herself during Damien’s birthday party. The creepy Mrs. Baylock (Billie Whitelaw) arrives to care for Damien, and the boy’s mother, Katherine (Lee Remick), starts to suspect that the young child is trying to kill her. This leads Thorn to discover a dark and frightening truth — his son is the anti-Christ, and must be destroyed.

    Although at the time most people probably wouldn’t have thought twice about it, the notion that came to mind as I watched The Omen was this: if you name your son Damien, then hire a nanny named Baylock, you’re pretty much sealing his fate as the servant of evil.

    One of the key reasons The Omen works so well is the presence of Gregory Peck. I don’t quite get why he did the movie, and unfortunately none of the behind-the-scenes featurettes really explain it, but whatever his reasons he brings a level of credibility and respectability to the film that it probably wouldn’t have achieved otherwise. The Omen had come shortly after the suicidal death of his own son, so perhaps he was in a dark place and that is what guided to do the film. Another nice little note about the actors here is Father Brennan. Dr. Who fans will recognize Patrick Troughton as the second actor to play the famed Time Lord.

    I feel though that I cannot praise Donner enough. His work is really outstanding, and a highlight for me was listening to his commentary on this “collector’s edition” DVD. You don’t just get one commentary from Donner, but two. In the first he is paired with editor Stuart Baird (who has since become a director in his own rite), and with the second he is teamed with screenwriter and director, Brian Helgeland (not completely sure why, though, since he had nothing to do with this film).

    This two-disc DVD set includes several other extras, including “The Omen Legacy”, a documentary narrated by Jack Palance that covers the making of the original The Omen, as well as its two sequels, TV movie and television pilot. There is also “666: The Omen Revealed”, which explores the religious elements of the film. Of course, there you have to have a short extra that discusses the dreaded “Omen Curse”. There is also a featurette on Seltzer and his experience writing The Omen, and another with horror master Wes Craven discussing the film. The DVD is rounded out by a deleted scene (with optional commentary), a photo gallery, and a featurette with the late Jerry Goldsmith, who talks about his work creating the film’s soundtrack.

  • Short film ‘Hubris’ offers up a clever take on speed dating

    Short film ‘Hubris’ offers up a clever take on speed dating

    ‘Hubris’

    Speed dating. I’ve never actually attempted it myself. Not that I didn’t have to, just that it wasn’t a big thing before I met my wife. Regardless, I think that if you were actually going to try it, doing it along with several friends who were going to stack the decks in your favor is actually a pretty good idea.

    That’s what happens in the short film, Hubris, from writer/director Gary King. This clever take on the speed dating concept is not only funny, but could easily be expanded into a feature-length film.

    The story centers around two friends: Jeremy (Jeremy Koerner) and Barry (Frederik Goris). Jeremy has a girlfriend, Barry does not. In fact, Barry hasn’t had one in a long time. Heck, Barry hasn’t had a lot of things in a long time. And Jeremy is dedicated to helping him get some. So, he puts together a plan. With the help of a few friends, they’re going to attend an exclusive speed dating event, and each of them are going to act like the biggest jerks in order to make Barry the most attractive man in the room. Only, this simple plan doesn’t go exactly right, as the women apparently have a plan of their own.

    Not only is the film terrifically funny, but the performances are all memorable. Koerner is perfect as the smart-ass best friend, and Goris as his nebbish buddy. These two play well off one another, making their relationship all the more believable. But it’s the clever stylings that King inserts into this simple 19 minute film that make it feel original.

    One of my favorite bits of humor in Hubris is the voice over. Barry provides the narration most of the time, telling the story of what happened to him and his friends. But at one point, Jeremy breaks in, and the two get into an argument. Honestly, not since Goodfellas was a voice-over used so uniquely. That sounds like a cliché “critic” type of thing to say, but it’s true.

    The collection of buddies King assembled for Jeremy and Barry are also perfect. The bizarre Uncle Lou (Fred Zappert) and the pathetically horny Ricky (Jared Asato) provide some of the film’s most uncomfortable moments, and had me cracked up. The women, as well, were great. We don’t really learn much at all about any of them, but their reactions to the men and their different ways of making themselves look like jerks works perfectly.

    Stylistically, Hubris was mostly great. There were some moments that betrayed its low budget, but others that really helped elevate it. King developed a wonderful sequence during the speed dating scene where the frame is divided among the different guys, and we see and hear their often bizarre conversations all at once. My only criticism of this was that it went on a little too long.

    As the credits roll, the film suggests, ala James Bond, that Jeremy and Barry will return in The Perfect Gentlemen. I can’t wait.

  • Surpisingly poignant and thought-provoking, ‘The Break-Up’ is a terrifically unconventional romantic comedy.

    Surpisingly poignant and thought-provoking, ‘The Break-Up’ is a terrifically unconventional romantic comedy.

    Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston in ‘The Break-Up’

    The Break-Up stars Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston as a Chicago couple who buy a condo together and then after their relationship breaks up, neither one wants to move out. An odd situation to say the least, and one that is ripe with comic potential, particularly when you have two actors who are so adept in the romantic comedy genre. After all, didn’t we just see Vaughn in The Wedding Crashers, one of the funniest R-rated romantic comedies in ages, while Aniston was the female lead in Along Came Polly and Bruce Almighty, two successful outings in the genre.

    The difference the brain trust: director Peyton Reed (Bring It On, Down With Love) screenwriters Jeremy Garelick and Jay Lavender, and Vaughn himself, a first-time producer, none of whom consulted the “unwritten” manual for a successful romantic comedy. They went their own way and that was a great decision. One of the basic rules for this type of film is that you normally need to show the couple actually falling in love, even if they have nothing in common. And if ever a couple had nothing in common except love, it is Gary Grabowski (Vaughn) and Brooke Meyers (Aniston).

    He is a die-hard Cubs fan, partners with his brothers in a tour bus operation in which he is the “talent”, the operator of the tour bus who describes the various highlights of Chicago to passengers. He is also a perennial slob, who thinks that their condo would be better if it had a pool table rather than the furniture it is so wonderfully decorated with thanks, to Brooke’s excellent taste. After all, she works in a very important art gallery, loves to keep things neat, orderly and, of course, organized. But we don’t see them falling in love or get a whole lot of romance between them. He sees her, he wants to meet her, even though she’s with someone else at the time. He then finds a way to hit on her (a clever way at that) and soon, she’s with him.

    Their break up is precipitated when they have families over for dinner and Gary can’t be bothered to aid at all in the preparation for what Brooke considers a very important evening. He does manage to insert the ever-tiring issue of the pool table into the dinner discussion, further irritating his significant other. The final straw comes after everyone else leaves and he doesn’t want to help with the clean-up efforts.

    Soon, they are officially “apart”, with Gary sleeping on the pull-out sofa and playing pool on the new pool table, while Brooke is letting others use her private space in the bedroom for things that she knows will annoy Gary. This is a battle that will only escalate until finally the realtor that sold them the condo is present during a games evening where all of their friends witness how the level of animosity has grown. After everyone else has left, he pulls the two of them aside and tells them that they need to wake up and realize that neither of them can afford to live there alone. They can’t keep going the way they are going and that they should do the smart thing and sell, then just go on with their lives. Of course, this is not what Brooke ever wanted, she wanted to change Gary and get him to understand how hard she worked to make their life together good and comfortable, but apparently that just wasn’t going to happen. Or would it?

    The lead actors are quite good in their roles, a supporting cast that includes Jon Favreau, Judy Davis, Joey Lauren Adams and Vincent D’ Onofrio are excellent. Chicago makes a nice backdrop and a welcome change from the usual scenery of either Los Angeles or New York for this type of movie (one reason for enjoying “Fever Pitch” was its Boston location). It is fun to see.

    Now is the point where I warn you to stop reading if you don’t want to see any spoiler type stuff. This isn’t the typical romantic comedy where the hero ends up getting the girl back in the end and that’s a choice that I not only respected, I approved of it. Why must films involving romance have an ending where a couple gets or stays united, when we live in a society with a divorce rate above 50%? Brooke has given all she had to give and by the time Gary woke up and smelled the coffee and realized what he was about to lose, it made sense that she might have nothing left to give and no feelings left for him at that moment. That scene may be the best in the film, it is one of Aniston’s best moments on screen that I’ve seen.

    Go and enjoy The Break Up. It is a definite date film and you may learn not to take that date for granted as a result.

  • ‘The Coatroom’ is great fun, but could have used a bit more plot

    ‘The Coatroom’ is great fun, but could have used a bit more plot

    ‘The Coatroom’

    The way I see it, comedic films often have two different approaches. There’s the slapstick comedy, with goofy gags and lowbrow shtick. Then there’s the more high brow kind of humor, where you laugh at something that may not be obviously funny. I guess to use examples: There’s Something About Mary would be low brow, and The Royal Tenenbaums would be high brow.

    Me, personally, I’m a lowbrow kind of guy. I like a good sight gag or fart joke. Sure, I’ll chuckle at some of that that “thinking man” humor, but it’ll never get me rolling in the aisles like Cameron Diaz’ hair sticking up did the first time I saw Mary.

    So, looking at this week’s indie flick, The Coatroom, I think there’s a little bit of both. There’s some low brow gags that come off as pretty funny. Personally, I wish there had been a few more moments like that. For me, the film’s funniest moments come in the second half of this Clerks-like talker.

    The story revolves around James Cotton (Patrick Carrico), a disillusioned ex-college student who gets a job working in the coatroom at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. We spend the day with him as he gets to know his bizarre collection of co-workers, and meets different types of people visiting the museum.

    It would be impossible to watch The Coatroom without drawing direct connections to Kevin Smith’s Clerks. While there is a little more art to the visual style of Coatroom, the concept is basically similar. Characters sit around, show little to no respect to the people they serve, and goof around talking about sex and drugs. Where Coatroom differs, however, is that it unfortunately lacks likable characters. There isn’t one person worth rooting for. Not only that, you don’t even know what you’re rooting for.

    The Coatroom really has no particular point to make. The characters sit around, complaining incessantly about their lives, then do little to nothing about it. Nothing happens. No character revelations, no plot, no resolution. As a result, The Coatroom was a challenge to sit through.

    At the same time, the film did have a few clever, if somewhat bizarre moments. It’s best scene comes near the end, when Cotton shares some coke with a fellow Museum employee, Nick (Christopher Keener). This section of the film was very well done, from the dialogue and acting, to the visuals and the editing. Even the jokes were more accessible and had me laughing. In fact, what makes The Coatroom interesting to watch are its inspired visuals.

    Director Jason F. Gilbert creates some wonderful shots, and largely gains natural performances from his actors. Claire Bromwell is terrific, and Keener provides the film’s lightest moments. Carrico does a great job as well, carrying the film on his shoulders.

    My only wish was that The Coatroom had taken more time to develop an actual plotline. All the great visuals and performances can’t change the fact that the story moves as a slug’s pace, and when you get to the finish, there’s no one there to greet you.

  • ‘The Time Tunnel’ is cheesy, but clever

    ‘The Time Tunnel’ is cheesy, but clever

    James Darren (left) and Robert Colbert (2nd from left) find themselves trapped in the past
    James Darren (left) and Robert Colbert (2nd from left) find themselves trapped in the past

    I first discovered this series back in the early days of the Sci Fi channel. When it first premiered, it ran all sorts of old television series. Its morning was populated by virtually all of Irwin Allen’s early works, such as Land of Giants and The Time Tunnel, and of course, Lost in Space. All of them were horribly campy, but often enjoyable.

    The Time Tunnel was no different. The premise was intriguing, often putting its main duo into famous historical events and disasters. However, I think the series would be pretty hard to swallow for some viewers today. The low-budget silliness of it all can be rather comical, and as a result, it’s sometimes difficult to take the show seriously. Still, looking at the stories themselves, there were some clever ideas.

    This short-lived series died largely because Allen refused to cut the budget after network demands. And while I think it may have been interesting for the series to continue forward, it could very well have been better off. What I didn’t like, at least about this second half of the show’s 30 episodes, was the introduction of aliens. This was a little goofy, and stretched the concept into areas it never really needed to go.

    “Kill Two By Two” was a surprisingly good episode. The complex tale has the stars Tony (James Darren) and Doug (Robert Colbert) coming up against two Japanese soldiers during World War II. Meanwhile, back at TickTock (the headquarters where the time tunnel was located), Ann (Lee Meriwether) and General Kirk (Whit Bissell) get help from a Japanese consultant who turns out to be related to one of the two soldiers. I loved the complex nature of the story, and it was one of the highlights of this DVD set for me. “Chase Through Time” is also fairly good, with Tony and Doug in pursuit throughout different points in history of a terrorist named Niman. And while “The Kidnappers” was one of those aforementioned “alien” episodes, its actually quite good.

    At the same time, I really didn’t like the final two episodes of the show, which really got into otherworldly scenarios. I don’t know exactly why the alien bits bothered me. Perhaps because of the cheesy effects. But it also seemed strange that they felt the need to insert aliens into a series that was already dealing heavily with one science fiction concept — time travel.

    There are several good extras on this four-disc DVD set, including interviews with Robert Colbert, the still beautiful Lee Meriwether, Whit Bissell and James Darren. The best extras, however, are the two bonus episodes. One is Time Travellers, a TV Movie Allen produced that is basically a kind of remake of The Time Tunnel. Then there’s the never-aired TV pilot from 2002. This remake was produced for Fox, but ultimately abandoned.

    I didn’t care much for the 1976 Time Travelers, but the 2002 pilot was actually pretty good. It wasn’t perfect, mind you, still it had something that could have been intriguing. This project isn’t completely dead. The SciFi channel has greenlit yet another remake for 2007, which involves some of the producers behind the 2002 pilot.

  • It is not easy to decode ‘The DaVinci Code’

    It is not easy to decode ‘The DaVinci Code’

    Tom Hanks and Jean Reno in ‘The Da Vinci Code’

    The controversy swirling around the film version of Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code is based on religious issues.  If you choose to read the novel or view the film and focus solely on the religious aspects and their history, then you will probably be disappointed or upset by the movie. However, if you choose to simply view this as a good, taut murder mystery unfolding against a backdrop of religious symbolism, you are in for a good, although somewhat long treat.

    Director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman take Brown’s novel that runs 489 pages in mass market paperback and translate it into 149 minutes of big screen running time starring Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellan, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany and Alfred Molina. Hanks is “Robert Langdon”, a symbologist who is in Paris to give a presentation on religious symbols and their interpretation when he finds himself summoned to the Lourve where curator “Jacques Sauniere” (Jean-Pierre Marelle) lies dead, a murder victim. Somehow, before dying, Sauniere has managed to use his own blood to draw symbols all over himself, as well as leave an encrypted message and some other clues. Maybe if he had tried to stop the bleeding he might have lived? In any event, Langdon arrives to find a detective, “Capt Fauche” (Reno), asking for his help in interpreting the messages written in Sauniere’s blood.

    Moments later, another police officer, “Sophie Neveu” (Tautou) arrives, having ostensibly been dispatched by headquarters. Actually she is there to warn Langdon that he is in peril from Fauche and she helps him escape from the museum.  The chase to solve the mystery of Sauniere’s murder as well as a religious riddle that has puzzled scholars since the time of Jesus, is on.

    Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou in ‘The Da Vinci Code’

    There are secrets within secrets to be uncovered, hidden artifacts to be found, codes to be broken and somehow, Langdon and Neveu manage to make it through to the home of a friend of Langdon’s, “Sir Leigh Teabing” (McKellan), who happens to be an expert on these religious symbols and riddles and as he is unaware of the pair’s status as fleeing felons, he is more than willing to assist.

    Am I leaving out a good part of the story? Absolutely. That’s because there may be some people who actually haven’t read the novel (I hadn’t before seeing the film) and they should see it without having too much spoiled, so we’ll leave the relating of the film’s story and plot at this point. Again, it is in how you view things, it fails as a religious study, it succeeds as a murder mystery.

    Tom Hanks is very good in a new type of role for him. I’m beginning to wonder if there is a role that he wouldn’t do well in. Ian McKellan is also enjoyable as the maniacally obsessed expert who will do almost anything to unlock the secrets of the past. The rest of the cast is adequate or better and director Ron Howard, while not at the top of his game, manages to deliver in a genre that is not his typical forte.

    Take a trip to the theater and try to decipher The Da Vinci Code.

  • ‘Under Surveillance’ is a mixed bag of indie filmmaking

    ‘Under Surveillance’ is a mixed bag of indie filmmaking

    ‘Under Surveillance’

    Today we’re launching a new section on Tail Slate, this one dedicated to the independent film. And I’m not just talking about the small, personal projects starring famous folks looking for street cred. I’m talking about the real small-timers. The guys and gals picking up digital cameras and making flicks.

    The first in this series will be from a local boy — well, local enough. Shot on location in Long Island, NY, Under Surveillance was done on the cheap and shot with miniDV. And, no, it isn’t the greatest film in the world. It suffers from the basic issues that so many of these kinds of films do — weak performances, questionable camera work, bad dialogue. What it does have is a clever idea, one that had a lot of potential.

    Under Surveillance is a hodge-podge of bad scenes and good scenes. Some of its best moments come closer to the end. The story isn’t very well developed, perhaps intentionally, as a means of making it more mysterious than it really was. Sure, you’ll likely have it figured in the first five minutes, but you can pick out the good ideas here and that makes it worth watching. For me, anyway.

    Its tale has 20-something Justin Besler (Eric Conley) moving in with his father (David Rigg), after having lived with his sickly mother for several years. However, his father has made many changes to their old family house, renovating it into several different apartments. After a woman (Alexandra Eitel) with whom Besler may or may not have had some kind of relationship with is found dead, he recruits his best friend, Scott (Fred DeReau), and Scott’s morally challenged roommate, Rick (Dave Campfield), into helping him solve the mystery. They set about planting cameras and spying on all the residents in his father’s house to find out which one is a killer, and possibly part of a deadly cult.

    I could rail about the film’s many problems, but let me just take a moment to give the film’s writer/director David Campfield his due. He made a full-length feature film, and it was his first attempt. That in and of itself deserves recognition. It wasn’t going to be perfect, so you have to acknowledge that right from the beginning. More so than the Hollywood fare, these kinds of low-budget flicks need to be given some breathing room. You have to accept a certain amount of problems and mistakes. Perhaps it means that watching these films takes a little more effort, but they can be worth it.

    At the same time, I can’t help but look at the film and examine it. It has problems. First is the script, which I think really wasn’t developed enough. The story could have been focused better. The film’s opening scenes are hard to get into, and the storyline is a bit jumbled. Was this film about the characters spying on people or a cult? While there are some red herrings throughout, it never seemed like anything gelled. Random pieces of a puzzle, with parts jammed together instead of actually fitting correctly.

    Visually, the film violates its very concept, which was something that really bothered me. I liked the idea of these characters looking into the lives of the different residents through hidden cameras. However, while these sections are in black and white, they are filmed like any other scene. The angles don’t look like surveillance cameras at all, except for one shot near the end. I know, this is nitpicking, but Under Surveillance took its most clever concept and threw it out, and that disappointed me.

    At the same time, the surveillance scenes are some of the film’s strongest. The performances are good, with the film’s best being Chris Cooke, who plays a dying man living out his final days with hookers and drugs. Mark Love, Brenda Abbandandolo and Felissa Rose are also good. Part of me wished the film had gotten to these characters sooner. Ironically, I actually met Love briefly several years ago on a film set in Bayside, Queens called, Dungeon Dogs. That film was written/directed by a fellow named Don Calabrese (Love’s character in Under Surveillance is named Vincent Calabrese, but I’m sure this is merely coincidence). Simultaneously, the scenes with Justin, Scott and Rich as they watched the monitors were also some of the film’s best. They were often funny, and the interaction between these characters were at their most natural.

    Those moments helped make Under Surveillance a good first effort.

  • ‘King Kong: Special Edition’ is brilliant yet extended version feels bloated

    The giant gorilla roars in 'King Kong'
    The giant gorilla roars in ‘King Kong’

    I don’t often like to write reviews for films twice, but for King Kong I was will to make an exception. You see, I actually missed the first five minutes of the film when I saw it in the theater. It wasn’t my fault, but the theater — for some bizarre reason — decided to start the film about twenty minutes early. I, along with dozens of others, were calmly waiting on line for popcorn. Someone came out and said it was starting, but no one believed him. When we all finally learned that it really was starting, none of us were happy.

    Regardless, the DVD gave me the opportunity to see the film from start to finish. And generally, when I see a film a second time, it moves faster. I even tend to enjoy it a little more, or things that may have bothered me the first time don’t so much the second. Of course, there are also occasions where the weaknesses seem worse, and I notice more problems along the way.

    With King Kong, neither of those things happened. I actually felt exactly the same. The parts I didn’t like the first time, I didn’t like this time. The characters I thought were weak, were still weak. The moments I thought were excellent, continued to be excellent. It was basically the same exact experience, with the only different being I knew what to expect.

    The bug sequence is simply brilliant. Far more realistic than any other large bug film has ever achieved. The fight between Kong and the three T-Rex’ is simply beautiful. And the entire New York City part of the film is terrific.

    At the same time, King Kong’s self indulgent moments are hard to bear. It takes way too long to get to the island, spending 45 minutes on the boat. Peter Jackson so desperately wants the audience to adore Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), that he resorts to melo-dramatic close ups and slow-motion that get tiresome quick. And the love affair between her and Kong is almost comical by the end. And Jack Black still remains, in my opinion, anyway, wrongly cast for the part. It was difficult for me to take him seriously the first time, and it remained that way this time around.

    Now, there was much more on this two-disc “special edition” DVD. There are the post-production diaries. These exhaustively detailed entries are fun to way. I honestly didn’t get through every one of them, but will eventually. You’re also given a look into the design of 1933’s New York City. I really loved this sequence, and probably got distracted by the buildings and bright lights during that portion of the film, but this feature really heightened my love for the design of those scenes. There is also the tour of Skull Island’s inhabitants, which is pretty fascinating.

  • ‘Brokeback Mountain’ is a lovely gay love story, and that’s not a bad thing

    Jake Gyllenhaal, Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams in 'Brokeback Mountain'
    Jake Gyllenhaal, Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams in ‘Brokeback Mountain’

    Before I even got an opportunity to see Brokeback Mountain I’d heard all the jokes. All the gay cracks, all the “Poke-in-the-Back Mountain” puns. Every snide comments and ridiculous homophobic rant.

    Yet most of the people I knew who had actually seen the film thought it was terrific. A beautiful story told well. So, putting those jokes aside, when I finally sat down to watch Brokeback on DVD, I didn’t quite know what I was going to think. Would I get turned away by the homosexual storyline, or would I be able to enjoy it for what it was — a tragic love story.

    To those that would attack the film for being about two gay cowboys, the film actually features only one love scene, and while it’s passionate, it’s brief. After that, there’s more female nudity than male. And even those bizarre criticisms of how Gyllenhaal’s Jack Twist seduces Ledger’s Ennis Del Mar are kind of silly, since that’s really a result of misinterpreting a scene in the film where Ennis blames Jack for what happened.

    I think it’s silly to call this film anything but a gay love story. That’s exactly what it is. It’s a story about two men who are in love, but separated because of societal prejudices. If you switched this tale and made it a man and a woman, it wouldn’t work. However, the feelings these two men feel for one another and the sorrow it causes are not strictly gay feelings, they’re human emotions. WhatBrokeback Mountain does successfully do is portray the two cowboys as human beings — something people tend to forget when they make gay jokes or strive to pass laws that do nothing by restrict the rights of individuals.

    While Brokeback strikes some cords right, it does get off key. I saw it after it lost the Best Picture Oscar, and I have to admit, I don’t really think it deserved it. It’s two leads were too young for their roles, and don’t quite pull off aging very well at all. Near the end, as Ledger is talking to his character’s twenty-something daughter, they both look about the same age. And Gyllenhaal takes on the appearance of a … well, a gay cowboy with sideburns and a mustache. He doesn’t appear to get any older either, nor do either of these character “feel” older. Nearly two decades supposedly goes by in this film, but neither Ledger or Gyllenhaal effectively emote the passage of time.

    I also felt the ending was something of a cheat (this portion of the review could be considered a spoiler, so skip the next paragraph if you wish).

    Without revealing too much, one of the characters does die at the end. What bothered me about this was that it is done off screen, and so dismissively that any emotion is completely sapped. The power of the scene and the death is undermined. It seemed to me that the film tries very hard to skirt the edge of being a film about two gay men that won’t turn off a heterosexual audience. Had it dealt with the character’s death head on, it would have been forced to say something more about gays and the prejudice they face. It would have been more of a in-your-face statement than the subtle one it strived to convey. It’s like the filmmakers felt straight people in the audience would have been turned off, or felt as if they were getting a sermon. And that’s a shame, because they hurt the film in the process.

    The film’s DVD features only a few extras, including an interview with screenwriters Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana. Ang Lee discusses making the film, and there is also a standard “making of” featurette. Another extra discusses the life of a cowboy.

  • Robert Redford and Morgan Freeman make Jennifer Lopez shine in ‘An Unfinished Life’

    Robert Redford and Morgan Freeman co-star in 'An Unfinished Life'
    Robert Redford and Morgan Freeman co-star in ‘An Unfinished Life’

    It takes a lot for Jennifer Lopez to be tolerable these days. To be quite honest, I can’t even look at the woman anymore. As a result, I was a little hesitant to watch An Unfinished Life. Ultimately I did, because Robert Redford and Morgan Freeman are just too good to not surrender an hour and forty-eight minutes of my time.

    In a purely supportive role that is easily buried beneath Redford and Freeman, Lopez was actually good. I was reminded of the Lopez I remembered from Out of Sight, the film that made her a star, not the ridiculous J.Lo that was created by her stardom. And she stood well against the other actors. An Unfinished Life is filled with strong performances, which shouldn’t be surprising, since the cast consists of some of the most talented people around.

    Lopez plays Jean, a single mother raising a young daughter, Griff (Becca Gardner). Escaping an abusive boyfriend, she runs away to the only place she can — her father-in-law, Einar (Redford). The two have a contentious relationship, however. He blames her for her death of his son. He becomes willing to let them stay when he discovers that he has a granddaughter he never knew existed. Freeman plays Mitch, Einar’s closest friend who was crippled after being attacked by an ill-tempered bear. As familial tensions boil, the abusive boyfriend comes looking for Jean, and the ill-tempered bear is captured and put in a makeshift zoo.

    I was surprised how much I enjoyed this film. It’s built on well constructed characters, including Redford’s bitter Einar; Lopez’ self-destructive Jean; Freeman’s handicapped Mitch; even the young Gardner, whose Griff (odd name for a girl, but she’s named after her father) is stuck in the middle of it all. Josh Lucas, a fine actor and underappreciated talent, is likable as the local sheriff. It’s amazing what happens when you get good writing, good actors, and a director that knows what to do with them. Lasse Hallström does a great job of guiding all these pieces, as he did with the great Chocolat and The Cider House Rules.

    One thing I liked about this film was that it knew when to have the characters shut up. A weakness I find in some movies is they feel that characters need to be talking all the time. But this film has plenty of subtext and subtle visual moments that tell more in a brief moment than words ever could.

    The DVD has only a scattering of extras, including a commentary that features Hallström, producer Leslie Holleran and editor Andrew Mondshein. There’s a standard “making of” featurette, along with a piece about Bart the Bear.