Category: Reviews

  • ‘Annapolis’ is an interesting look inside the Naval Academy

    ‘Annapolis’ is an interesting look inside the Naval Academy

    Tyrese Gibson and James Franco in Annapolis

    Annapolis from director Justin Lin (Better Luck Tomorrow) is not, as many have attempted to describe it, a new take on An Officer and a Gentleman, the fine film from 1982 starring Richard Gere, Debra Winger and in an Oscar winning performance as the drill sergeant, Louis Gossett Jr. This is a good thing because the world doesn’t need “A Midshipman and a Gentleman” as an update to Taylor Hackford’s 1982 gem.

    What “Annapolis” is, is the story of a kid who grew up in the shadow of the Naval Academy at Annapolis, MD, with dreams of his own and his mother’s that he would someday attend. The son of a shipbuilder, “Jake Huard” (James Franco) had his determination to get into Annapolis harden into a steel resolve when his mother died. His shipbuilder father (Brian Goodman) discourages his dream, for two reasons. One, because he doesn’t think that Jake has what it takes to succeed within the rigors of the Navy’s Academy Program, and two, because he happens to be Jake’s boss in the shipyard where they both work and he doesn’t want to see Jake throw away a promising career as a riveter.

    But fate intervenes in the form of a last minute opening at the Naval Academy and in the shape of a Tactical Officer, “Lt Cmdr Burton” (Donnie Wahlberg) who thinks that Huard can make it through the program and become a Navy officer. Huard seizes the chance to go to the Academy, even though he will be starting out well behind the other “plebes” in his class.

    The question is, does “Midshipman Lt. Cole” (Tyrese Gibson) think that Huard has the right stuff, because he is Huard’s Company Commander and he is the one who will make or break Huard. Lt. Cole’s combat experience as a prior service enlisted Marine makes his classmates regard him with something approaching awe. He himself, having seen combat, holds himself and the potential officers he commands, to a higher standard and that includes Jake Huard.

    The result is serious friction between the two, especially when Jake’s late start and less than stellar academic skills put him behind the learning curve of his roommates and the other members of the company. One place where “Annapolis” fails is that a critical moment of film that was visible in the movie’s trailer was left on the cutting room floor. In that moment, Cole is asked by “Ali” (Jordana Brewster), one of the midshipman officers in the company supervising Huard “Why are you so hard on him”. Cole’s answer which dealt with his perception of Huard’s potential would have given the audience a much different perception on why Cole is so hard on him. Instead, absent this critical piece of information, the audience has no idea why Cole is so tough on Huard and most assume he doesn’t think Huard has what it takes. An assumption supported by things Cole says in what was more probably attempts to motivate him.

    James Franco and Jordana Brewster in Annapolis

    But in spite of this flaw, the film works. It isn’t just another film about coming of age while going through military training. It is about learning that there is no I in team and this is a lesson that Huard will learn in the boxing ring, as he enters “The Brigades”, to get his shot at Cole fair and square.

    James Franco is good as Huard, giving the character a strong, serious yet compassionate edge, a will to win no matter the cost. That will to win, shown early on in a key moment is what he will have to depend on to get through the toughest year in his life. Jordana Brewster gives a good performance, but she just doesn’t seem young enough for the role, something that is important when making a film about college-aged people.

    On the other hand, Tyrese Gibson is brilliant and perfectly cast as Lt. Cole. I don’t know if he was channeling some Marine that he shadowed for a few weeks or something, but he was quite good in his role. He had the prior service “edge” and it was razor sharp. Also, look for a terrific performance by Vicellous Reon Shannon as the one roommate who won’t abandon Huard no matter how hard the slogging gets, and as “Twins” Shannon gets some nasty treatment of his own that we’ve seen before.  Back then it was R. Lee Ermey’s “Gunnery Sergeant Hartman” giving Vincent D’Onofrio’s “Private Pyle” the business over a jelly donut hidden in a footlocker in the Kubrick master work Full Metal Jacket. This subplot is updated, lightened, but the issue of food and weight and an obstacle course was clearly lifted from FMJ and the afore-mentioned An Officer and a Gentleman.

    The boxing scenes are crisp and clean, and so are the training scenes as Huard prepares for the fight of his life. Not just against Cole, but against all of the demons within that he must set down if he is to succeed as a plebe and survive his first year at Annapolis. You won’t just have to survive it if you plunk down your money at the box office. You will enjoy it.

  • ‘Dirty’ describes all of the criminals and some of the cops in this dark look at life on L.A.’s streets

    Cuba Gooding, Jr., in ‘Dirty’

    Dirty is an aptly titled film. It is the story of “dirty” cops on the filthy streets in the worst neighborhoods in Los Angeles. In a plot clearly suggested by the Rampart Division scandals of recent times, two former gangbangers (one Hispanic and one Black) are partners in a special gang suppression unit.

    Cuba Gooding Jr. is “Salim Adel”, the Black half of this partnership and what he brings to the table is street cred, bad attitude, and a proclivity for profanity that even Quentin Tarrantino or David Mamet might find excessive. Clifton Collins Jr. is the other half of this pairing, “Officer Armando Sancho”, who has an ailing mother, a close association to his old gang and strong ties of loyalty to both as well as to his partner. He and Salim are also scheduled to meet with the Internal Affairs Division at the end of their shift on this day and that meeting is weighing heavily on his mind. That’s because before he goes to pick up Salim, he is confronted by those IAD officers and told that even though he plans to testify against the “dirty” cops in his unit, his testimony isn’t going to be enough and he needs to convince his partner to come in and testify against them as well. With the weight of his partner’s testimony backing his own, then IAD will be able to convict the bad cops although it is never made clear if the two of them will escape punishment entirely.

    Cole Hauser is the second in command of their unit, while veteran actor Keith David is “Captain Spain”, the moralistic man in charge who insists that his men are clearing the streets of hooligans. The Lieutenant is involved in the corruption up to his eyebrows and on the day in question he gives Adel and Sancho the mission of “borrowing” a bag of heroin from the evidence room in order to use it as bait to rip-off some out of town drug dealers who have set up shop in a house near the beaches of Venice. Ostensibly this rip-off is going to kill several birds with one stone, enriching the duo and the Lieutenant, along with the drug dealer who turned them onto the deal “Baine” (Wyclef Jean), while at the same time eliminating Baine’s competition. What happens when Salim and Armando go to carry out this rip-off and the aftermath are some of the film’s best moments and will not be spoiled by this reviewer.

    This is gritty stuff, and with Fisher’s other works Nightstalker and the recent direct to DVD release Rampage: The Hillside Strangler Murders, he has completed a trilogy of works based loosely on true crime stories in L.A. Dirty may well be the best of the three. The story is compelling and Fisher’s deft directorial touch maintains a consistent level of tension throughout the film’s 97 minutes. Clifton Collins Jr. gives a terrific performance, building on his recent work in Capote by demonstrating his ability to play a wide variety of characters and types. On the other hand Cuba Gooding Jr. seems to have researched for this role by watching Training Day and then become determined to do Denzel one better. The result is an attempt at a tour de force performance that ends up going so far over the top that it ends up being caricature rather than archetype. Thankfully it does not detract from the film’s overall success in portraying the ugliness that exists within the vulnerable underbelly of the city’s poorest and most often victimized streets.

    There are some minor technical flaws but they are not worth detailing. The photography works well with the storyline and title, capturing the city of Angels in just the right pattern of coloring and shades to fit the story. The story is good, with twists and turns that will keep the audience guessing and the last few scenes are some of the film’s strongest. You can also see “Star Trek: The Next Generation’s” Gates McFadden in a very small role, if you pay attention, one of the few things she has done away from the U.S.S. Enterprise in recent years.

    Dirty is an above average cop drama featuring a stellar performance from one of its lead actors and well worth your attention and the price of admission.

  • ‘Fun with Dick and Jane’ tries to update 1977 comedy, but fails

    Jim Carrey and Téa Leoni are a husband and wife on a crime spree in 'Fun with Dick and Jane'
    Jim Carrey and Téa Leoni are a husband and wife on a crime spree in ‘Fun with Dick and Jane’

    Fun with Dick and Jane screenwriter Judd Apatow, fresh off of his big screen debut with The 40 Year Old Virgin runs into the sophomore jinx in this outing, and the efforts of noted director Dean Parisot (Home Fries, Galaxy Quest) can’t help the film overcome a horribly weak script. That’s the simple explanation, but there is more. This is a remake of a wonderful film from 1977 that starred Jane Fonda (imagine, choosing Jane to play Jane, how original) and the underrated George Segal and the remake suffers by comparison.

    Jim Carrey, who is a terrific talent, whether doing comedy or drama, is Dick Harper, rising star employee of Globodyne, who suddenly finds himself promoted to Vice President at just the right moment. Or is it. As he appears on a financial news program, unprepared to answer hard questions about the activities of his companies’ CEO and CFO (Alec Baldwin and Richard Jenkins) in handling the company’s balance sheets and assets, the stock value suffers a melt-down and suddenly the company is bankrupt and Harper, along with everyone else at the company is out of work.

    If this sounds like Enron or Worldcom, the resemblance appears intentional and worse yet, Jane Harper (Téa Leoni, who stepped in when Cameron Diaz had to drop out due to scheduling conflicts) quits her job as a travel agent on the same day, due to Dick’s sudden promotion and impending affluence. Worse yet, the couple, who have a young son, apparently failed Financial Planning 101 and had all of their savings and retirement funds in the stock of Dick’s company which is now of course, worthless. So they are now unemployed, broke and in a major mess. Or as Jane says in the best line from the first trailer announcing the film, “We might be in a little bit of a pickle, Dick.”

    Dick tries to find an equivalent job, but they just aren’t out there, or worse yet, he can’t get hired, thanks to his performance on television trying to answer for the misdeeds of his former CEO and CFO. When he finally lowers his standards about what kind of job he will take, both he and Jane are able to find work, but they are both less than successful in their endeavors with somewhat humorous results. Meanwhile, they are slowly sinking into poverty, as a joke from the original film is recycled when their lawn is repossessed. A beaten-up, banged-up Ford Festiva replaces their nice, leased BMW. I really laughed at the moment when they bought the Festiva, because it looked a lot like the one I used to own and who knows, maybe it was. Just as an aside, they may look stupid, like little roller skate cars, but it always started, ran great and the mileage it got was nothing short of incredible. However, aside from their pre-owned vehicle being dependable at this point, everything else is going wrong.

    Eventually, with an eviction notice promising the loss of their home within 24 hours, Dick and Jane finally turn to crime. At first, with less than fruitful results, but eventually, like with all things, they improve with practice. There are some funny moments here, particularly as they learn to disguise their appearance while carrying out their crimes, so as to avoid being caught.

    Soon, the lawn is back, and everything appears right with the world. To everyone else, it appears that the Harpers have simply recovered from some bad investing and are now doing well in the market. But a close call on what was to be their last “job” where Dick is nearly captured leads them to reconsider their criminality until they hear that Dick may be the next former Globodyne executive to be indicted.

    I will leave what happens from this point on un-“spoiled”, for the enjoyment of the viewer, because there are some changes from the plot of the original film in how the villain receives his justice. It is worthy of note that like many re-makes, there are changes in the story that make no sense, and others that do. This remake is set in the year 2000 deliberately to take advantage of what happened with Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, etc, but comedies as message movies don’t send clear messages. That corporate greed and outright thievery are bad doesn’t need a good comedy message movie, people are already aware of such a basic concept.

    Jim Carrey and Téa Leoni are very talented actors, but they are saddled with a script that just doesn’t do justice to the original material and the wonderful performances by the stars of that original work. That isn’t to say that the 2005 version of Fun with Dick and Jane is a bad movie, because it isn’t, it just is nowhere near as good as the material from which is was spawned. Carrey is a great comedic actor, but there is not a single scene in this movie that I found as funny as any number of simple, elegant moments in the original. Here is an example. In this exchange of dialogue, George Segal and Jane Fonda are arguing over the failed family finances:

    Dick: You’re gonna get a job?
    Jane: Yes, incredible as it may seem.
    Dick: May I ask—no offense, mind you—what do you think you’re qualified to do? Secretary of the Treasury seems to be filled at the moment.
    Jane: There must be lots of things that I can do.
    Dick: Oh come on, Jane, you never worked a day in your life. You can’t type and you can’t take shorthand.
    Jane: I’m a college graduate, reasonably intelligent, not altogether unattractive.
    Dick: Yes, but will you be happy being a hooker?
    Jane: Interesting that the only two jobs you consider me qualified for are secretary and hooker.
    Dick: You’re not qualified to be a secretary.

    I can still remember the audience roaring with laughter when George Segal delivered that punchline. No pratfalls, no singing in elevators, just some brilliant use of language. Now that I’ve extolled the virtues of the original, let me make it clear that I am not saying you should avoid this remake. It has a number of funny scenes, Carrey and Leoni work hard to overcome Apatow’s poor script and you will laugh and have a good time. But after you’ve spent whatever it costs you to see the new version, take a moment out to rent or buy the old version and enjoy a real treat.

  • ‘Shaun of the Dead’ turns the dead-serious zombie genre on its head

    ‘Shaun of the Dead’ turns the dead-serious zombie genre on its head

    Nick Frost and Simon Pegg in 'Shaun of the Dead'
    Nick Frost and Simon Pegg in ‘Shaun of the Dead’

    This will probably be some kind of warped record. First, this film was reviewed months ago when it was released in England (read that review here). Then, our own Horror Guru took a look at it (read that review here), when it was released in theaters here in the States.

    Now, it’s my turn. With the release of Shaun of the Dead on DVD, I’m offering my take on the film.

    Shaun of the Dead is a sometimes action film, sometimes horror film, sometimes comedy about Shaun, a going-nowhere lay-about. He gets dumped by his girlfriend and chewed out from one of his roommates, both arguing that he needs to get his life in order.

    Oh, and a crashed satellite has caused the dead to rise and crave human flesh.

    In an effort to regain his girlfriend’s affections and prove he is not just a lazy slob, Shaun races to rescue his mother, girlfriend, and his girlfriend’s friends, all the while killing zombies. At his side is his even lazier best friend, Ed. Unlike Shaun, Ed revels in crushing heads as they race from one location to the next until they finally end up at the Winchester, their favorite watering hole were they hope to hide out from the zombie hordes roaming the streets.

    Of course, nothing goes exactly as plan.

    Our Horror Guru had trouble categorizing this film, ultimately coming up with the idea of Shaun of the Dead being a “zom-rom-com” — part zombie film, part romance film, part comedy. While I agree, what surprised me was how little comedy there really was. Although the beginning of the film is probably the most humorous, about half way through the humor takes a back seat to the all-out zombie fest.

    It’s not that the film stops being funny, it just seemed as if they had made all the jokes they were willing to make, and stopped short in fear of actually satirizing the zombie genre, which is pretty much what I was expecting with the film.

    Instead, it really develops into a full out zombie film, and a pretty good one at that. Although it drags a bit once the characters get to the Winchester pub, Shaun of the Dead has some great effects, good action and characters you really care about. That’s where this film excels, because Shaun and Ed are likable guys who suddenly find themselves in a bizarre and dangerous experience.

    The visual style of the film was also much more slick than I expected. With a lot of slam cuts and quick transitions, I was caught off guard by the commercial style. For a low-budget film, what they may have lacked in scope they more than made up for in camera movement and their use of their locations.

    As I watched some of the behind-the-scenes stuff, the co-writers Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright seem to love zombie films — like the original Dawn of the Dead — and it comes out in the movie.

    Along with the film, the DVD is packed with more special features than I’ve seen on a release that wasn’t accompanied with some kind of “special edition” variation. From extended scenes to bloopers to casting tapes, it runs the gambit. The outtakes are funny, but even when they’re cracking up the actors seem a little too controlled. And “Simon Pegg’s Video Diary” shows the cast being slightly more relaxed, and is pretty funny. The commentary has some good moments, and the standard behind-the-scenes doc doesn’t come off as the general promotional love-fest.

    Although I would have liked a little more comedy in this zombie flick, it was still an entertaining addition to horror’s undead subsection.

  • ‘Fun With Dick and Jane’ proves that remakes usually don’t live up to the original

    ‘Fun With Dick and Jane’ proves that remakes usually don’t live up to the original

    Jim Carrey, Alec Baldwin and Richard Jenkins in ‘Fun With Dick and Jane’

    Fun with Dick and Jane screenwriter Judd Apatow, fresh off of his big screen debut with The 40 Year Old Virgin runs into the sophomore jinx in this outing, and the efforts of noted director Dean Parisot (Home Fries, Galaxy Quest) can’t help the film overcome a horribly weak script. That’s the simple explanation, but there is more. This is a remake of a wonderful film from 1977 that starred Jane Fonda (imagine, choosing Jane to play Jane, how original) and the underrated George Segal. The remake suffers greatly by comparison.

    Jim Carrey, who is a terrific talent whether doing comedy or drama, is Dick Harper, rising star employee of Globodyne, who suddenly finds himself promoted to Vice President at just the right moment. Or is it. As he appears on a financial news program, unprepared to answer hard questions about the activities of his companies’ CEO and CFO (Alec Baldwin and Richard Jenkins) in handling the company’s balance sheets and assets, the stock value suffers a melt-down and suddenly the company is bankrupt and Harper, along with everyone else at the company is out of work.

    If this sounds like Enron or Worldcom, the resemblance appears intentional and worse yet, Jane Harper (Tea Leoni, who stepped in when Cameron Diaz had to drop out due to scheduling conflicts) quits her job as a travel agent on the same day, due to Dick’s sudden promotion and impending affluence. Worse yet, the couple, who have a young son, apparently failed Financial Planning 101 and had all of their savings and retirement funds in the stock of Dick’s company which is now of course, worthless. So they are now unemployed, broke and in a major mess. Or as Jane says in the best line from the first trailer announcing the film, “We might be in a little bit of a pickle, Dick.”

    Dick tries to find an equivalent job, but they just aren’t out there, or worse yet, he can’t get hired, thanks to his performance on television trying to answer for the misdeeds of his former CEO and CFO. When he finally lowers his standards about what kind of job he will take, both he and Jane are able to find work, but they are both less than successful in their endeavors with somewhat humorous results. Meanwhile, they are slowly sinking into poverty, as a joke from the original film is recycled when their lawn is repossessed. A beaten-up, banged-up Ford Festiva replaces their nice, leased BMW. I really laughed at the moment when they bought the Festiva, because it looked a lot like the one I used to own and who knows, maybe it was. Just as an aside, they may look stupid, like little roller skate cars, but it always started, ran great and the mileage it got was nothing short of incredible. However, aside from their pre-owned vehicle being dependable, everything else is going wrong.

    Jim Carrey in ‘Fun With Dick and Jane’

    Eventually, with an eviction notice promising the loss of their home within 24 hours, Dick and Jane finally turn to crime. At first, with less than fruitful results, but eventually, like with all things, they improve with practice. There are some funny moments here, particularly as they learn to disguise their appearance while carrying out their crimes, so as to avoid being caught.

    Soon, the lawn is back, and everything appears right with the world. To everyone else, it appears that the Harpers have simply recovered from some bad investing and are now doing well in the market. But a close call on what was to be their last “job” where Dick is nearly captured leads them to reconsider their criminality until they hear that Dick may be the next former Globodyne executive to be indicted.

    I will leave what happens from this point on un-spoiled, for the enjoyment of the viewer, because there are some changes from the plot of the original film in how the villain receives his justice. It is worthy of note that like many re-makes, there are changes in the story that make no sense, and others that do. This remake is set in the year 2000 deliberately to take advantage of what happened with Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, etc, but comedies as message movies don’t send clear messages. That corporate greed and outright thievery are bad doesn’t need a good comedy message movie, people are already aware of such a basic concept.

    Jim Carrey and Tea Leoni are very talented actors, but they are saddled with a script that just doesn’t do justice to the original material and the wonderful performances by the stars of that original work. That isn’t to say that the 2005 version of Fun with Dick and Jane is a bad movie, because it isn’t, it just is nowhere near as good as the material from which is was spawned. Carrey is a great comedic actor, but there is not a single scene in this movie that I found as funny as any number of simple, elegant moments in the original. Here is an example. In this exchange of dialogue, George Segal and Jane Fonda are arguing over the failed family finances:

    Dick: You’re gonna get a job?
    Jane: Yes, incredible as it may seem.
    Dick: May I ask—no offense, mind you—what do you think you’re qualified to do? Secretary of the Treasury seems to be filled at the moment.
    Jane: There must be lots of things that I can do.
    Dick: Oh come on, Jane, you never worked a day in your life. You can’t type and you can’t take shorthand.
    Jane: I’m a college graduate, reasonably intelligent, not altogether unattractive.
    Dick: Yes, but will you be happy being a hooker?
    Jane: Interesting that the only two jobs you consider me qualified for are secretary and hooker.
    Dick: You’re not qualified to be a secretary.

    I can still remember the audience roaring with laughter when George Segal delivered that punchline. No pratfalls, no singing in elevators, just some brilliant use of language. Now that I’ve extolled the virtues of the original, let me make it clear that I am not saying you should avoid this remake. It has a number of funny scenes, Carrey and Leoni work hard to overcome Apatow’s poor script and you will laugh and have a good time. But after you’ve spent whatever it costs you to see the new version, take a moment out to rent or buy the old version and enjoy a real treat.

  • ‘Munich’ is worth a visit

    ‘Munich’ is worth a visit

    Mathieu Kassovitz, Eric Bana, Ciaran Hinds, Hanns Zischler and Daniel Craig in ‘Munich’

    “Deuteronomy 19:21 – Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

    In Steven Spielberg’s brilliant film Munich, one cannot help but  wonder if Israel’s Prime Minister Golda Meir (Lynn Cohen) thought about the above passage when she finally gave the approval for Operation Wrath of God.

    You won’t hear that name during the film, but that is the name that was given to the revenge operation approved by PM Meir after the September 1972 massacre of 11 Israelis who were taken hostage at the Munich Olympic Games. It was an event that transfixed the world at the time and Spielberg brings it back to life using actual footage of Jim McKay’s narration of the events alongside with his recreation of the hostage-taking and the events that followed. We don’t see them all at once, Spielberg cleverly reserving many of these sequences to be sprinkled in throughout what follows the opening tragedy that resulted in the death of all 11 Israelis and all but three of the Palestinian terrorists.

    What happens afterward is that Avner (Eric Bana), a low level operative of Mossad is recruited for an operation. An operation that he doesn’t find out until afterwards is to hunt down and kill 11 of the terrorists who were responsible for organizing the Munich Massacre. He is brought before the PM herself and she assures him that he is doing what must be done. Of course, before he can be sent off to Europe, first he must resign from the Mossad, and sign a contract saying that he is no longer employed by them and that in essence, he doesn’t exist.

    Mathieu Kassovitz and Eric Bana in ‘Munich’

    Neither do his four teammates, Steve (Daniel Craig), Carl (Ciaran Hinds), Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz) or Hans (Hanns Zischler), all of whom have special skills that they bring to the team, although none of them is a trained assassin. That is something they are all going to have to learn on the job, as Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush), their case officer explained to Avner going in.

    Ephraim has also told them they are to work in Europe, to stay out of the Arab countries, and not to return to Israel. For Avner, who has a wife who is seven months pregnant, that will not be an easy order to obey. However, the order to search out and kill those who are believed responsible for what happened at Munich will be very easy to obey. The question is, just how do you do that without killing any innocent bystanders, and do it while not getting you or any of your team members killed?

    Munich is not just about what happened in the Olympic village and at Furstenfeldbruck (the airfield where 9 of the 11 hostages died) it is about the search for Vengeance, which happens to be the title of the book that the screenplay by Tony Kushner and Eric Roth is based on. The book, written by George Jonas was originally published in 1984 and was been re-issued in 2005 with a new commentary by the real “Avner”. It is a fascinating read and while some have questioned its authenticity, Jonas stands steadfastly by its accuracy.

    This is one of Spielberg’s best films, if not the best ever. The authenticity of the era is captured throughout in appearance and sound. The textures of the cinematography are incredible, with a wonderful feel that are just plain fun to look at. Eric Bana’s performance as Avner may not be the one that ends up winning the Best Actor Oscar for 2005, but if he isn’t one of the five nominees come Oscar time, there’s something wrong with the nominating process. I am going out of my way to avoid spoilers, but there is a moment when he is on the phone with his wife after she has given birth and he speaks to his child that may be his best moment in the film. Kudos also to the entire membership of the Kidon (Mossad’s name for hit team, in Hebrew it means bayonet), as Craig, Hinds, Kassovitz and Zischler are all very good, and Geoffrey Rush is particularly good as the epitome of a case officer managing a team in deep cover.

    I could quibble with Munich for ignoring the Israeli failure at Lillehammer in July of 1973, but Spielberg’s work is so good, I’ve decided to overlook this omission. If you want to know what happened there, read the book by Jonas, he makes a quick mention of it. But don’t miss seeing Munich in the theater, it is a masterpiece.

  • ‘A Door in the Floor’ fails to make you care about amoral fools

    ‘A Door in the Floor’ fails to make you care about amoral fools

    Kim Basinger stars in 'Door in the Floor'
    Kim Basinger stars in ‘Door in the Floor’

    I don’t like writing bad reviews. I really don’t. For the most part, if there’s a film that I’ve seen that I really don’t like I prefer not to write about it at all. But in some cases, I feel that I put myself in a position to offer an opinion on a film, and it wouldn’t be right of me to withhold that opinion, even if it means I have to give a bad review.

    That’s the dilemma I found myself in with A Door in the Floor.

    I like Jeff Bridges. Although it’s been quite some time since he’s been in a really good movie, I still like him. I think he’s an interesting actor, and always delivers strong performances. But why in the world did he agree to be in this movie?

    A Door in the Floor is about a children’s book author and his wife, who tragically lose their two oldest sons. The death has shattered their marriage, and traumatized their young daughter. When Bridges’ character hires a young college student to come live with him for the summer as his assistant, their lives soon become exposed and turn upside down.

    Jeff Bridges in 'The Door in the Floor'
    Jeff Bridges in ‘The Door in the Floor’

    The film starts off simple enough, but soon degrades into a series of events that make all the characters within it unlikable. Bridges’ character is a jerk who takes joy in humiliating people. Kim Basinger, as his wife, is sympathetic for a time as the distraught mother. But that gets tiring after a while, and ultimately any feeling of sadness you may feel for her are completely shattered.

    Even the college student, portrayed by Jon Foster, has very little redeeming qualities. He’s not bad, exactly, just an idiot. He moves into Bridges’ home to work for him, and within a few days is masturbating to a picture of Basinger. And when Basinger finds out that he has developed feelings for her, she repeatedly sleeps with him.

    There’s a brief laugh or two, like when Foster gets caught playing with himself, but that’s about it. By the time it’s revealed exactly what happened to the older boys and why the mother is so distraught, it’s really hard to care. None of these people have any redeeming qualities, and as a result their plight isn’t interesting. Plus, every indication seems to point to the idea that they are just as corrupted as they were before the death of their children, so they don’t even have that to blame for their lack of character.

    The only person who claims to have any real morals in the story is the babysitter, who is only in the film briefly, and even she isn’t all that likable.

    The story is far from original, and the characters here surprisingly amoral. I just couldn’t wrap my head around the film. What about it was I supposed to be affected by? These people do nothing but terrible things to one another, so who am I supposed to feel for? Why should I root for any of them?

    There are some pretty simple features included on the DVD, including a commentary by the director and others, as well as a few documentaries. The “Anatomy of a Scene” is interesting to watch, and the commentary offers a few good tidbits, but they were all a little tainted for me as I just didn’t enjoy the film.

  • ‘Four Brothers’ is a smart, fun film from director John Singleton

    ‘Four Brothers’ is a smart, fun film from director John Singleton

    From left to right: Garrett Hedlund, Tyrese Gibson, Mark Wahlberg and André Benjamin in ‘Four Brothers’

    There is something to be said about straight up action flicks that don’t pretend to be something else. I respect films like that, because they are unapologetic in their tone and treatment of violence. But sometimes in the process they become something more. Something with heart and intelligence. A well-crafted action flick can truly be a great film.

    That’s what I found with Four Brothers.

    It is not only a smart film, it’s a fun film, one I could easily watch again and still enjoy. John Singleton manages to merge a sense of urban realism that he did so well in Boyz n the Hood and the fun spirit of the 1970s action flick like his Shaft remake. Four Brothers is then given unique tones that were both surprising and refreshing.

    The story is sparked by the murder of Evelyn Mercer (Fionnula Flanagan), a do-gooder who spent her life caring for foster children. After she is killed, four especially bad boys who she ultimately adopted reunite in order to find out who murdered her. The foursome is led by Bobby (Mark Wahlberg), a bear of a man whose violent nature makes him dangerous. He is accompanied by Angel (Tyrese Gibson), another troublemaker who escaped into the Marines; Jeremiah (André Benjamin), a businessman and father of two who has shed his violent past; and Jake (Garrett Hedlund), a troubled teen and youngest of the foursome. They challenge the police and discover corruption and lies that eventually lead them to Detroit’s most powerful and deadliest criminal, Victor Sweet (Chiwetel Ejiofor). But they may have bitten off more than they can chew, as Sweet owns the cops and politicians, leaving the four brothers out in the cold and on thin ice.

    What’s funny about Four Brothers is that we learn as much as we’re ever going to in the first 10-15 minutes of the film. Yet somehow Singleton makes each of the four brothers unique and rich characters. Not only is this impressive but speaks volumes not only of his talents, but the actors as well. Wahlberg gives his best performance since Boogie Nights, filling Bobby’s shoes perfectly. And Benjamin, the singer known as André 3000 with Outkast, is terrific as the straight-and-narrow brother. Hedlund also successfully emotes the troubled mind of his character, whose dark childhood is merely suggested but never explored, while Gibson is always cool yet at the same time human.

    Accompanying these terrific characters are some outstanding action sequences, most notably the shootout at the brother’s family home. This sequence is just perfect, not the usual Hollywood fair, but real and fantastic all at the same time. The car chase in the snow is also outstanding, if a little too heavy with dialogue. But the moments that really stood out the most for me were the brief instances where each of the brothers have a spiritual encounter with their mother. These were small pieces of heart that really made you feel for each brother, connecting with the characters in a way that is rare in action flicks.

    The DVD includes the usual kinds of special features, such as behind-the-scenes featurettes, deleted scenes and audio commentary. I was impressed by the commentary, only in that Singleton seemed far more down to Earth than he has in some interviews I’ve read. His commentary is a good mix of behind-the-scenes details and technical information. The deleted scenes are okay, and the featurettes are all the average deal. But it is really the film that shines here, and Four Brothers is probably one of 2005’s best in my book.

  • ‘King Kong’

    ‘King Kong’

    Jack Black in ‘King Kong (2005)’

    Ever since I was a kid, Kong was my favorite monster movie. I grew up with the 1976 remake, where instead of ascending the Empire State Building the gentle giant climbed the Twin Towers. I soon saw the original 1933 film and was both amazed and awed by the story. The 1976 remake differed in many respects from that original black and white by Merian C. Cooper, but Peter Jackson’s retelling of King Kong is not only loyal to the first film, it actually manages to bring it to life in a way I never could have imagined.

    There aren’t too many films today that I would recommend seeing in the theater, but King Kong is one of them. The experience of witnessing the amazing effects on the big screen was like being a kid again, completely absorbed in a fantastical world of magic and wonder. The characters are all bigger than life, not just because they stand twenty feet tall on the silver screen, but because they are heroic and bombastic in an over-the-top adventure.

    I was initially concerned about this remake of King Kong. I’ve railed against Hollywood’s obsession with retreading old ground instead of producing original material. And this time they were tackling something that made an impression on me as a child, one of those rare experiences when a movie opens your mind to new possibilities and allows you to see the world just a little differently than you did before. Sure, Jackson was at the helm, which was comforting since I’ve loved so many of his works, including The Frighteners and, of course, the Lord of the Rings trilogy (well, the first two, anyway). But that didn’t remove that nervous knot in the pit of my gut.

    That was until I got the opportunity to see the film earlier this week. In only a few moments, that knot was untied and I was on the ride of a lifetime.

    King Kong is a singular experience of non-stop adventure. The visuals are gloriously beautiful, with moments of shear excitement interrupted only briefly by quiet interludes. Jackson has not only made a stunningly wonderful remake of a classic, he’s made a classic. I can’t help but think that Cooper himself would have marveled at how Jackson presented his tale.

    Naomit Watts and Adrien Brody in ‘King Kong (2005)’

    The story, for those of you unfamiliar with Kong, follows an overzealous and self-obsessed filmmaker, Carl Denham (Jack Black), who secretly journey’s to a mythical island in hopes of capturing unique visuals for a film. Along with a small crew, he casts the beautiful Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) as his star, and tricks the film’s writer, Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody), into accompanying them. Following a cryptic map, they discover Skull Island, and soon find it is populated by strange and brutal native people who offer Darrow up for sacrifice to the island’s most feared inhabitant King Kong.

    When Darrow is taken away by the 25-foot gorilla, Driscoll, Denham, and the crew of their boat journey through the island in hopes of rescuing her. But danger lies around every tree in this bizarre and macabre corner of the world, where dinosaurs roam free and insects grow to the size of cars.

    If King Kong has a flaw, it is perhaps that the first 20 to 25 minutes are a bit slow. The characters take a little longer than necessary to get to Skull Island. But this careful pacing helps prepare you for the next two hours, which never stops moving as the story goes from one breathtaking action sequence to another. I could get into detail of what happens, but I really wouldn’t want to take away the experience for the audience of seeing it first hand. They are, quite simply, jaw dropping in their splendor and eye popping in their detail. And the sequence with the insects is by far the most fun I’ve had in a theater in more than 20 years. Even the music, crafted in just two months by James Newton Howard after Howard Shore left the project, is incredible.

    Peter Jackson has created a wonderfully unique experience with King Kong, capturing the same sense of adventure and fun of the original. I can only guess, but I imagine the feelings this film may invoke are not too dissimilar from what audiences in 1933 must have felt when they first watched that great ape grace the screen.

    That’s not to say the film is perfect. There are moments that come off as painfully cheesy. In fact, there were several times when the audience laughed when things were supposed to be dramatic. But that’s all in keeping with the tone of the original film, where moments that may have been subtle today were made more dramatic. And, while my wife strongly disagreed with me, I ultimately felt that Jack Black was perhaps miscast in this role. Aside from my feeling that the part of Denham was more fitting for an older actor, it was nearly impossible for me to ever take him seriously. Perhaps had Black done some more straight roles prior to Kong I wouldn’t have had this problem. The same thing happened with me and Jim Carrey, who I couldn’t take seriously in his many dramatic roles until Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. But I recognize that others may not have this same issue, and I don’t exactly fault Black for it.

    Regardless of these minor flaws, King Kong is amazingly fun. None of its problems come close to the incredible things it gets right. The special effects are stunning, the characters all are rich with detail and depth, and the story keeps you on the edge of your seat regardless of the fact that you will most likely know exactly how it is going to end.

  • 2005’s ‘Bad News Bears’ is actually just as good as original

    Sammi Kane Kraft (left), Billy Bob Thornton (center) and Timmy Deters star in 'Bad News Bears'
    Sammi Kane Kraft (left), Billy Bob Thornton (center) and Timmy Deters star in ‘Bad News Bears’

    Remakes. I want to bang my head against my desk every time I get word that another one is coming to theaters. Yet it is even more frustrating when they’re good. Ugh, that drives me nuts.

    That’s what happened with 2005’s Bad News Bears. Dammit, it’s good. In fact, it’s quite good. Funny and charming, with a great performance by Billy Bob Thornton. Director Richard Linklater successfully captured the spirit and fun of the original, crafting what is not just a good remake, but quite simply a good film.

    Damn him. Damn them all.

    The story follows a collection of misfits who were originally cut from playing little league, but through a legal injunction filed by one of their parents, Liz Whitewood (Marcia Gay Harden), a team was formed just for them. To coach the Bears, Whitewood hires Morris Buttermaker (Thornton), a washed up former baseball player who drinks too much. The complete lack of talent is evident among the players, which includes an introverted young boy, a foul-mouthed kid who always looks for a fight, and a wheelchair bound outfielder. Buttermaker soon finds some hope in his step-daughter with a powerful pitching arm, and a troublemaking outsider with an equally powerful swing. Soon, a rivalry with another coach (Greg Kinnear) has Buttermaker struggling to turn his team into winners — no matter what it takes.

    There are some differences between this film and the original, which was made in 1976 and starred the lovable Walter Matthau. For example, Marcia Gay Harden’s character was a man in the original. But the adjustments to the story were all quite logical in terms of how times have changed. This is very much a retelling of the same story, save for those adjustments, and that’s probably why it works so well.

    I’m not sure anyone today could have pulled off the role of Buttermaker like Thornton. He’s likable despite the terrible things he may say or do. Harden chews up her character with great joy, relishing the comedic role with zest. But it is, of course, the young stars that really make the picture come to life. Timmy Deters is perfect as the trash-talking Tanner Boyle, as is Troy Gentile as Matt Hooper, the wheelchair bound player who was one of the few additions that was not in the original Bad News Bears.

    It seems to me that the best remakes are from filmmakers who love and appreciate the original source. In this case, writers Glenn Ficarra and John Requa discuss often in the commentary and behind-the-scenes documentaries how much they respected the 1976 Bad News Bears. This comes out in the story, that doesn’t discard all of the humor and affection that made the original a classic. This notion is also enhanced by the fact that they shared the screenplay credit with Bill Lancaster, writer of the original film, who died in 1997. Linklater followed up on this approach by keeping true to the original not only in the script, but in the look and feel of the movie.

    The Bad News Bears Special Collector’s Edition DVD includes some nice features, including an audio commentary with Linklater, Ficarra and Requa; deleted scenes, bloopers and behind-the-scenes featurettes. The commentary is entertaining and informative, and the featurettes are brief and fluffy. The deleted scenes are actually interesting to watch, but the bloopers were a little disappointing. There are only three, even though you would think a baseball movie would have plenty. Plus, they include commentary tracks, which was a little odd. I don’t recall ever seeing that before, and I’m not certain just why they did that here. Linklater doesn’t really say much on any of them, nor do his comments really help make these bloopers any more funny.

    Fans of the original Bad News Bears should not shy away from this remake. Instead, I would recommend they embrace it. It honors the original without discarding it. It’s more like watching the same play with a different cast.