LSR Movie Reviews

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Planes, Trains and Automobiles (1987)

The traveling comedy is nothing new. The genre has won Oscars and has been critically panned. Actors have had their careers defined by appearing in the right one while others have seen their careers implode for being in the wrong one. Tackling this genre is a tightrope walk and it’s perfectly reasonable to suspect that director John Hughes (known mostly for his coming-of-age, high school-centric films) might stumble in making a comedy about grown-ups. Hughes is on his game here, though, and hit this one out of the park.

All Neal Page (Steve Martin) wants to do is get home to Chicago for Thanksgiving. Getting there from New York City, however, proves to be a difficult task. Neal is thwarted two-fold every step of the way. Not only is he beset by just about every type of travel delay possible, but he continually crosses paths with Del Griffith, an obnoxious traveling salesman played by John Candy. Neither one a fan of the other, Neal and Del become reluctant travel companions on a cross-country trip neither one will soon forget.

It’s a good thing this film is a comedy, otherwise it would be the worst possible publicity for all segments of the travel industry except for boats. But the best humor always contains a kernel of truth. While I myself have the fortune of never being caught up in airplane or train traffic delays (a by-product of limited travel in my lifetime), millions of people know what these hold-ups are like. Similarly, everyone knows what it’s like to be in close proximity to someone who annoys them.

Neither one of these situations is likely to be consistently funny, but Hughes knows his comedy pretty well and seamlessly blends the two together. This shouldn’t come as a surprise though, because Hughes also wrote the family road trip comedy National Lampoon’s Vacation. He just gets the writing and directing credit this time around. You can feel Hughes’s presence behind the camera, especially when it comes to the heartwarming moments where everyone sees eye to eye and begrudgingly puts aside their differences. That’s a Hughesian staple that cannot be avoided when he is at the helm.

Unlike other films of his, Planes, Trains and Automobiles does not suffer because of these ‘aw shucks’ moments. This is entirely due to the performances of Martin and Candy. Who among you doesn’t think Steve Martin is the quintessential comedy straight man? He’s a little bit timid but assertive when he needs to be- just like the average American. John Candy is the exact opposite. He’s best when playing characters on the fringe of normal. His bubbly personality makes him almost automatically funny and his sense of comedic timing is one of the all-time best.

My only quibble with this film is a scene where Martin’s character finally takes his frustration out on a rental car clerk, dropping a deluge of F-bombs. While there is some other coarse language here and there, the F-word is absent from the rest of the film and feels completely out of place and unnecessary. What starts out as a shocking but slightly amusing rant degrades into a mean-spirited tirade that creates a vacuum of positive comedic energy. It takes a few minutes for the film to rebound from this, which is detrimental to the cause of any comedy.

That one scene aside, Planes, Trains and Automobiles nails it. Hughes takes very real travel scenarios and ratchets up the absurdity with Candy’s stellar work. Martin’s reactions never seek to out-do his co-star and fall into the realm of the believably outlandish. That’s what comedy is all about- not so much the craziness of the situation but the reactions to that craziness. The precise execution of this comedic law is why this film is a resounding success.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Amadeus** (1984)

This is one of those films that adopts the credo ‘go big or go home,’ and go big it does. Ornate period details collide with brilliant acting and a crisp, albeit sensational, story to create a truly captivating tale of jealousy, talent and corruption. Let’s face it- if you’re making a movie about one of the greatest composers that ever lived, you have to aim for nothing short of the heavens if you even hope to do the subject justice.

In 1823, Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham) unsuccessfully attempts to commit suicide, landing him in a mental asylum. There he confesses to a priest his most magnificent of sins- a decade of torment and subterfuge cast upon the young and brilliant Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Tom Hulce). In 1781, Salieri’s comfortable position in the heights of Viennese society is shaken by the foppish Mozart. Mesmerized by the young man’s talent but revolted by his impetuous and childlike manner, Salieri feels personally tormented by God.

Threatened by the newcomer’s vision, Salieri uses the power of his position as court composer for Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II to make Mozart’s life a living hell. Whispering in the ears of the Viennese elite, he forces Mozart to restrain his creativity in order to fit the norm expected from the upper class. This drives Mozart to the brink of sanity and health in his feverish attempt to appease the aristocracy while also trying to open them up to the universe of music that swirls within his mind.

Many kudos go out to director Miloš Forman and the producers of this film. They fully understand that, despite Hollywood’s expert craftsmen, there is just no substitute for the real thing when it comes to period pieces. The use of historic buildings where Mozart actually visited and worked adds to the glamour and pomp of an already enchanting atmosphere.

The costume work is another extreme plus. I cannot tell you how many times period films are ruined for me by an overabundance of garish costumes that look far too modern and barely lived-in at all. Amadeus gets it right- while the rulers and aristocrats may have perfect-looking clothes every day of the week, everyone below their station in life is attired in clothes with creases and worn fabric. This is not some ideal fantasy world where everyone looks perfect. This is a recreation of the real world, tatters and all.

If you come away from this film thinking it to be truth, then you have been fooled. Amadeus is based off a Broadway production that takes great liberties with history. While some of Mozart’s letters make mention of very real tension with and obstruction by Salieri, the playwright sensationalizes these issues into a grand cat-and-mouse game of power and talent. It’s dark, twisted and appeals to any conspiratorial and vengeful tendencies the viewer may possess. Most of us know what it’s like to be jealous to the point of desiring to metaphorically crush someone under their heel. At the same time, probably just as many of us have been on the receiving end of such jealousy (or imagined we were).

The interplay between these two emotions is splendid due to the brilliant performances of Abraham and Hulce. Abraham is delicious as an antagonistic. His cold, calculating demeanor contains subtle undertones of sarcasm and dark humor. Hulce is just as adept, though I found some of his most flamboyant moments to be a little over the top. Still, he manages to capture a wide swath of emotions: lust, anguish, determination, exhilaration and fear.

The music, naturally, is a hodge-podge of some of Mozart’s best work. I cannot even fathom how difficult a task it was to sift through Mozart’s compositions to find just the right snippets to fit the mood of one scene or another. The soundtrack supervisor does a splendid job and throws in pieces not often known by casual classical music listeners.

Melodramatic as it may be at times, Amadeus is an engrossing film that hooks you from the beginning. A morally ambiguous roller coaster, it will leave you switching sides throughout. One can clearly understand Salieri’s objections to Mozart’s childish behavior but there are also no doubts as to when lines of decency and humanity are crossed. This is a piece of historical fiction that doesn’t dress its subject up as a saint or vilify it to meet the demands of cynics. Instead, Amadeus effortlessly jazzes up what many consider a stuffy time period with mystery, intrigue and plenty of charm.

RATING: 4.25 out of 5

Monday, July 25, 2011

One Day in September (1999)

While my taste in and analysis of films has changed greatly since my freshman year of college, this is one of the few that I pegged correctly before I really knew what to look for. One Day in September turned me on to the power and importance of documentary films. It is in the upper echelon of documentaries because it stretches your mind by not giving you all the answers and educates without treating you like an ignoramus. This is documentary filmmaking in its purest form- it documents something the filmmaker believes to be important without forcing an opinion on you.

The film documents the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Games. After a successful and peaceful start to the games, a team of Palestinian terrorists (of the group Black September) sneak into the Olympic village and take most of the Israeli team and their coaches hostage. Despite the horrific circumstances, the games continue on while negotiators attempt to defuse a veritable powder keg of politics, religion and power while the world watches. Despite tactical expert assistance, every plan fails and the worst possible results becomes a reality.

One Day in September has a great advantage over other historical documentaries. Instead of current historians providing voice-over narration of event footage, this film uses clips of the television coverage of the hostage crisis as it unfolded. This makes for a remarkable experience as the audience not only sees the events unfold but relives it through the thoughts and emotions of people who covered it firsthand. There is no disconnect between what you see and what you hear.

Between footage of the crisis, modern interviews with people who were on the scene illuminate some of the behind-the-scenes information. This helps connect a few more dots than simply replaying the TV footage alone. Security force members talk about the plans that were devised and how some of them fell apart (such as the terrorists watching TV coverage of a tactical squad trying to move in on the Israeli team’s dormitory). Just as illuminating and potentially controversial are the interviews with the lone member of the Black September terrorists involved in the hostage crisis.

This film is able to avoid partisanship and the ideological slippery slope because only the most hardened anti-Semites would view the Munich massacre as anything less than a tragedy. A vast majority of viewers will find themselves in agreement, which gives the filmmakers a chance to push our minds further. They don’t stop at the end of the crisis. Footage is shown and information given detailing the shady circumstances of the release of the three terrorists who survived and rumors of an Israeli black-ops hit squad set loose to find and kill those terrorists.

September briefly touches on the fact that, for many around the world, this was the first time anyone witnessed anything pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict firsthand. From this point on, the conflict over the Palestine region was not isolated to the newspaper or a brief sound bite on the evening news. This was also one of the first major hostage crises to appear on international television. Both of these facts should be discussed by viewers of this film because the Munich massacre had more than just an emotional impact. It changed the way terrorists operated and the way the media responded to them. If September attempts to lead its audience toward anything, it’s discussion of these facts.

And that’s the beauty of this film. It’s not trying to be clever or snarky. It’s not trying to make you agree with a political view or opinion of how things ‘ought to be.’ One Day in September puts forth an event that (almost) every can agree was horrible but it allows you to debate the details. It passes some judgment on the German government for the release of the terrorists but it lets you decide for yourself what to make of the complicated details surrounding a seemingly black-and-white event. On top of it all, it won an Academy Award for Best Documentary, so if you can’t take my word for it, trust the experts. In the case of this film, they’re most certainly right.

RATING: 4.5 out of 5

Saturday, July 23, 2011

The Hangover (2009)

When the trailers for this film came out, I thought it looked like another utterly stupid comedy. It employs a familiar concept, no big-name stars, and the characters seemed to embody typical modern comedy stereotypes (the cool guy, the straight man, and the weird awkward guy). Despite all of the warning signals flashing through my brain from the trailers, The Hangover takes all of these conventions and makes them work. The end result is quite possibly the best R-rated comedy of the decade.

Doug Billings (Justin Bartha) is getting married. To celebrate, his best friends and soon-to-be brother-in-law take him to Las Vegas for a bachelor party. The next morning, the guys wake up but Doug is missing. No one remembers what happens but Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) are on the clock. They have to trace their way back through a night they can’t recall in order to find Doug and get him to his wedding, which is just days away.

To complicate matters, the trio of groomsmen has only a few very bizarre clues to work with. There’s a baby in the closet and a tiger in the bathroom, neither of which belong to them. Along the way to solving these other mysteries, there are strippers, naked men bound in the trunk, a stolen police car, Mike Tyson, Asian gangsters and drug dealers. Despite these seemingly insurmountable odds, Phil, Stu and Alan refuse to give up their search for Doug.

The key to this film’s success is its comedic structure. Instead of parading around a few witty characters who are looking to crack jokes or dispense intentional stupid humor a la Will Ferrell or Chris Farley, The Hangover is all about situational and unintentional humor. There have been plenty of lousy ‘what happened to us last night’ and ‘put the zany puzzle pieces together’ films (Dude, Where’s My Car anyone?), so the fact that our main characters must sift through a whole lot of weirdness isn’t original. The individual puzzle pieces themselves are quite hilarious though and it does all make sense in the end.

Phil, Stu and (to a point) Alan are believable characters. That’s one of the hardest things to create in a comedy. These guys don’t exist for the sole purpose of being funny. This refreshing change of pace is probably best supported by not having a major name comedian as one of the leads. Sure, Ed Helms is on The Office, but in a supporting role. Bradley Cooper was mostly a supporting actor until this film as well, and Galifianakis was a virtual unknown to anybody but fans of late night Comedy Central programming. By not having a true ‘star’ to hog screen time and demand funnier lines, the director is able to get what he wants out of his cast.

Again, the main characters are all realistic people. Alan is more than a little odd but he’s not the train wreck I assumed from the trailers. His social awkwardness makes the things he says and does funny. Any other treatment of this character would have been groan-inducing. The same is true for Phil and Stu. Had either of them been more focused on cracking jokes and being a wise guy, the film wouldn’t have worked. Instead, all three are focused on finding their friend. The fear, frustration, confusion and surprise they experience while moving towards that goal is what makes it funny.

This realistic approach also saves the film from coming off as obscene. This is an R-rated comedy that makes full use of that rating. If you do not like swearing, this movie is not for you. There is a ton of it to be found but most of the cursing is used in situationally appropriate ways. The guys don’t merely walk around cursing like sailors because they can or because the writers know that the mere use of the F-word will produce a few chuckles from immature viewers. It proudly wears the badge of vulgarity but is wise to avoid passing the point of no return and degrading into obscenity.

While not truly start-to-finish funny (does such a thing even exist, anyway?), The Hangover packs a heck of a wallop. It’s funny when it needs to be funny, serious when it needs to be serious and cheesy when it needs to be cheesy. I can’t help but wonder if the cast and crew secretly had notes on the failings of all the other successful comedies made in the 2000s. How else could they have possibly made a film that does just about everything right?

If you can handle crude R-rated comedies, this gem is for you. If you have no sense of humor or your ears catch fire at the sound of words unfit for broadcast television, consider yourself warned. The Hangover was a surprise hit in theaters and with me. If you’re skeptical or have heard too much hype about this film, you’ve got to give this one a chance. It just might make a believer out of you too.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Friday, July 22, 2011

Milk* (2008)

Forget Benjamin Button. If it weren’t for the infectious spirit of Slumdog Millionaire, this is the film that would have deserved Best Picture at the Oscar’s for 2008. A biopic with historical and current value, Milk offers a powerful glimpse into a defining time in the early gay rights movement. Everything clicks- the acting, the drama, and honest emotions that will move most who watch this film.

After hooking up with a younger man (James Franco), the soon-to-be 40-year old Harvey Milk (Sean Penn) and his new lover move from New York City to an emerging gay community in San Francisco. Milk uses his business savvy to become a gay rights activist. This drives him to run for public office but his devotion to campaigning drives his lover away. His next lover is mentally unbalanced and hangs himself out of what he perceives to be neglect.

After years of organizing and campaigning, Milk is elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977, becoming the first openly gay man to serve in a major public office in California’s history. It is here where Harvey Milk makes his stand. He forms a complex political relationship with social conservative Board member Dan White (Josh Brolin) and launches a campaign against Proposition 6, a state ballot initiative that, if passed, would ban homosexuals from serving in public schools. Defeating Proposition 6 becomes a rallying point for homosexuals but the spirit of victory is short-lived as Milk is assassinated weeks later.

After the PR debacle that was Brokeback Mountain, it seems that LGBT groups abstained from hoisting this film on their shoulders and parading it around as a defining film for their cause. This allows audiences to experience the power and humanity of Harvey Milk for themselves, making it all the more meaningful. Frankly, this film does more for gay rights than Brokeback ever did and probably could have used a little more vocal support. By letting the film stand on its own legs though, the story of Harvey Milk retains all of its genuineness and power.

Many ‘issues’ films fall victim to an enlarged sense of self-importance. Milk is not one of them. It does not whitewash its subject, nor does it level blanket condemnations and generalizations towards those who disagree with the issue of gay rights. This is partly due to a script that is determined to treat these historical figures as accurately and fairly as possible. The other half of the equation is the direction of Gus Van Sant. An eclectic director, Van Sant tends to avoid schmaltz and anything that crosses the line of naturalism.

The cast buys into the writer’s vision and the director’s philosophy, producing wonderful, complex characters. I may not like Sean Penn for his personal politics, egotism and hypocritical behavior, but all of this was wiped from my memory for two hours. Penn’s Milk is an honest, beautiful soul that you can’t help but cheer for. This is certainly a testament to Penn’s acting and was deserving of his Best Actor win (though I have yet to see Mickey Rourke’s work in The Wrestler). The rest of the cast displays all the right enthusiasm as young people drawn in by Harvey Milk’s magnetic personality and motivational speeches. Because these characters believe in Harvey Milk, you will find it that much easier to do so as well.

The one thing I had trouble wrapping my head around was the ease at which some of the homosexual characters in the film throw themselves into casual, sexual relationships. I think it’s dumb when heterosexual people do it too but I think my lack of understanding comes from two facts: 1) I am heterosexual and have had very few encounters with people engaging in an open LGBT lifestyle, and 2) I live in a time that is, I hope, a little more cautious about such activity. Given the time period (post-sexual revolution), the reckless sexual behavior might make a little more sense. It’s just the suddenness of it all that catches me off guard.

Had this film come out in 2007 or 2009, or had Slumdog Millionaire gone direct to DVD, it probably would have won Best Picture. Milk takes a hard, honest look at the early roots of the gay rights movement. It wasn’t about the right to have a same-sex partner or the right to have a flamboyant parade through town or to shove the LGBT lifestyle in anyone’s face. Harvey Milk and his supporters were fighting for the right to be considered fully human by society- the right to have their dignity acknowledged. Everyone, barring the most cynical and homophobic, can appreciate and respect that.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Peter Pan (1953)

Some Disney films have grown so famous over the years that you occasionally forget why you like it so much. For me, such is the case with Peter Pan. What I remembered to be an innocent, playful romp through a fantasy land from my youth turned out to be a little darker than nostalgia would have me remember. This film may not fit into today’s political correctness-obsessed culture but, taken for what it is and when it was made, Peter Pan cannot be denied its rightful place among the top tier of Disney’s work.

John and Michael Darling love to hear the fanciful stories that their older sister Wendy tells them about a roguish, ageless boy named Peter Pan. Their father, not wanting the boys’ heads filled with ‘poppycock,’ decides it’s time for Wendy to have her own room, cutting the boys off from their beloved stories. That night, Peter Pan himself comes prowling around the Darling abode and whisks them away to Never Land.

Upon their arrival to Peter’s fantastic world, Wendy finds an unexpected foe in Peter’s pixie friend Tinker Bell, who is jealous that a girl should come between her and Peter. Tink’s jealousy leads her to assisting Peter’s nemesis, Captain Hook. The short-tempered pirate captain constantly has one eye on the lookout for Pan and the other on the lookout for the crocodile that claimed his hand and wants the rest of him too. The children explore their new surroundings, meeting the Lost Boys, an Indian tribe, and a fateful encounter with Hook.

Peter Pan gets back to what Disney does best- innovative animation, a delightful story, and memorable songs. That is the formula for Disney greatness. Cinderella nailed each component but Alice in Wonderland faltered in both story and music. Peter Pan already has a great story built in, so the songs and music are really where Disney should be most heavily evaluated.

“You Can Fly” is still among Disney’s most recognizable tunes but this is not a one-song film. Other memorable tunes include “Following the Leader” and “What Makes the Red Man Red?” are also quite enjoyable. Granted, the latter song, and the presentation of the Indian tribe as a whole, is a gross stereotype that would be met with all kinds of protest today. If you can keep in mind the time period when the original story was written (1911) and when this film was released (1953), you should be able to take these depictions with a grain of salt.

I had all but forgotten about the politically incorrect portions of Peter Pan since the last time I saw it (which is admittedly quite a long time ago). What I hadn’t forgotten was how great the film looks. Three significant accomplishments stand out for this production. First and most obvious is the animation of the children flying. I can’t even fathom how much time it took the animators to make those sequences look right. The children float, rise and dive almost without effort, creating a perfect illusion.

Second is the work involving Tinkerbell and her glow. Several times she hides behind pieces of foliage but her natural luminosity makes for a unique effect that I don’t recall ever seeing before now. Finally, during the climactic battle with Captain Hook, there is a sequence where the camera is ‘looking down’ on Hook as he climbs the rope ladder toward Peter. Instead of Hook just growing larger as he climbs closer to where the camera would be if it were live action, the effect is that of the camera panning backward at the same pace as Hook while the background deck of the ship grows smaller. It seems like a minor detail but it floored me because it is extremely intricate.

The beauty of the story of Peter Pan is that it works on two levels. Kids will love it because it is an adventure involving children that don’t grow up. The kids ultimately pick up a lesson that, at some point, growing up is inevitable and should not be resisted. For parents, the story of Peter Pan makes them confront some of the realities of adulthood. How much like Captain Hook and Mr. Darling are you? That’s the subtle question it asks while quietly assuring us that growing older doesn’t have to mean growing colder. The Disney team captures these messages perfectly.

While political correctness junkies may be loathe to show this film to impressionable children, I plan on showing Peter Pan to my kids someday. Chances are, kids won’t even remember the ‘red man’ stuff. The Disney team is on top of their game here, which means that children and adults will marvel at the colors, sounds and music coming their way. It’s a great story given a terrific treatment. This film is part of the reason that the story and spirit of Peter Pan still exists in our cultural lexicon.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

(500) Days of Summer (2009)

Every year there are a handful of independent films that take critics (and occasionally audiences too) by storm. Sometimes these ‘indie darlings’ are overhyped by the pro-indie crowd. In the case of (500) Days of Summer, the hype isn’t hollow. Young stars and a clever story combine for one of the freshest and zaniest romantic comedies in recent memory.

Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) has a degree in architecture but works in the writing department of a greeting card company. He takes a liking to Summer Fin (Zooey Deschanel), his boss’s intern. She’s cute and they share similar tastes in music, but Summer is an odd duck. As they grow closer together, Tom discovers how difficult it can be to fall in love with a girl who doesn’t believe in true love. Despite her semi-detached stance on their relationship, the couple gives it a shot, progressing through many peaks and valleys.

This film starts out like only a handful of films dare- by telling you exactly how the story is going to end. It then proceeds to use another film technique that is risky and prone to poor execution- the nonlinear narrative. We jump around through various high and low points in the 500 days that Summer Finn is a major part of Tom’s life. Tom is a hopeless romantic to the core and wears his emotions on his sleeve, which leads to a number of humorous but honest glimpses into the whirlwind life of a guy who mistakenly thinks he’s found true love.

If this film had been made in the major Hollywood system, it would have been a bomb. Yes, it has known actors as leads but this film is indie to the core. The writing is too fresh and quirky for Hollywood, whose rom-com writers seem capable of only cutting and pasting clichés and obvious lines into their scripts. The blend of drama and comedy on display here is only something that could have come from a writer and director who are completely devoted to their little creation.

Director Marc Webb had worked exclusively in music videos before helming this film, which explains its perfect sense of rhythm and musicality. A celebratory dance number is even included, allowing Webb to work his gift for pairing action with music. For cynics, this will come ridiculously out of nowhere and seem woefully out of place. For those who actually get and follow the film, it is a harmless and delightful romp that fits the spirit of the picture.

Both Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are perfectly cast here. Gordon-Levitt’s star has been on the rise the past few years and his performance here shot him into the stratosphere of buzz-worthy Hollywood talent. Here is a young actor that has not been jaded by past success (3rd Rock from the Sun) and, through careful role selection, has broken through the barriers often built up through the label “former child star” to emerge as a legitimate adult actor. He brings Tom Hansen to life. He’s not just playing a character for a paycheck, JGL believes in Tom Hansen and that pays handsome dividends.

For a refreshing change of pace, Deschanel’s typically vacant, oddball acting style is exactly what the role calls for. Summer is a bit out there and rather than have a more ‘normal’ actress pretend to be enigmatic, Deschanel is able to be herself. There’s no disconnect between her and Summer. This is a character that other actresses would struggle to understand and make right. For Deschanel, it’s as if there is a sublime connection between star and subject.

(500) Days of Summer is not your typical rom-com. It’s doesn’t fit the standard pattern and even makes you think a little in order to keep the narrative straight in your head. This alone makes it interesting to me. I can’t help but wonder if I am also subconsciously more interested in the film because it focuses on a man instead of a woman. It’s hard to say, because the male and female characters are all but emotionally reversed in this film, which only adds to the freshness.

A warning to all you formula-addicted chick-flick chuckleheads: this movie is going to make laugh you and think. Can you handle both at once? If not, you best stick with the predictable rubbish that I typically make fun of. If you’re ready for a cinematic treat that’s part reality and part fantasy, pick this gem up. Dysfunctional relationships have never been this whimsical.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Lady and the Tramp (1955)

I’m starting to see a pattern develop with Disney animated films. It seems as though the best of Disney’s work up to this point has come from classic fairy tales like Snow White and Cinderella. Other literary adaptations have proven successful as well despite the Disney version now being more familiar and influential than the source material (i.e. Bambi). Ever since emerging from the World War II era of package films, it seems that the quality of the Disney product has been see-sawing, taking a step forward with one film and then a step back with the next. Lady and the Tramp very loosely fits into this pattern.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Far and Away (1992)

There’s just something about sprawling historical dramas that captivate audiences. We’re drawn to them like almost nothing else. Are we all secretly history buffs who take pleasure in seeing the hard times and details faced by those of yesteryear? Is it maybe because these films provide us with both the exotic and the familiar? Whatever the real answer is, Far and Away is one of those films that sucks you in with a little bit of everything and keeps you there quite nicely.

After his father’s funeral, Irish peasant Joseph Donnelly (Tom Cruise) witnesses the family home being burned by the lackeys of their landlord. Fed up with aristocratic oppression, Joseph sets out to kill his landlord but his plan goes awry and he is injured in his attempt. The landlord’s daughter Shannon (Nicole Kidman) is fascinated by the lively fellow and she saves him from a pistol duel with her suitor. They run away together, boarding a ship for America. Along the journey they learn of an upcoming land claim race in the Oklahoma Territory.

Their heads filled with dreams of land and prosperity, Joseph and Shannon encounter a rude awakening upon their arrival in Boston. Far from the land of opportunity they were expecting, America for Irish immigrants turns out to be a maze of hucksters, cheats and politics. Pretending to be brother and sister, the two fall in love as they struggle to survive in a cold, uncaring new world.

Does the current generation even know/remember that Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman were married for a whole decade? This fact certainly serves as a minor impetus for those of us in the know to check out any movie that they co-starred in as a romantic pairing (the same was probably true for audiences at the time). That may now be little more than a nostalgic factoid lost on future viewers but it is most certainly an intriguing behind-the-scenes thing to consider while watching this fanciful flick.

Far and Away really does have a little bit of everything, which is both good and bad. The period detail is really something but it does cross a few lines (what historical epics don’t though?) by not making enough of the costumes look truly lived in. Everyone likes a little romance but Joseph and Shannon’s antics border on soap opera cheesy at points. Then of course there’s the balance between a sprawling tale spanning an ocean and half of another continent and a Hollywood tale packed with a few too many lucky coincidences.

The acting really stands out as the driving force of the film. Do Cruise and Kidman go overboard now and then? Yes. But they give themselves so fully to their roles that you can’t help but believe in and desperately get behind these characters. Joseph and Shannon won’t go down as one of those iconic epic film couples but they have enough spunk and sass to make Far and Away a crowd pleaser.

The story is quite simple and predictable but this is an early entry in director Ron Howard’s serious stage as a filmmaker. The film has plenty of potential to devolve into a corny immigration comedy full of Irish stereotypes but Howard, having directed several screwball comedies before this, knows where to draw the line. He keeps the film fun and fresh when it’s called for and never lets it wallow in mood and harsh reality for too long.

Far and Away may not appeal to film snobs who only appreciate the utmost dramatic (which for some reason usually translates to depressing) and realistic historical epic tales. Rather than focusing on high-art cinema, he aims to make the kind of films that he grew up watching and loving. He is a movie lover’s director, plain and simple. What it lacks in staying power, this film makes up for in enjoyability.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Sunday, July 17, 2011

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button* (2008)

Audiences, meet Oscar bait. Oscar bait, meet audiences. Bluntly speaking, that is what The Curious Case of Benjamin Button amounts to. It dabbles with a little bit of everything that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences typically goes gaga for. It’s a period piece of sorts, it’s a dramatic love story, it’s got lush scenery and visuals, plus brilliant stars and an accomplished director at the helm. Yes, for a while there, this was the film that everyone was talking about heading into awards season.

An elderly woman named Daisy (Cate Blanchett) lies dying in a New Orleans hospital as Hurricane Katrina looms outside. Though she has lived a long life she has one more story to tell- that of her many encounters with a strange and fantastic man named Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt). With her daughter at her side she begins to read from Benjamin’s diary a tale that spans 85 years.

Benjamin was born with a bizarre condition. As a baby he was shriveled like an old man and retained this appearance as he grew through his adolescence. Abandoned by his father, Benjamin is adopted by an African-American woman (Taraji P. Henson) and raised like a son. As he grows older numerically, Button’s appearance changes in reverse. Knowing that he is destined for a different life, Benjamin travels the world for meaning, crossing paths with Daisy at unexpected times. This leads to a complicated romance that spans decades.

From the previews, this film looked like it was going to be something like Forrest Gump with a more serious, fantasy-driven twist. Had this film been anything like that at all, it probably wouldn’t have been so frustratingly dull. Benjamin Button is two hours and forty minutes of moody drama. It’s easy to grasp the idea that Daisy and Benjamin’s romance will be difficult. How could it not? One person gets older while the other appears to get younger? There’s only so much time when their appearances would be similar enough to avoid controversy.

Benjamin Button may have lived a unique life but none of it is very remarkable in comparison with his condition. For a film that spans almost all of the 20th century, there’s very little intersection with history to be seen. Instead of placing the main characters in historical places at historical times, the world of Benjamin and Daisy melts through the years with little to no connection the ‘real world.’ There’s plenty of period detail but that’s where it ends. Maybe the filmmakers didn’t want to tie in notable events to avoid comparisons to Gump. Maybe they just thought it wasn’t right in order to keep the production tied to the spirit of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s short story (which I have not read).

Pitt and Blanchett do a solid job of playing two troubled individuals whose lives are intertwined. Hope, confusion, fear and sadness radiate from their faces. This, combined with a muted color palate dripping with mood and style, creates a film that is beautiful to look at but boring to watch. Deft direction, good camerawork and all the fine details are here. The only thing missing is an exciting story. Button is an intriguing concept but along the way to making a film that looks like a gorgeous still-life in motion they forgot to add a little life to the film.

I’m not asking for Button to wander through history and bump shoulders with a veritable list of who’s who, but placing him and Daisy in or around familiar events would have given audiences something to grab onto. Instead we’re left with another star-crossed lovers tale with a unique twist. It’s probably not artsy-fartsy enough to satisfy the art-house crowd but Button is a little too serious and artsy for general audiences to warmly embrace it.

While I found it to be a tedious viewing experience at times, I see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button for what it is. What it lacks in livelihood it makes up for in all the other areas. For that reason alone it is a solidly good film. Taking a few more creative liberties with the script could have made it a real winner and a legitimate contender for Best Picture.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Site Navigation

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Monday, July 25, 2011

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Friday, July 22, 2011

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Sunday, July 17, 2011