Adventureland

New Movie Review.


Written and directed by Greg Mottola

Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart, Martin Starr, Ryan Reynolds, Bill Hader

Adventureland is Greg Mottola's third film, and his follow-up to Superbad. Those looking for a film like Superbad will be disappointed here, those more in the mood for a serio-comedy will be more than pleased. Superbad was a film written by Seth Rogen and Even Goldberg, and it was truly their film. With Adventureland, Mottola has written the script as well which he says is partly autobiographical, hence the film comes across as very personal.

The story follows a college grad, James Brennan, played by Eisenberg, who needs to earn some money over the summer if he is to go to university in New York as he has dreamed. Unfortunately his impressive academics can't score him a good job, so he has to spend the summer at Adventureland, a local amusement park that hires any willing applicants. The job is anything but glamorous, but it is here James will come out of his shell, make important friends, and meet his first love, Em, played by Kristen Stewart.

The film is being promoted as full-on comedy, but it is actually much more concerned with its characters than laughs. I was touched by how fair it was to each of its characters. Even Connell, played by Ryan Reynolds, who in any other movie would be a cardboard bad guy, is likable and easy to empathize with. He poses the main obstacle between James and Em's love, but Connell is far too sad and pathetic to be angry with. Reynolds plays him perfectly, making sure to avoid stereotypes, and to add an endearing sensitivity. The supporting cast is wonderful, and many of the characters get moments other movies wouldn't let them have. Joel (played by Apatow alum, Martin Starr) quickly bonds with James and becomes a sort of third wheel for the leads. During one scene, a bunch of employees are talking after work, quietly James and Em slip off to be alone. The camera then focuses on Joel as he notices and looks on, sad and lonely.

Eisenberg and Stewart are both superb and have a wonderfully unexpected chemistry on screen. I last saw Eisenberg in The Squid and the Whale, another brilliant film. His character in Adventureland is certainly similar, almost as if it is the same guy a few years later. It's hard to complain though as he may the the most likable awkward leading man this side of Michael Cera. His character, like all others in the movie are fully realized human beings and he really brings James to life. However it is Kristen Stewart who steals the show. She now joins the ranks of incredible young actresses such as Ellen Page or Olivia Thirlby who are going to have amazing careers. She makes Em one of the more memorable characters in recent comedies. She is smart, witty, vulnerable, confused and Stewart plays every little emotion as real as possible. This is a script in need of admiration as it actually understands the female lead rather than just involving her in the plot. In fact, all of the characters are understood and respected.

Each character is a flawed human being. Everyone makes mistakes, but they are good people and we care for them. In life, good people are doomed to do stupid things and hurt each other. Adventureland is a film that knows this and sees the big picture and is proud of our small triumphs, in spite of our many failures. The film takes place in 1987, and feels truly nostalgic. It is written and directed by a man in his 40s, but he does not degrade the teens and twenty somethings, like so many comedies have. He sees them as smart and thoughtful people worth telling real stories about. The young love in this film is treated with care far too rare in movies.

The film is very funny, but never in a ridiculous way. Nothing really happens that is out of the ordinary. The laughs are natural and never cheap. The movie is more of a drama than some might expect and it certainly fits in more with The Squid and the Whale (although they are quite different) than Superbad. Mottola shows lots of promise and I can't wait to see his next feature, Paul, which is written by and starring the Shaun of the Dead/Hot Fuzz guys Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (The drool inducing synopsis on IMDB for that one is "Two British comic-book geeks travel across the USA together"). Mottola has made a film where the young characters are realistic, flawed and beautiful. We care about them deeply, and for that the film maker should be praised. Adventureland is the most emotionally resonant comedy since Juno, and my favourite film of 2009 so far.

I Love You, Man

New Movie Review.

Written by John Hamburg and Larry Levin
Directed by John Hamburg
Starring Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, Rashida Jones, Andy Samberg


I've said it before, we are living in a truly wonderful era of comedy, and it has shown no signs of stopping. This is mostly attributable to Judd Apatow who has reinvented the adult comedy and is responsible for bringing attention to a new generation of comedic actors. Most of the great comedies of recent years have either been produced, written, or directed by Judd Apatow. His name is absent from the credits of I Love you, Man, but his influence is easily detectable. Also, the two stars of the film, Paul Rudd and Jason Segel, are Apatow regulars.

The plot is simple and at first glance, trivial. Real estate agent Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) gets engaged to Zooey (Rashida Jones). Peter realizes he doesn't have any close guy friends, and he begins a search for a friend he can make his best man at his wedding. He keeps this secret from his fiancee, but his mother and gay brother Robbie (Andy Samberg) actively try to help him and set him up on "man dates" which, of course, lead to some hilarious results. Meanwhile, Peter is trying to sell Lou Ferrigno's (TV's The Incredible Hulk, playing himself) House. At an open house he meets Sydney Fife (Jason Segel), the first promising candidate for the best man position. He is not at the open house because he is interested in buying a home but rather to pick up girls and eat free food. Sydney is pretty much the opposite of Peter.

Peter gets along with women better than he does with men, as he is an honest, sensitive type. Sydney is open and in touch with his manliness, and perhaps in a way, is even more honest. Peter is about as awkward as possible, straining to act cool and failing miserably in every scene. Paul Rudd handles the comedic timing wonderfully, and manages to earn a laugh every time Peter tries to impress. Sydney is effortlessly cool. He invites Peter to his home, and shows him his garage which has been converted into "The Man Cave" complete with several TVs, every instrument needed for a rock band and even what Sydney refers to as a "jerk-off station". Essentially, Sydney is a guy friend we would all like to have. He is incredibly fun and helps Peter loosen up and enjoy himself. Sydney speaks frankly about everything, but not in an obscene way like this type of character might in a poorer comedy, rather he is open and helps those he speaks to to open up as well. It is remarkable that Jason Segel takes this hedonistic character and makes him into a plausible, human best friend.

Both lead actors do a tremendous job of making the movie feel authentic. Paul Rudd has established himself as yet another Apatow regular who can be a dependable leading man. Jason Segel finally departs from his sensitive guy character he has been playing since Freaks & Geeks, and is just as effective. We love these characters equally, and it's mostly because it is easy to relate to them. Some might relate more to Peter, some to Sydney. Either way, I think if you connect to the film personally, as I did, there is something behind the laughter worth discovering.

I Love You, Man is consistently burst out laughing funny as well as somewhat serious and real. It's very exciting to see that there are other film makers and writers who can maintain the level of quality that Judd Apatow has introduced to the genre. Using actors familiar with this style helps, I imagine, but more importantly it is that Apatow has shown that making comedies shouldn't be about grossing people out, or creating ridiculously silly situations, or having the most gratuitousness possible. It's about making something real, connecting with the audience, and finding things we can all laugh about.

Watchmen

New Movie Review.


Written by David Hayter and Alex Tse
Directed by Zack Snyder
Starring Billy Crudup, Jackie Earle Haley, Patrick Wilson, Malin Akerman, Matthew Goode, Jeffery Dean Morgan

Watchmen was the most frustrating movie experience of my life. It is adapted from my favourite work in comics, that also happens to be one of my favourite works in fiction, period. My lofty expectations, admittedly, may have been impossible to satisfy, but at first, it seemed a possibility. The opening sequence of the film is quite good. Then the opening credits, which are accompanied by Bob Dylan, are some of the best I've seen. It isn't long after that when cracks start to show. The original score is, for the most part, very poor. The musical cues are laughable. The acting seems top notch until a couple characters are introduced. The second half completely falls apart.

The score is so standard and out of place, it takes you right out of the film. Stupid action music that should stick to Mortal Kombat and the like. Horribly cheesy guitar twangs. Generic ominous music underlining the emotions so Mr. Snyder doesn't actually have to bring them to life. One piece of music actually works quite well though. The character Dr. Manhattan has a brilliant sequence, and I mean brilliant, where we see time through his perspective. He describes different things happening in his life as if they were all occurring at once. The music during this scene is restrained, cold, but beautiful, much like Dr. Manhattan himself. That success is, of course, undone by the numskull choices throughout the remainder of the movie.

It is a shame that the actors give such noble performances for this movie. Patrick Wilson and Jackie Earle Haley bring the incredible characters of Nite Owl and Rorschach to life in an extraordinary way. It is Billy Crudup's turn of Dr. Manhattan that impresses the most, however. His voice is distant, calm, with the slightest hints of empathy and power, exactly how it should be. The rest of the main cast are also great, Malin Akerman, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan have tough roles to play, and they admirably succeed. I am sure that Matthew Goode's performance is also very good, but his role suffers from editing, and lack of execution in the final act which is hardly his fault. It is in the supporting cast that we find some really bad acting.

First off, Robert Wisden as a caricature of Richard Nixon. He has the most ridiculous makeup on, intended to increase his likeness to Nixon, but what it does is look fake and cartoonish. What makes it worse is that there isn't supposed to be a single scene with Nixon. Such an addition is absurd and ill-advised. That is outdone, believe it or not, with what I am claiming to be the most embarrassing performance in a serious movie ever. Carla Gugino plays Sally Jupiter, the mother of Laurie (Akerman) who resides in a rest home in California. In actuality, Gugino is 37, but her character must at least be in her late 60s. The makeup here, is even worse. The acting, is even worse than that. She completely misfires, failing to bring any aspect of the original character to life. In the comic she came off warm, sad, and a little pathetic. Gugino plays her bitchy and spunky, and appears to be as able-bodied as they come. In flashbacks, she gets to play her own age and she is just as bad. I even went a bit red in the face when watching her read her lines. Her screen time is minimal, but her performance is poisonous enough to infect the film even when she isn't there.

As someone who adores the source material, the first half wasn't all that bad. Much of the dialogue and narration is word for word accurate. The set design is wonderful, with an awe-inspiring attention to detail. However, to say, like so many have, that Zack Snyder is faithful to the source material is absolutely incorrect. For the most part he is faithful to the surface of source material, but he isn't as true to the tone, the themes, the grit, and sometimes even the characters. The ending is changed, which is beyond unforgivable. The new ending presents a plot-hole so large it is appalling.

I have to give credit, where credit is due. Zack Snyder's visuals, although hardly appropriate for the movie, are astounding. There is a place for him in the industry, and despite my current homicidal fantasies, I actually think the guy will make some good stuff, at least to look at. Tackling the intellectually complex Watchmen? Bad idea. Zack Snyder's movie occasionally feels like a 12 year old's book report come to life.

Thankfully, the source material is so strong, that some of it's richness comes through in the movie. Dr. Manhattan's scenes work like magic. The film is somewhat thought-provoking, even if the-supposed-to-be-a-shocker ending is glossed over. Most critics are discussing the themes of the story in their reviews, something I'll only do if talking about the comic. Several sequences are a joy to behold, seeing the comic come to life. Alas, the (mostly) superb acting, and several well-executed parts are not enough to redeem what this film really is, a revolting failure.

Snyder's brash, overdone style is so wrong for the movie. Everything looks artificial, but the comic book felt so gritty and real. A Kubrickian approach would have been better suited (Watchmen is more Clockwork Orange than it is 300), but still, the comic should never have been adapted to the screen. The original Watchmen is a master work, the crowning achievement of it's medium, the Citizen Kane of comics, and here it has been sullied. I demand retribution.





The Masterpieces. Vol III The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser

mas⋅ter⋅piece
–noun

1.	a person's greatest piece of work, as in an art.

2.	anything done with masterly skill

3.	a consummate example of skill or excellence of any kind

The Masterpieces is an ongoing list of the greatest achievements in cinema from around the world. The only requirement is that no movie released in the last year can be added. These are the films that set the highest standards for their art form and respective genres. They can be important socially and universally or they can resonate on a deeply personal level or they can simply be incredibly entertaining.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser

Written & Directed by Werner Herzog

"Do you hear that screaming all around us? The screaming that man calls silence"

When the film opens up with this quote on screen, along with an image of a wheat field swaying in the wind, without a sound, you realize you are in for a profound cinematic experience. Courtesy of one of the world's best film makers, Werner Herzog (the self proclaimed "soldier of cinema"), The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser is a film that will get you every way a film can. It will grab your heart, engage your mind and enrich your soul.

The story is of Kaspar Hauser, a man who has been raised in isolation, without having ever seen another person. His mysterious keeper, a man who keeps him fed and chained in a make shift prison, eventually lets him out. He teaches Kaspar to stand and walk, and to write. The man then brings Kaspar to a nearby village, and leaves him standing in the middle of town, alone, with a letter firmly grasped in his left hand, the bible and his hat in his right hand. The letter explains who Kaspar is and that he should be put to use as seen fit. He quickly becomes the object of the townspeople's curiosity. In some cases, people become emotionally attached to him, others ridicule him. The more important figures of the town regard him as an interesting scientific specimen and take notes on him as if he is some sort of discovery to be analysed, not a real human being to be understood.

A family takes him into their home and, along with other people, teach him how to live. Eventually Kaspar is introduced to the workings of society. At this point, he is able to adequately articulate himself. He finds so many traditions and rules bizarre. It is here that he begins to make observations and make incredible statements. When seated at a table with an older woman, he asks, "why do the women only cook and clean?". She tells him to ask the men. He finds this social standing unnatural and confusing. How is it that such an uncivilized man seems so much more civil than those raised in society.

When Kaspar is introduced to music, and listens to another man playing piano, he proclaims "the music, it feels strong in my heart". Kaspar is so pure and untainted, it is emotionally revelatory. He is the most endearing human subject in all of cinema.

He is told again and again that he is wrong, and must adjust to the society he finds absurd. In most cases, he seems wiser and more thoughtful then the people trying to teach him. One man performs a test of logic on Kaspar. He tells him there are two villages. One made completely of liars, and the other made completely of people who tell only the truth. The man asks Kaspar, if he was to meet a man outside of the villages, how could you find out which village the man was from. The man performing the test says there is only one logical answer. Of course the answer Kaspar gives is not that one answer, but it is a more clever one. The man says he fails the test. Through Kaspar Hauser's observations, we see the flaws and stupidity of our civilization. It is a film that will capture your heart but also infuriate you.

Herzog's use of image is as always incredible, but what stands out is his casting of Bruno S. for the lead. Bruno S. was a street musician who had spent much of his life in and out of mental institutions. The performance that Herzog gets out of Bruno is nothing short of earth shattering. So inspired by this man he had discovered, Herzog would go on to write a screenplay for him in three days which would become the film, Stroszek, a film as revered as The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser.

After being taught reading, writing, speaking, manners, and piano, Kasper becomes somewhat of a legend. It isn't long before important people from all over want to meet him. A big, formal social gathering is held for people to meet this incredible man. Kaspar is to perform a Mozart sonata on the piano for all those attending. It is a crude attempt, as he fails to play it properly. Nonetheless, the music feels strong in my heart.

The Masterpieces Vol II. The Royal Tenenbaums

mas⋅ter⋅piece
–noun

1.	a person's greatest piece of work, as in an art.

2.	anything done with masterly skill: a masterpiece of improvisation.

3.	a consummate example of skill or excellence of any kind: The chef's cake was a masterpiece.

The Masterpieces is an ongoing list of the greatest achievements in cinema from around the world. The only requirement is that no movie released in the last year can be added. These are the films that set the highest standards for their art form and respective genres. They can be important socially and universally or they can resonate on a deeply personal level or they can simply be incredibly entertaining.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Tenenbaums

Written by Wes Anderson & Owen Wilson
Directed by Wes Anderson

The Royal Tenenbaums is a profoundly special work of cinema. Like all of Wes Anderson's films, its value can only be appreciated with multiple viewings. In fact, to be honest, I barely liked it upon it's release in 2001. I think this is because of Anderson's overwhelmingly dominant and unique style. The most common criticism associated with his body of work is "style over substance". Initially, for me, such an accusation seems preposterous. However, after reflection I realize after one viewing of The Royal Tenenbaums, it is the style that makes the first impression. I have seen the film quite a few times now, and with each viewing, it becomes considerably more substantial. Further examination reveals a remarkable complexity and intricacy, like a truly great work of fiction.

Each character is treated with such love and care by Anderson, it can be a wonder to behold. Many of his characters disagree with each other, hate each other and hurt each other. Yet, it is clear that Wes Anderson loves them all fervently and equally. Is this not powerful in itself? Perhaps even important? The Royal Tenenbaums is the best example of this because there are so many key characters, so many unique profiles with an astounding depth.

I'm realizing it doesn't sound like I'm writing about a comedy, but I am. This movie is very funny. The humour found here is so far removed from the typical American comedy that it's off putting. There is a rare level of class wherein the jokes all serve the story or the characters. Anderson himself stated that nearly everything he does in his films serves the purpose of "bringing the characters forward". One might synopsize that the film is about the character Royal Tenenbaum, a deranged father, trying to earn his family back. Yes, it is about that but it is about every single relationship between every single person in the movie. While all aren't given equal screen time, I still see them as important. How heartbreaking is Margot's neglecting of her seemingly infatuated husband? How interesting is the rivalry between Royal and Henry, even if there only a few brief instances that contribute to it? An entire movie could have been devoted to any of the sole relationships and conflicts.

The difficult to penetrate surface contains a uniquely cinematic soul and a heart of gold, with layers of richness, humour and sadness that add up to one of the best films of the current decade. For newcomers to Anderson's work, I find it's best to watch his films chronologically, or at least with his debut film Bottle Rocket, followed by his sophomore piece, Rushmore. With Bottle Rocket, he had a far more constrained budget and was not yet able to fine tune every detail of each frame as he does now. In the case of Rushmore, he displays a much stronger level of attention to detail but it is still not at the profound level of Tenenbaums and later films. I think if you start out in this manner, you can ease into his work, and the initial viewings are all the more rewarding. I don't mean to point out the meticulously crafted production design and costumes and all other aspects of the visuals as flaws. I only mean that at first the flashiness can distract one from the inner workings of this auteur's brilliant works.

It's a shame that some may be turned off, or at least led astray by the balanced and vibrant visual quirks, because Wes Anderson is one of the finer film makers alive today. He is one of America's strongest voices in movies and this is one of his strongest films. And it's not even his only masterpiece.

List Logic

It's that time of year again and top ten lists of the year's best movies are showing up everywhere. Everybody loves lists. They're simple, they rarely offer any thoughtful writing, and they rank the 10 best movies so that people know what to see, that they haven't already. Some years, there are far more than 10 movies worth mentioning, but too bad for them. It sounds like I might be against such lists, but that is not the case.

I bring this up because critic Roger Ebert has rebelled against the system this year. Instead of posting the normal list, he refused to rank films. His list is a top 20 in alphabetical order. Good for him, right? Ranking films isn't the best way to celebrate cinema, but I believe he has made a mistake. I agree it's silly to rank films but it is necessary to draw people's attention. By making an alphabetical top 20 he has removed the emphasis from any of the movies. Now, it's just a list of movies he really likes, and no one will be as compelled to check out his number one, two or even ten (even though ten is the lowest, simply by being numbered it draws more attention). His list will still have an influence because of his deserved popularity, but if this became a trend amongst all critics, I fear many people would lose some interest.

The top ten list is a means to get anyone, even the most casual of moviegoers to see what deserves to be seen. Even if a hypothetical #11 is just as great as 10, 9 and 8, the top ten list is still important. It is unfair to number 11, yes, but that's the price of grabbing the attention of a reader skimming through a newspaper. Many critics have a method of getting around this. I, like many, have an "honourable mentions" portion that alphabetically lists other great movies. I know it's not as influential, but at least the worthy get mentioned. So I do believe in the top ten list, but one of it's biggest flaws is that for most critics, it loses some relevance. Opinions change, two years later one realizes their number 9 should have been number 3. This is a bit silly. Really, ranking is the method with the greatest impact, but it shouldn't be read into too deeply.

For example, I will post my top ten list from last year, followed by a revised list to see how much has changed in a year.

My top ten list from 2007:

1. Juno
2. Ratatouille
3. There Will Be Blood
4. Superbad
5. Once
6. Hot Fuzz
7. Knocked Up
8. No Country For Old Men
9. Into The Wild
10. Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead/The Savages (Tie)

Honorable mentions…
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days, Away From Her, The Darjeeling Limited, Eastern Promises, Rescue Dawn, Zodiac

Now, here is a revised list of how I feel now:

1. Juno
2. Ratatouille
3. Once
4. There Will Be Blood
5. No Country For Old Men
6. The Darjeeling Limited
7. Rescue Dawn
8. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days
9. Into The Wild
10. Knocked Up

Honourable Mentions…
Away From Her, Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead, Hot Fuzz, The Savages, Superbad, Zodiac

Now, there have been some changes of course, but there isn't a single movie in the top ten or honourable mentions list that wasn't there before. Only the order has changed. This wont always be the case. Ten years from now I might discover a brilliant obscure 2007 picture that makes Juno look like What Happens In Vegas. Whatever. It doesn't matter. My goal, which was to put emphasis on the year's best movies was accomplished. The order has since changed but it's the same movies I wanted to honour in the first place. Top ten lists are important, and should continue to be an end of year event. As long as people take them as a semi-serious guide of what to see, but not a serious guide to which 2007 great movie was better than another 2007 great movie. Just see them both. Please.


All lists published on the Bronze can be found here

Frost/Nixon

New Movie Review.

Written by Peter Morgan, based on his play
Directed by Ron Howard
Starring Michael Sheen, Frank Langella, Sam Rockwell, Oliver Platt, Kevin Bacon, Matthew McFayden

Frost/Nixon is the mostly factual account of when Playboy talk show host David Frost (Michael Sheen) ambitiously decided to interview the most controversial man in America, perhaps even the world at the time, Richard Nixon. Nixon (Frank Langella) had surrendered his place in the White House but had not yet confessed any involvement in illegal activity. The world wanted an admission of guilt and Frost was the least likely candidate to get it. Nixon's people considered David Frost such a lightweight interviewer that they actually took the offer. Better to go with Frost than someone serious, that proposes a threat to Nixon's reputation. Frost, however, was determined. He hired a crack team to help his cause, including friend/producer John Birt (Matthew McFayden), and two experienced journalists James Reston Jr. (Sam Rockwell) and Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt). Together, they frantically research, strategize and fight over the best ways to nail the former president. This process is entertaining in it's own right, mostly due to the anticipation of getting to the actual interviews. When the film arrives to the point where Frost and Nixon are seated across from each other, with cameras rolling, it's the most exciting thing in film this year other than a slightly more theatrical match up between the Batman and the Joker.

This story is about the men and where they were in life and what the interviews meant to them. Peter Morgan, who wrote the play and the film's screenplay is more interested in Frost as an unlikely hero and Nixon as a tragic figure than he is in exploring the politics surrounding the situation. The interviews truly play out like a boxing match. They first meet at Nixon's California residence, and it seems they assess each other, or keeping with the boxing analogy, they "weigh" each other. It is abundantly clear that Nixon is a heavyweight and Frost barely registers on the scale. Both sides practice and learn their opponent's weaknesses. When the first of four interviews begins, Nixon is calm, prepared and confident while Frost is alarmingly timid. Frost's "trainers" call for a break, pretending that the tapes need to be switched. Both fighters retreat to their corners. I half expected Frost to be offered a water bottle and stitches. These scenes are masterful and command an impressive level of suspense and fascination.

Ron Howard is certainly no more than a technician, when it comes to the craft of film, but he is an apt one. His career isn't spotless but he has had success with films such as Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind. However he is also responsible for ED TV and The Da Vinci Code. Nonetheless, his best work is in this movie, which feels much less Hollywood than anything else he has done. A lot of the credit should go to Peter Morgan who is also responsible for recent movies The Queen and The Last King of Scotland. His writing is intelligent and sophisticated but also accessible and clever. Morgan offers us an insightful look at two men at a crossroads in life. Frost was in the middle of a successful career, but it began to unravel as he poured all of his attention and money into the Nixon project. His career, and reputation depended on the success of the interviews. On the surface, Nixon and his people wanted to deter the public from suspecting him of illegal activity and also gain some of the respect he had lost. However, as Frank Langella's performance suggests, it seems Nixon secretly needed to confess. He seems lonely, lost, damaged by guilt and regret. Ultimately, the interviews might be good for both men. For Frost it serves as a incredible achievement, for Nixon a vital catharsis.

Obviously, this is a film that relies on the portrayals of it's leads. Both Langella and Sheen give equally deep and committed turns. Langella's Nixon strikes a perfect balance between being an unlikable man who could not get along with those around him and a sympathetic character who desperately wanted to seve his country. Sheen is charismatic and arrogant, but he also has a subtle vulnerability that connects him to the audience. If Frost was played at a more impersonal and greater distance, he would have just seemed like an egotistical womanizer. Thankfully, Sheen hints at so much more. Rockwell and Platt give inspired supporting performances as the two men helping Frost. Rockwell still remains an under appreciated actor who had two other great roles this year in Snow Angels and Choke. Platt has always had a hit or miss career but he is delightful here. An odd thought crossed my mind while watching him act. Oliver Platt could play Roger Ebert if a movie was ever made requiring one to do so. They don't look alike but there is a similar intangible quality. Kevin Bacon has a key role as Nixon's right hand man. Through his perception we are able to see Nixon in a different light.

The film was different than what I had expected. I thought it to be a serious and politically minded drama. It feels more like a character study crossed with a thriller. There is a welcomed, natural humour in each character that lightens the mood but subtly strengthens the bond between the viewer and the film. Frost/Nixon is a remarkable entertainment that shouldn't be missed.

Synecdoche, New York

New Movie Review.

Written & directed by Charlie Kaufman
Starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Samantha Morton, Michelle Williams, Catherine Keener, Diane Weist, Emily Watson, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Hope Davis and Tom Noonan

Synecdoche, New York is the latest film written by genius screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman. However, thanks to Spike Jonze (who collaborated with Kaufman on Adaptation and Being John Malkovich) being busy with his next film, Kaufman slips into the director's chair for the very first time. He has stated in the past that he was interested in directing, but it's no surprise that the neurotic Kaufman had to be kinda forced into making the decision to do so. It's understandably nerve wracking going into this film, worrying if the talented writer can bring his words to life as well as Jonze and Gondry did. Oh, he can, and he does.

The film is difficult to describe so I'll just give a very general synopsis. Synecdoche follows a new york theater director named Caden Cotard, played by master thespian Phillip Seymour Hoffman, from roughly age 40-90 as he tries to create his masterpiece in a giant warehouse in New York. His central aim is to tackle mortality, but he wants his work to encompass everything it can. As the years pass, his production gets more and more out of hand, with hundreds of hired actors and incredibly elaborate sets. Eventually he builds a scale model of New York. Of course, for the scale New York to be accurate it must incorporate the warehouse, and inside that warehouse needs to be another scaled version of the city. So we get somewhat of a Russian doll effect except, oddly enough, each New York seems to be the same size. This is the type of "dream logic" you'll need to be prepared for in Synecdoche, New York.

A common complaint I'm hearing is confusion over unrealistic things in the movie. For example the scaled New Yorks which all are the same size or the more infamously mentioned burning house. Hazel, played by Samantha Morton, purchases a house while it's on fire. She mentions her concern of the fire once to her realtor, but that's all. For the remainder of the film, which works out to about 40 years within it, the fire remains, constant, but the house never burns down. That this is something people are whining about irritates me. It seems that most moviegoers are unwilling to think in any other way than literally. Some may argue that they don't like being slapped in the face with a metaphor, which is fine, but most are completely turned off by thinking outside the box at all. Those people shouldn't see Kaufman movies. Too bad, because he is the most important screenwriter (and, now, perhaps film maker) alive. Kaufman would be the first to tell you that everything in the movie is open to interpretation, but regarding the burning house, I was reminded of lyrics written by Issac Brock of the band Modest Mouse; "Every one's a building burning with no one to put the fire out/Staring at the window, looking out/Waiting for time to burn us down". How appropriate considering the most obvious theme of the film is death and how we ignore it's inevitability.

There are several pieces of evidence throughout the film of people ignoring something. There's the burning house, of course, and Cotard's therapist, played by Hope Davis in another terrific bit part, has terrible blisters from her tight fitting shoes which go unmentioned and she smiles through her teeth. There are more than a couple brilliant monologues regarding our mortality and thankfully they are laced with necessary, albeit dark, humour. Kaufman also tackles a familiar subject which is false expectations.

His disbelief in romantic love lead to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and it's no surprise he explores such disappointment even further. Caden Cotard goes through heartbreak, yes, but really he never experiences love in the first place. At least not in it's commerical form. He is lonely when he is alone and when he's with someone. He cries when he becomes intimate with a woman. He tries only to use everyone in the way he wants them. Cotard wants no one to be themselves. This is something we may all be guilty of, wanting everyone to be a version of themselves that pleases us best. In life we direct and manipulate those around us like Cotard directs his actors. What he expects and wants is not possible. In the end he is left with the approximation of an ideal, a flawed microcosm, or an illusive synecdoche.

Kaufman delivers plenty of devastating insights such as that no one ever really knows us, not truly. Depressing but truthful, this film is more than a common movie, it is a work of great fiction worthy of being studied for years to come. I know I will. Synecdoche strikes me as a film I will receive endless value from. I believe that every time I watch it, I will interact with it differently and sometimes find something new. Something that made me sad may make me laugh years down the line, and vice versa. It will remain thought-provoking but new and different thoughts will be conjured each time. This is living, breathing art that one could appreciate forever.

I could mention that Phillip Seymour Hoffman is yet again Oscar-worthy (surprise!). That each supporting actress is so perfect I can't single any of them out and that all of them should receive the award for best supporting actress. I could mention how special the sets are, that there's some of the best make up work I've ever seen. I could mention that the score is wonderful and that the song, "Little Person" is now a favourite of mine thanks to how it's used. I could mention a great many other immense successes, but I'll get to that a little further down the line. Maybe after I've seen the movie a few more times. Initially, the aspect of Synecdoche, New York that I'm focused on is that it's one of the most rich, fulfilling, satisfying, cathartic and significant movie experiences of my life.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

New Movie Review.


Written by Kevin Smith
Directed by Kevin Smith
Starring Seth Rogen, Elizabeth Banks, Craig Robinson, Jason Mewes, Jeff Anderson

The main goal of a movie like Zack and Miri Make A Porno is to make you laugh. In that regard, the film is a wonderful success. If the second goal is to contain some heart and make you feel it is also a success. So, yes, this is a successful movie, but as far as Kevin Smith's movies go, this is a bit of a disappointment.

I don't want to sound too negative throughout this review, as this is a nearly great comedy that I highly recommend, but I must declare I am a big fan of Kevin Smith. My favourite film ever is Chasing Amy, with many others of his high up on my list. Out of his filmography, Make A Porno ranks above only Jersey Girl, a movie most Smith fans have tried to forget. It has some great dialogue but it lacks some of the quotables of his other films. More importantly, there is no attempt at raising the bar substance wise, making this the third lateral movement in a row after the surprisingly meaningful, insightful and affecting Chasing Amy and the almost equally great but far more ambitious following film Dogma. Both those movies had the great dialogue, the great heart but they also had something to say.

Kevin Smith is at the top of his game, however, in one very touching sequence. Eventually, longtime best friends Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) have to "perform" on screen together. The ensuing result is of considerable emotional weight. As Zack later puts it, "we were supposed to f**k, but ended up making love". The story of two friends discovering what was under their noses all along is told very well here.

In comparison to Smith's other work this is most like Clerks II. They follow somewhat similar formulas, but Clerks II worked much better for a few reasons. First off we already knew and loved the characters from Clerks and the story of two male best friends was much closer to Smith's heart giving it a stronger sense of sincerity and resonance. Also, telling a story about two dudes digging each other as buds is way less common than boy loves girl.

Like I said, the movie is hilarious and is quite sweet but it has the added bonus of being about making a porno. This adds freshness and fun to an otherwise formulaic film. The highlight of the movie has to be the scenes where longtime best friends, Zack and Miri are, along with some new found pals, shooting their flick. It captures the fun of doing something creative and collaborating with other people to make it happen. Quite simply, it may inspire you to do a little filming of your own. Perhaps not pornography, but I'm sure you get the point nonetheless. It accomplishes what Michel Gondry's Be Kind Rewind tried to do, and it tried really really hard whereas Make A Porno makes it look effortless. The ragtag group of people Zack and Miri scrounge together are a mixed bag. Each character seems interesting enough, and each actor portraying them seems on their game, but Smith seems only interested in exploring the title characters and Deleany, played by a never better Craig Robinson (Knocked Up, Pineapple Express). This is a shame and gives the move a much narrower feel than what may have been best. You'll certainly notice this after a "three months later..." cut that just doesn't feel right and doesn't convey the scope that was seemingly intended.

One worry I had going in was that Seth Rogen's overbearing personality would overshadow Kevin Smith's as a director. Instead both their personalities intertwine in comedic harmony. This is a great pair. However, The show stealer is star on the rise Elizabeth Banks who plays funny well and plays real even better. She has a similar effect on the movie that Rosario Dawson did on Clerks II; and that's no small compliment. As far as 2008 goes, Zack and Miri Make a Porno falls short of Forgetting Sarah Marshall but ranks ahead of Pineapple Express or Tropic Thunder. So overall, this isn't a Kevin Smith classic, but it is a more than worthwhile comedy.

Rachel Getting Married

VIFF 08 Movie Review.


Written by Jenny Lumet
Directed by Jonathan Demme
Starring Anne Hathaway, Rosemarie DeWitt, Bill Irwin, Debra Winger, Tunde Adebimpe and Mather Zickel

Rachel Getting Married is one of my favourite films of the year. It's a completely original, unique experience I'll never forget and one that I'll always treasure. First off there's the plot which follows Kym, played by an Oscar worthy Anne Hathaway, just out of rehab to join her family for the weekend as her sister, Rachel, is getting married. Family drama ensues. Don't get me wrong, the story is interesting on it's own, but deserving more attention is the actual wedding. This is the best fictional wedding in film. When the credits roll, it feels as if you did indeed attend Rachel and Sidney's ceremony, and it's a shame to have to leave. This is one of the most remarkable accomplishments in cinema this decade.

Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt) is marrying Sidney (Tunde Adebimpe) at a backyard wedding with both families coming together for the very first time. Rachel, and her family, are white. Sidney, and his family, are black. This is never an issue. This is never brought up. The wedding displays their cultural diversity with various celebrations, dances and music. A testament to our (slowly) evolving society. The two families get along, ecstatic that bride and groom are happy. Many give colourful toasts, that are either sweet, funny, touching or all that at once. All of these speeches are completely authentic and help achieve a realistic, emotionally involving setting.

None of this would work without a superb cast. Anne Hathaway is absolute perfection as Kym, she plays a very troubled young woman who has occasional emotional outbursts but her performance is somewhat reserved. Hathaway doesn't look to exaggerate any particular aspect of her character. She gives as human a rendering as one can. It's a bit early, but Anne Hathaway is my pick for best actress so far this year. All the supporting players make up one of the most memorable casts of the year, at least up there with The Dark Knight and In Bruges, perhaps more so due to the size of the ensemble. Rosemarie DeWitt is great as Rachel. She and Tunde Adebimpe make for a very convincing engaged couple. The supporting actor that stands out the most for me is Bill Irwin. He plays the father with such convincing love, that it's overwhelming. He brings happiness to his character complimented by a hidden reservoir of sadness we catch a couple devastating glimpses of. Irwin does not get prominent roles in film but he has won a Tony award. If it weren't for Heath Ledger's Joker, this would be my favourite supporting performance of the year.

Jonathan Demme has crafted a wonderful film from Jenny Lumet's one of a kind screenplay. With the help of his cinematographer Declan Quinn, Demme has made a visually unprecedented film. It feels as if we are attending the wedding, moving from room to room, observing. I highly recommend this special movie to everyone, especially if you feel like going to a wedding.

Boy A

New Movie Review.

Written by Mark O'Rowe
Directed by John Crowley
Starring Andrew Garfield, Peter Mullan, Shaun Evans and Katie Lyons

Boy A is a heartbreaking drama about a child criminal (Andrew Garfield), who, after 14 years, is released back into society to start again. In the opening scene, we are introduced to the two main characters, the child criminal, now 24, and his fatherly caseworker, Terry. We are thrown into the story with practically no exposition. Straight away, Terry (Peter Mullan) tells "Boy A" he can name himself. After some consideration, he settles on the name Jack. He must assume a new identity to avoid a life of scrutiny and danger. There are people out there who would like to exact revenge. He starts his new life in Manchester, he gets a job with some sort of shipping company. He loads the company van with packages and delivers them around town. This will come into play later, in a powerful and important scene, when Jack discovers a car that skidded off the road. He frequently meets with Terry to discuss his reintegration into a normal life as well as his coming to terms with his past.

As the movie goes on, we see flashbacks to Jack's childhood leading up to the incident that lead to his incarceration. We see him as a passive boy, who's best friend, Phillip, is a budding sociopath. We learn early on that Phillip took his own life from the guilt. Soon we discover they murdered a little girl, but it is not until the end of the film that we see what happened. Even then, we don't see the actual murder. Jack is portrayed as a broken but well-meaning person with a nearly unbearable weight on his shoulders. He does, however, make friends at work despite his social awkwardness. He even gets a girlfriend, Michelle, played by Katie Lyons. They begin to fall in love, he and his friends become close and he becomes somewhat of a town hero. Of course, we know this can't last.

It's surprising how long it does last, percentage wise, in the plot of this film. The major conflict emerges late in Boy A. Once it arrives, what has been a thoughtful but slow film becomes fast-paced and devastating. Unfortunately, in society, a person can end up being defined by one action, one mistake. That is the case here. We see Jack as not just ordinary but a valuable member of the community, certainly not as a murderer. That is the point of Boy A, that Jack as an adult is responsible and kind hearted, and not the killer he was sentenced as. Of course taking a life is nothing short of horrific, but he was a child then. Now Jack has become the victim, and the inner struggle is too much to bear.

I was unsure of Boy A early on, especially because it relied so much on Andrew Garfield's performance. Thankfully, Garfield ends up being successful in creating his sympathetic, tortured character. Peter Mullan is also very good as Terry, bringing just the right amount of charm and sincerity to the role. They are both instantly likable on screen, and their relationship is one of the most interesting things in the movie. Katie Lyons is another endearing personality that helps the film's cautious pace work.

John Crowley's direction allows the movie to take it's time with each detail to develop every scene carefully. He knows he must present Jack as a believable human being or the film's point is lost. The sensual scenes between Jack and Michelle are masterful and achieve a level of realism in their relationship. I was disappointed that Crowley decided not to show the murder, which would have contributed a lot to the film. It's almost cheating to do so, it makes it too easy to be on Jack's side. A more fair film would have let us see the crime. I think Boy A could have been more provocative if they did.

The movie is rather slow but it pays off late, when the levee breaks. I was deeply affected by the ending, one of the more memorable sequences in movies this year. I don't think I can recommend this to all casual moviegoers, but if you're patient it's worth it. Or, if you are someone who believes strongly in second chances, you will believe strongly in Boy A.

Pineapple Express

New Movie Review.


Written by Evan Goldberg & Seth Rogen
Directed by David Gordon Green
Starring Seth Rogen, James Franco & Danny McBride


The latest Apatow production is Pineapple Express, a stoner action comedy starring Freaks & Geeks alumni Seth Rogen and James Franco. For those who don't know what Freaks & Geeks is, find out and watch it. It was how these guys got their start, discovered by Judd Apatow himself. It's great to see Rogen and Franco on screen together again, and it's especially great to see Franco doing comedy again. Rogen wrote the script alongside his childhood best friend Evan Goldberg, with whom he wrote Superbad. The story follows Dale Denton (Rogen) and his drug dealer Saul Silver (James Franco) on the run from some very bad people including a drug kingpin (Gary Cole) and a corrupt lady cop (Rosie Perez). Dale witnessed a murder and left his "Pineapple Express" joint he purchased from Saul at the scene. Ted Jones, the drug kingpin, discovers the joint, identifies it as the rare Pineapple Express which only Saul Silver sells and the chase begins.

From start to finish this movie is very fun, hilarious and even a bit sweet. The story of the budding relationship between drug dealer and buyer here is sincere. We see them go from virtual strangers to best friends, and it's very believable. The characters are also quite endearing. Saul is obviously very lonely and spends his time in his apartment watching TV, when Dale initially comes over just to buy some weed, Saul tries to get him to stay to hang out. Franco gives one of the better performances of the year by completely sinking into the character and making him a sympathetic, lovable person. Quite simply, James Franco is the best part of Pineapple Express. Dale is a 25 year-old process server who is in a relationship with a high school senior. Early on, we see him visit Angie (a very well acted small part by Amber Heard) in between classes. Interrupting their conversation is a high school jock who seems to have the hots for Angie, making Dale very uncomfortable. Dale is obviously insecure and Rogen brings a really sweet quality to his character instead of making him seem pathetic. Seth Rogen isn't exactly a method actor, but for what he does, he may be the best. When it comes to line delivery, improv and just the right amount of realism, Rogen is the man. The comedic chemistry between these two actors is undeniably awesome. A comic duo for the ages that hopefully will be reunited again.

The supporting cast is very good, but I don't see what the big deal is about Danny McBride. He plays Red, a middleman between Saul and Ted, who has to decide whether to sell out his friend or join him. Now, the character is kind of funny and he gets some great lines, but whenever he showed up in the movie, I kind of wish he didn't so we could have more Rogen on Franco only action. Craig Robinson and Kevin Corrigan are great and make their two characters, a pair of hit men after our heroes, more interesting than one might expect. Bill Hader pops up (when doesn't he?) as well. The film opens with a black & white flashback to when the US government was first testing marijuana. Hader is very funny as the guy who gets to test the weed.

The screenplay here is not as solid or laugh heavy as Goldberg and Rogen's Superbad, but it does deliver. However, there are some disappointing, major flaws. First of all, the movie works best when it's somewhat grounded in realism. I'm not saying get rid of the action or car chases, but a specific scene comes to mind. There's a point where Dale goes to Angie's house to have dinner with her family. It goes about as bad as possible, as the parents figure out Dale is stoned. What doesn't work, is the dad gets furious and grabs his gun, and fires it at Dale, seemingly trying to kill him. This bizarre act is so over the top I was taken right out of the movie. Before that point in the film, my subconscious was dreaming of handing out another perfect score to the Apatow clan. The next flaw is a scary one as it is a sign of weak writing. The wonderful subplot that is the love story of Dale and Angie is left unfinished. One of the best parts of the whole movie is a phone call between the two of them, but it ends up being the last we hear of that storyline. It's an unforgivable lazy mistake to leave that open-ended, especially when one more scene would have been enough and it could have been one of the more affecting moments of Pineapple Express. Luckily, this movie has more successes than shortcomings so we can try and forget the bad, but no one can claim this movie is perfect.

Uber-talented indie director David Gordon Green made an unexpected career move by signing on to do this film. Thank the heavens he did, because he was the perfect choice for Pineapple Express. He has a real eye for comedy and brings the film up a level of credibility and quality. He and director of photography Tim Orr made this movie look beautiful and even sophisticated. Whether it's Dale trying to drive out of a tight parking spot, or Saul doing the worm, it all looks a little better than it should. It's a rare occurrence having such an artistic director do this, but I hope to see it again. I also hope that the mainstream exposure will help Green be noticed as one of the better directors working today.

Pineapple Express is not on the level of the Apatow classics (The 40 Year-Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall) but it's still better than nearly all else in the world of comedies today. It is a lot of fun, with memorable lead performances and a little heart and sincerity which helps make it one of the best comedies of the year.

My Winnipeg

New Movie Review.

Written & Directed by Guy Maddin
Starring Ann Savage, Amy Stewart, Brendan Cade, Wesley Cade

Guy Maddin's My Winnipeg is a surreal mix of fact and fantasy in the form of a documentary. It follows writer/director Maddin's bizarre decision to reenact his childhood in Winnipeg, a place he claims to have never left. He states at the beginning of the picture that his goal is to move on and finally leave Winnipeg. Easier said than done, it seems, as we see him on a never ending train ride out of town throughout the film. He has hired actors to play his family. His two brothers, one who would die at 16, his sister, his mother and even his chihuahua (now replaced with his girlfriend's pug). Oddly, in the film, he claims the actress playing his mother is actually his mom who agreed to do the project, but it is an actress by the name of Ann Savage. This is the type of deception you are subjected to during My Winnipeg. Maddin, who narrates nearly the entire 80 minutes, spins stories of his youth as well as Winnipeg's. The tricky thing is, sometimes the stories seem a little far-fetched, while some stories are very believable and in fact true. It becomes obvious he is embellishing or perhaps completely making things up. However, it doesn't matter that some things are fact and others are fiction, because they're all true. What do I mean? That's as hard to explain as the movie itself.

The type of stories you'll hear are how, after a stable fire at a racetrack, horses fled into a river and froze to death, with their heads above the ice. The townspeople would visit the dead horses for romantic walks and picnics. Or how Maddin himself, was born in the dressing room at the Winnipeg arena during a hockey game. Whether he was actually born there during the game isn't the point, he was born with hockey coursing through his veins.

I have to mention that this is the first and only Guy Maddin film I have seen. More specifically, all in one day, I discovered who he was, that he has made great films, that My Winnipeg was playing downtown and now I'm writing this review. I am now compelled to seek out all his previous work, in the hope of finding the same originality and flare evident here. My Winnipeg is such a fantastic breath of fresh air to enjoy amongst summer blockbusters. A reminder that convention is the enemy and that artistry and depth are to be valued more than explosions and one-liners. That success isn't always making a movie that people want but making a movie the film maker is driven to make. Maddin shoots his film in black and white, with a silent film era-like nostalgia, and mixes it with historical archive footage. The result is a very unified, potent look that makes for one of the most memorable visual experiences to be had in a movie theatre this year.

Guy Maddin's narration is pitch-perfect. His voice is commanding but gentle, and he weaves in and out of dreamlike prose in a hypnotizing manner. He makes sure to repeat himself. "Winnipeg...Winnipeg...Winnipeg". He describes Winnipeg as a sleepy place. "...It has 10 times the sleepwalking rate of any other city". As he repeats this, we see him dozing on the train. We become mesmerized. It is clear he has issues with family. The portrayal of his mother is sometimes frightening. This is a very personal work, but strangely it feels universal. He guides us through his history and we relate and recall our own.

My Winnipeg is very much a meditation on memory. Maddin describes his unique childhood home to us, but admits it always changes shape and size in his dreams. However, it's still his home. The whole fact vs. fiction thing is very much a recurring theme. The film is also an examination of how where we come from shapes the person we will become. This is a thought I had previously dismissed, but this movie has caused to me to reconsider. It isn't necessarily the specific location that affects us, although it is a factor, but rather the idiosyncrasies that subtly creep into our essence. Everything in this film is somehow relevant to Maddin's self. Even though the history of Winnipeg recounted here is occasionally before his time, it is in his blood.

My Winnipeg reminds me of last year's I'm Not There (the Bob Dylan bio-pic) in that they are both unorthodox deconstructions of a human being. This is a much better movie though. It is very, very funny, particularly in the early-going. By the end it is also cold, lonely and sad. It is also some of the finest film making I've seen this or in any recent year.

Just A Quick Notice...

It has been brought to my attention that because I don't necessarily put movie titles in the titles of my reviews that it is difficult to navigate the archives of The Bronze. So, for now on the title will simply be the title of what film I am reviewing. I will go back and change the old titles as well.

Tropic Thunder

Advanced Movie Review.



Written by Ben Stiller, Justin Theroux and Etan Cohen
Directed by Ben Stiller
Starring Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Nick Nolte, Jay Burachel, Brandon T. Jackson and Tom Cruise

Tropic Thunder is the latest blockbuster comedy from Ben Stiller. Packed with stars, the movie follows a group of prima donna actors filming a war epic. There’s Ben Stiller’s character, Speedman, a washed up action star who tried to go serious by playing a mentally handicapped character in his last film. Unfortunately, it was considered the worst film & performance of all time, as Robert Downey Jr.’s character puts it, for going “full retard”. Never go full retard. Downey Jr. plays a renowned Australian eccentric actor (its nice to hear him put on his flawless accent he used in Natural Born Killers), Kirk Lazarus, with previous awards a plenty. Jack Black plays a successful comedian, "Fats", who gained fame from from a “Nutty Professor” like franchise. The rest of the cast is rounded out by a nerdy Jay Burachel as Kevin and rap mogul sensation Alpa Cino (played by Brandon T. Jackson), the face of popular beverage “Booty Sweat”. All the egos start to get in the way, and first time director Damien has to make a change. With increased pressure from an insane studio exec played by Tom Cruise, Damien turns to Nick Nolte's character, the writer of the book the film is based on. He suggests to shoot the movie guerilla style by rigging cameras in the jungle and putting the actors in the middle of an authentic war situation. The director agrees, and the fun begins.

The somewhat one-joke premise is silly and although funny at first, a bit stale. Ben Stiller’s directing is a mixed bag. He occasionally shoots it all wrong, treating it like it’s an actual war epic, thus draining the humour out of some short sequences. It simply does not always work. Luckily his script is funny and contain enough surprises throughout to keep it interesting. A big surprise is the unadvertised performance from Tom Cruise.

Cruise is pretty much pegged as a nut case these days and there’s a lot of hating going on (from me included) but his character is a big highlight of Tropic Thunder. I'm not going to claim that Cruise's career is revived just like that but Ben Stiller may have single-handedly gave him a good head start for doing so. Every scene he is in is magic, yelling with raging lunacy. This begs the question why is Tom Cruise only great when playing a crazy person? Think Magnolia, people. Cruise's memorable role culminates with, perhaps, the best end credits I have ever seen. Ben Stiller is good as the lead, but doesn't do anything interesting. Not like Robert Downey Jr., anyways. Downey Jr.'s character, Kirk, actually dyes his skin black to take on the role of an African-American. The ensuing performance is one of the best of the year. He has always been a great actor, but with his parts in Iron Man and Tropic Thunder he should be propelled to the highest pinnacle of fame, and deservedly so. Jack Black is great as always, especially once "Fats" starts going through withdrawal after losing his drugs. It's very nice to see Jay Burachel in the middle of this star-studded cast. I've personally followed his career since he was on "My Hometown" and "Popular Mechanics For Kids". He was great in the Judd Apatow creation, Undeclared, and more recently in Apatow's Knocked Up. He is very good here, and doesn't get too overshadowed by the bigger personalities. The entire supporting cast is superb, especially Bill Hader, who seems to be getting in bit parts in every second comedy released.

This movie is certainly hit and miss, the premise wears thin after a while but the performances continue to excel. There are a few good laughs throughout and Downey Jr. and Cruise are reason enough to see Tropic Thunder. There are a couple better choices out there, but if you've seen them already there's no good excuse to skip this one.

The Dark Knight

New Movie Review.

Oh, come on, The Dark Knight gets 3 photos

Written by Christopher & Jonathan Nolan
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Starring Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Micheal Caine & Morgan Freeman

OK. The wait is over, and I need to get this out of the way right now...The Dark Knight is not perfect. Oh, oops, sorry, actually it is. All those with seemingly unsatisfiable expectations, you needn't worry. I, like many, have been waiting for this sequel for over three years, but it wasn't until the movie started that I realized I didn't truly know what I was waiting for. The Heath Ledger (I'll get to him later) hype had occupied my mind more than anything else, and it kept me from completely understanding what I was expecting. I did know that I expected an improvement on Batman Begins, an excellent movie to begin with, but The Dark Knight surpasses it's predecessor in every aspect by prodigious margins.

Batman (Christian Bale) has been on The Joker's (Heath Ledger) tail for a while and with the help of good friend Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) as well as the newly appointed D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), they hope to take the insane criminal mastermind down. Dent may be the only man, not wearing a bat costume, that's brave enough to take down crime at any cost, to protect Gotham city. Things are not so simple however as The Joker threatens to kill more and more unless The Batman reveals his true identity. How Batman/Bruce Wayne, as well as those close to him, will react to this disastrous situation is fascinating. To make matters worse, every time a step in the right direction is taken towards putting a stop to the Joker's madness, it is revealed that those steps are apart of the Joker's grand plan. I do not want to spoil anything, so I will not go into specific details, but the events unravel in tragic, devastating ways.

Christopher Nolan has crafted the perfect Batman story. This is the best single tale in the extensive Batman mythos. I have trouble imagining a better movie or comic book ever coming to be (never say never). Needlessly to say this is the best shot movie of the year and then some. Nolan appropriately highlights the explosions and various action. More importantly he magnifies the small character moments, getting us so emotionally involved we forget we are watching a movie. Surprisingly, he creates his most suspenseful film and in the most dire of scenes, we actually lose our nerves (in a good way). He does what great directors aspire to do, but it's a rare happenstance, Nolan grabs his audience early on and never lets go. He commands us, we bend to his will. This is the epitome of masterful film making. The screenplay is full of surprises and daring decisions. The story unfolds in an epic fashion, a crime-drama of the highest quality. Important events are scattered through the beginning, middle and end, always at just the right time. The script has it's humour, but less so than Begins. Knight is relentlessly dark and bleak, it contains the strongest of moral complexities. Yes, Batman is forced to make tough decisions, but so do many key characters as well as all the citizens of Gotham. How would you react? At one point The Joker puts a televised hit out on a character. He threatens to blow up a hospital if that character is not dead in 60 minutes. There are no easy answers to the dilemmas contained herein and the consequential soul-searching is not always pleasant. Overall, the dialog is a lot tighter, another factor in making The Dark Knight so believable we find ourselves lost within it.

Of course the acting is tremendous. The supporting cast is flawless, providing one of the deeper casts of characters in recent memory. Leading the way is Aaron Eckhart, who plays his character perfectly, with just the right amount of emotion and complexity. Harvey Dent is one of my favourite characters from the comic books, and it is very pleasing to see him get a proper treatment. Also of note, Maggie Gyllenhaal replaces Katie Holmes (one of very few downsides to Batman Begins) as Rachel Dawes, and is much better and therefore much less distracting than Holme's
sub-par, boring, unlikeable performance. Two wonderful actors, Micheal Caine and Morgan Freeman, get much less screen time this go-around. This is most appropriate because it is hard not to smile when they are in frame, and The Dark Knight ain't meant to be too smiley. Gary Oldman continues his brilliant job as the endearing, admirable Lt. Jim Gordon. Oldman brings a kindness as well as a respectable matureness to the role and it is a terrific effort.

Christian Bale brings the true Batman of the comic books to life. He embodies The Dark Knight like none before him, and it's hard to imagine anyone else ever taking the part. Bale is fierce, confident, conflicted, and powerful as Batman. His "bat rasp" is put to even better use, he strikes fear in his enemies as well as the audience. As Bruce Wayne, Bale is arrogant and incontrovertibly intelligent. He gives his character such an intricate level of substance that it's difficult not to think Oscar. I truly think Christian Bale is one of the better actors working today. He could play anything. He could take the most serious award-contending roles, which he sometimes does do, but here he takes a character that has been degraded in the past and manages to turn it into a most serious award-contending role. This is surprising to some, but for an avid reader of the source material, it is nothing short of necessary to make the movies as great as they should be.

Now for what I assume everyone is curious about, Heath Ledger's invention of The Joker. The late Ledger was already an accomplished actor with such brilliant turns in, among others, Monster's Ball, Brokeback Mountain and I'm Not There. But here is his master work. His performance is nothing short of awe-inspiring, to put it in perspective, it is of Daniel Day-Lewis quality. Ledger's Joker is menacing, horrifying, thunderous and darkest of dark. Some scenes, and you can certainly credit the writing and directing for this, are unexpectedly terrifying. I really want to get the point across that this is the most frightening, haunting and harrowing picture of the year, and that Heath Ledger deserves infinite praise for making it so. He absolutely disappears into the character, like few in the trade can, there is no trace of him in the film. The unforgettable, hostilely enigmatic performance is, in my mind, a no-brainer to win the Supporting Actor Oscar. I would be very disappointed otherwise. Though it is hard to escape the movie without being disappointed. We have lost an immensely talented actor, who would have had a long, magnificent career.

The Dark Knight is not comic-booky at all. It is ironic that the actual comic books the movie is based on are not "comic-booky" either. It is unfortunate that such a limitless medium is seen in such a specific way by those who have not discovered it's possibilities. The movie is assuredly not as simple as good versus evil, but rather an examination of what good and evil really are and if they even exist. An elaborate meditation on right and wrong. A piece of extraordinary depth. This is why we go to the movies: To be moved, challenged, surprised and entertained. The Dark Knight is a crime-drama on par with the greatest works in the genre (Scorsese, Mann, Coppola). It is also, quite easily in fact, the greatest superhero film of all-time. Most importantly, it is one of the better motion pictures to ever grace the sacred silver screen.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

New Movie Review.

Instead of an image of the hero, marvel at one of the film's many awe-inspiring creatures

Directed by Guillermo Del Toro
Written by Guillermo Del Toro
Starring Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, Doug Jones

Four years after the original, Hellboy is back, and although there wasn't a lot of demand for a sequel, it proves to be a welcome addition to the list of summer 2008 blockbusters. This time around, "Red" has to stop an ancient mythical prince from summoning The Golden Army, an indestructible force of 70 times 70 mechanical warriors to take back the world that was once his. Whatever, the plot isn't really important. It just works as a vessel for visionary director Guillermo Del Toro to work his remarkable imagination. And he does.

The first Hellboy seemed impressive in 2004, but it visually pales in comparison to The Golden Army. From start to finish there are dozens of breathtaking creatures that raise the bar of fantasy. The sequel is a lot more rooted in fantasy/fairy tale territory than typical superhero stuff. Which is a good thing because Del Toro knows a few things about fantasy and fairy tales, he directed the masterpiece Pan's Labyrinth. For example, in a brilliant early scene, Hellboy and his team encounter hundreds of little "tooth fairies", vicious little killers who have a habit of stealing their victim's teeth. Or when the team infiltrate the "Troll Market", a place for the things that go bump in the night to shop, which may actually top the Tatooine bar scene in the first Star Wars film. A couple delightful surprises wait there, and I wont spoil them. Or when the prince throws a harmless looking green jumping bean at Hellboy, that once it finds water, becomes something rather spectacular, maybe even beautiful. Like Pan's Labyrinth, the film has a way of balancing makeup/costume effects with CGI. The result is authentic looking creatures that completely engross you into the movie's reality. Why other directors don't instate such style is quite the mystery to me.

The characters are all back, aside from Myers, which admittedly disappointed me...Until the Seth McFarlane (Family Guy) voiced Johan Krauss was introduced. A brilliant addition to the team, he seems to be a gas-like entity contained in some strange suit. His ability? He can possess inanimate objects, a power that will ultimately be underused because it's way too useful. Hellboy is up to his old smoking cigars/petting kittens/pissing off authority antics, as well as some new ones as well (a duet of Barry Manilow between Red and Abe Sapien may occur). Ron Perlman enthusiastically continues his great performance with just the right mix of brawn and sensitivity, making Hellboy very endearing. Del Toro regular Doug Jones (played multiple creature parts in Pan's Labyrinth) does triple duty as the more interesting this time around Abe Sapien as well as the film's two best creatures, The Chamberlain and The Angel of Death. Selma Blair again fails to impress as Liz, but the writing for her character isn't necessarily very strong. Jeffrey Tambor of Arrested Development gets more screen time but not more to do. He's still grouchy and only there for minor conflict and a couple weak laughs.

The characters are fun, and certainly are a big part of the experience, but it's the visuals that make this really worth seeing. Del Toro goes no holds-barred this time around, and it's sure to get any Lord of the Rings geek excited for his upcoming adaptation of The Hobbit. The plot is a bit trivial and the storytelling isn't up to the par of Del Toro's best work. The Hellboy films feel more like a mix of Pan's Labyrinth and Men In Black than a typical superhero movie. I wouldn't rank them amongst Iron Man, the Spiderman films (well, maybe #3) or the new Batman movies but it really isn't cut from the same cloth anyhow. So, striking visually, a bit weak story-wise, but a fun summer movie I highly recommend.

Hancock

New Movie Review.



Directed by Peter Berg
Written by Vy Vincent Ngo & Vince Gilligan
Starring Will Smith, Jason Bateman & Charlize Theron

Hancock is the latest Will Smith blockbuster. It follows a disgruntled drunkard, John Hancock (Will Smith), with super powers who tends to cause just as much trouble as he stops. For example, when he saves a man from getting hit by a train, Hancock causes a train wreck. It doesn't help that every time he makes an entrance by landing in a street and ruining the road. The people of L.A. have taken notice, and would rather Hancock disappeared and left the city alone. Luckily, it just so happens the man, Ray (Jason Bateman), who was saved from the train is in Public Relations and wants to help shed a new light on Hancock. The two work together on Hancock's image and become friends. Ray has a wife, Mary (Charlize Theron), who is apprehensive of her husband's new friend. Her motives are mysterious and come up later in the film.

The movie's story is somewhat interesting but is average at best. The initial plot is shallow, and when it attempts to deepen in the questionable third act, it fails in a big way. The writing is amateurish and perhaps even laughable. Despite this, I'm giving Hancock an ever so slightly positive review.

Peter Berg's direction is an odd decision for such a silly action comedy, but it ends up being one of the saving graces. I'm a big fan of Berg's unique and very recognizable style that helped make Friday Night Lights my favourite sports film of all time. With last year's The Kingdom, an unfairly bashed flick, his style once again put emphasis on the smallest emotional moments. He is able to highlight the emotional moments in this movie as well, which is ridiculous because the movie does not earn it's audience over in that way. Still, when Berg does his thing it's hard not to feel anything. The other saving grace is the acting.

Will Smith is very good as usual, and it's fun to see him play a character with a bit more edge instead of copping out Tom Hanks style by only playing audience pleasing roles. Smith cusses and disses with an admirable ease while still subtly having that nice guy just below the surface. Jason Bateman is also a big highlight of the movie, adding his comic style he used in Arrested Development and Juno. He makes his character funny, sympathetic and very likable. Charlize Theron also does a good job here but she a brings a serious element that seems out of place.

The performances are very good and in the case of Smith and Bateman, very fun. The story may be forgettable, but Peter Berg's directing, even if it is out of place, helps make this a fun blockbuster. Certainly not a movie that needs to be seen, but it's an enjoyable way to spend a couple hours on a summer night.