12 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(12/07/05 12:00pm)
In "Walk the Line," Joaquin Phoenix plays country music legend Johnny Cash, an infinitely talented man marred by his own obsessions. The film follows Cash from his humble beginnings on his family's farm in Arkansas to his celebrated concert inside the walls of Folsom Prison in California. It is a beautiful tribute to the life and music of an immensely gifted, yet deeply complicated, man.
Despite being an outstanding artist, Cash was also an adulterer and an addict. To its credit, director James Mangold's film doesn't pull any punches for the sake of its main character. Instead, it paints a full and accurate picture of a talented man struggling to cope with his many vices.
In that vein, the film's storyline bares many obvious similarities to last year's Ray Charles biopic, "Ray." Both men were famous musicians and both were shaken at an early age by the loss of a brother. Each man also battled serious drug addiction throughout his career.
The main difference between Charles and Cash was Cash's obsessive personality. Blamed by his father for the death of his brother, Cash wanted to do nothing more than make his dad proud of him. Throughout his life, he tried unsuccessfully to earn his father's praise. His vehicle became music, the only thing he ever really knew he was good at.
Cash was also obsessed with his future wife, June Carter (Reese Witherspoon), years before he even met her. He admired her music as a young boy, and when he finally met her he would stop at nothing to have her. Over a period of more than a decade, Cash risked his wife and family in an attempt to win her over.
Cash and Carter had a special bond from the start. They both came from strict Christian homes and both had to deal with scorn for defying the principles of their religion. Cash attempted to begin his music career by singing gospel music. When he realized he would never be signed that way, he didn't hesitate to change his style by catering to prisoners and singing about more risqu? material.
Carter went through two divorces - more than a sin in the 1950s. Carter and Cash related to each other remarkably well, yet Carter was caught in a moral dilemma and refused Cash's advances.
The struggles during this courtship - combined with the guilt Cash felt because of his father - manifested themselves as his third obsession, a dangerous addiction to prescription pills. As Cash got caught up in the celebrity life, he sank deeper and deeper into depression and addiction.
Phoenix captures this side of Cash perfectly, engaging the audience from the beginning and never letting go. His performance - easily the best of his career - isn't an imitation; it's a work of art. Phoenix captures every nuance and movement that made Cash the man he was.
If it's even possible, Witherspoon is one step better as June Carter. She lights up the screen with every word, matching Phoenix's fervor. The pair has a staggering chemistry on the screen, which helps in creating an immensely believable and engaging love story.
As if that wasn't enough, both Phoenix and Witherspoon took things a step further by doing their own singing for the film. Who knew the girl from "Legally Blond" could belt out a country song like that? Even if you're not a fan of country music - and admittedly, I'm not - every song in "Walk the Line" is appealing and fun.
While "Walk the Line" is certainly carried to success on the shoulders of its two main performances, it's still not a perfect film. At times, Mangold has a problem managing the narrative flow. At one point, a single day is explored in a half hour. At another point, eight years fly by in a two-minute montage.
"Walk the Line" is also more about the strength of its actors, and less about giving the viewer a stunning product to look at. There's nothing special about the visuals here, but nothing detrimental either. Mangold, directing his sixth feature film, seems to just be going through the motions here and sticking to the same generic biopic style we've seen so many times before.
Still, no minor details can take away what Phoenix and Witherspoon have done here. Without a doubt, they'll be at the Kodak Theatre in March for the Academy Awards. Carter - who passed away in May 2003 - and Cash - who followed four months later - would have been very proud of the tribute that has been brought to the screen.
(12/07/05 12:00pm)
As winter break approaches, some of the best movies of 2005 are on their way as well. Here are a few of the films you might want to check out during the break.
"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" - Dec. 9
In this adaptation of the classic CS Lewis novel, four children come across a mysterious wardrobe that leads to a magical land called Narnia. The land is ruled by the malicious White Witch, who has cast upon it a never-ending winter. In order to defeat the Witch and free Narnia, the four children must join forces with the god of Narnia, a Lion named Aslan.
Aslan is voiced by Liam Neeson and the film is sprinkled with first-rate special effects. Oscar-nominated composer Harry Gregson-Williams has provided a powerful score to accompany the visuals.
"King Kong" - Dec. 14
With "King Kong," Peter Jackson is bringing a childhood dream to the screen. When he was just nine years old, Jackson was inspired by the original 1933 "King Kong." Now, the director of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is updating the film with his special effects prowess. The film is still set in the 1930s, but today's advances in effects combined with the timeless story has set the stage for a memorable film.
"King Kong" follows filmmaker Carl Denham (Jack Black) and his crew as they travel to a mysterious island to shoot their new movie. They soon find out that a legendary beast lives among the island's natives, and he has a particular penchant for Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), Denham's leading lady.
"Munich" - Jan. 6
This film is set in the aftermath of the 1972 Munich Olympics, where 11 Israeli athletes were murdered by Palestinian terrorists. After the killings, an Israeli Mossad agent (Eric Bana) is hired to systematically kill each of the Palestinian terrorists involved.
"Munich" is directed by Steven Spielberg, and many already consider it a frontrunner for the Best Picture award at the Oscars in March, despite the fact that it hasn't even been released yet. The combination of Spielberg's direction and the explosive political material could spell a huge success.
"The Producers" - Jan. 13
Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick star in this adaptation of the 2001 Broadway hit. "The Producers" won 12 Tony Awards that year, including a Best Actor award for Lane. The story follows a down-on-his-luck producer (Lane) and his accountant (Broderick), who come up with a scheme to profit from a Broadway flop. When their sure-fire disaster, "Springtime for Hitler," is actually a surprise success, they find themselves in way over their heads.
"The Producers" actually originated in 1968 and starred Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel in the title roles. It wasn't a musical back then, but the original film can be found on many lists of the greatest comedies of all time.
"The New World" - Jan. 13
Here, acclaimed director Terrance Malick returns for just his fifth film in 36 years. "The New World" stars Colin Farrell as John Smith and introduces Q'Orianka Kilcher as Pocahontas in a new twist on the classic story.
The film deals with Smith and his fellow explorers as they clash with the Native Americans during the settlement in the 17th century. Besides trailers and posters, details about this film have been kept largely under wraps. It has the potential to go either way upon its release.
Others to watch for: "Brokeback Mountain," "Match Point," "Memoirs of a Geisha."
(11/30/05 12:00pm)
You would think that with four movies and three directors, the "Harry Potter" series would lose its way somewhere. Yet somehow, each installment has managed to stay consistent in terms of style, while bringing just the right tone to the screen.
The fourth addition, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," is no different, despite the presence of yet another new director. It succeeds in every way, surpassing the first three Potter films on the shoulders of its intense story.
In 2000, Chris Columbus was tapped to handle Harry's early years. With "The Sorcerer's Stone" and "The Chamber of Secrets," he succeeded in creating a successful, kid-friendly atmosphere. Harry's initial endeavors were perilous to be sure, yet they had an endearing and light quality to them, as was the intention. After all, Harry was still a young boy.
For "The Prisoner of Azkaban," the third chapter of the series, Columbus was replaced by Alfonso Cuar?n. Despite the reservations of some fans, Cuar?n proved his worth. As Harry's story got darker, so did the look of the world around him.
The story gets even gloomier in "Goblet of Fire," as Harry's latest director, Mike Newell, expands further on Cuar?n's vision. A veteran television director with a few successful film credits, Newell wasn't the consensus' choice to direct, but he has certainly shown he has what it takes. This sequel definitely earned its PG-13 rating.
"Goblet of Fire" follows Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) during his fourth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. In this year, Hogwarts has the honor of hosting the legendary Triwizard Tournament, where students from three rival schools battle in a series of increasingly challenging competitions.
The competitors are chosen by the Goblet of Fire, a magical, flaming chalice that spits out the name of one individual from each school. An apparent glitch causes the impossible to happen, and an underage Harry is chosen as a second representative from Hogwarts. From there, he is thrust into a fierce competition for eternal glory. It is a contest he is not ready to - and does not want to - compete in.
"Goblet of Fire" - which runs about two and a half hours - starts slowly, picks up speed and then never hits the brakes until the credits roll. Newell and his colleagues are bordering on epic filmmaking here, and they should be commended for their efforts. The special effects are flawless and the performances are pitch-perfect. Everything about this one feels big, even Harry himself, who is visibly in the middle of his transition from young boy to adolescent to adult.
The same can also be said for his friends, Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson). Hermione must deal with newfound sexuality and her affection for a Quidditch star named Viktor Krum (Stanislav Ianevski). Ron struggles with his jealousy when Harry is selected for the Triwizard Tournament. Harry has trouble battling with his ever-growing adult responsibilities, especially with the return of the evil Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) lingering.
It's these issues that are the heart of the film. At its core, the "Harry Potter" series is all just an elaborate coming-of-age story.
And with any coming-of-age story, the point is to actually watch the characters "come of age." With four movies down and three to go, the executives at Warner Brothers need to be wary of allowing any major changes in the cast, regardless of monetary issues. Yes, they've proven that a new director doesn't necessarily mean doom for the series, but imagine a different actor playing Harry or Ron. It would ruin the continuity of a saga that is seemingly gaining more strength with each consecutive film.
Several franchises are set to have this casting problem in the near future - most notably "Spider-Man," after the release of its third movie in 2007. As for "Harry Potter," Radcliffe is signed on to star in the adaptation of J.K. Rowling's fifth book, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." After that, nothing is certain. He has said before that he may feel the need to explore other roles. Other members of the cast could feel the same way as the years go by.
Still, if the producers can manage to keep the principal cast intact for the entire series, the "Harry Potter" franchise could end as one of the greatest cinematic achievements in history. Never has a series of books been so closely adapted, featuring continuity with nearly the entire cast. If "Goblet of Fire" is any indication, Potter fans have a lot to look forward to.
(11/16/05 12:00pm)
I'm not about to discuss the recent election. That's for the editorial page to do. Instead, I'm going to discuss how people of any party can create a collection out of political campaign memorabilia.
First, a brief history. If you think modern-day politics are bad, with negative commercials and mudslinging all over the place, they are nothing compared to the campaigns of the 19th century, where blatantly offensive attacks on opponents were standard.
From a collectible point of view, political campaign items are desirable for several reasons. First of all, they are only produced for a limited amount of time. It is easy to date campaign memorabilia because of the candidates, especially the losing ones. Second, because elections are always taken very seriously, there is usually a lot of visually interesting material produced. Third, and probably most important, is that collectors of these items are preserving American history, and the fact that the election process is still very important in the United States today brings together eras long past with the present.
Am I saying that all the Corzine or Forrester stuff is going to be valuable someday? Not necessarily. Usually, items become more valuable when the candidates have more of an impact on society. If Corzine someday decides to run for president, the "Corzine for Governor" (and especially "Corzine for Senate") stuff will definitely be more valuable. I'm not saying this from a Democratic point of view, I'm saying this from a collector's point of view.
But as far as investing, if you can get your hands on older political campaign memorabilia, you'll be putting money in a good place. Material for candidates like Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt has always been desirable. In the case of Lincoln, such an iconic figure of American history, not a lot of campaign material was produced, especially in the 1864 campaign when America was in the throes of the Civil War.
If you are serious about starting a collection, get a hold of "Encyclopedia of Political Buttons" by Ted Hake. This wonderful guide will give you an idea of what is out there in the way of political collectibles and an idea of value. If you don't want to spend a lot of money, don't worry. Let's say you want to get a William McKinley pin for your collection. Some of the more desirable ones can be worth a couple thousand dollars, but you can usually get a really nice example for about 20 bucks.
The other thing to keep in mind with any collectible is not to collect something solely for its value. Be sure to collect something you love. If you are a big Jim Florio fan (I'm making a little joke here, people), there are certainly items from his campaigns. They aren't terribly valuable, but this will allow you to amass an impressive collection for relatively little money.
So before you burn all of your Corzine or Forrester stuff in some voodoo ritual, consider the history you'll be preserving by putting it aside. Maybe, just maybe, this article will inspire something big in my fellow geeks.
(11/09/05 12:00pm)
After a summer full of popcorn flicks - chock full of sound effects and massive explosions - and fall's slate of mediocre films, the time has finally come. As fall transitions into winter, studios will begin rolling out the big guns to compete for Oscar gold in March. This month, one of the first releases with that gold in mind is "Jarhead," a candid look at the first Gulf War in the early '90s.
"Jarhead" is directed by Sam Mendes, who is helming just his third feature film. His first two outings weren't too shabby, though. Two of Mendes' films, 1999's "American Beauty" and 2002's "Road to Perdition" garnered a total of 14 Academy Award nominations and six wins. Not bad for a beginner.
Here, Mendes gets it right again, bringing a visually stunning and genuine story to the screen. "Jarhead" succeeds because it's a different kind of war movie. It's not about what happened in the Gulf War, but rather what didn't happen. It's about training and conditioning for an event that turns out to be completely different from what you imagined it would be.
The screenplay for the film was adapted from Anthony Swofford's memoir of the same name. Swofford spent several months in Iraq during the war as a Marine sniper. The book and the movie recount his experiences from boot camp to Iraq and back again. Although this film adaptation can be a little long-winded at times, it still manages to work on several different levels. It's not action-packed, but that's the point.
During their stint in Iraq, Swofford (Jake Gyllenhaal) and his fellow troops are eager and ready to fight. Inside, though, they're shaking. They're scared of the bombs, the nerve gas and of an untimely death. It's a sharp contrast, and each soldier handles it in his own way. They must all find ways to pass the time in the desert as they wait for the ground war to begin. These scenes are really the heart of the film.
The soldiers do everything you'd expect a soldier in waiting to do. They train, play football, think about home, masturbate and talk about all the killing that's going to happen. But when it doesn't happen, frustration sets in. All the months of training begin to form an itch that they can't scratch. In one emotional scene, Swofford becomes so disillusioned that he threatens to shoot his own friend before finally breaking down.
"Jarhead" is billed as a drama, but it actually comes off as a comedy for its first two-thirds. No matter what the intention, it works either way. There are a lot of truly funny moments in this film as the soldiers interact, but these moments are smartly crossed with some poignant, moving material. To say that Swofford's experiences were memorable ones is certainly an understatement.
Gyllenhaal is excellent in the title role. He's showed before that he's a budding star, but his turn here - along with his much-anticipated work alongside Heath Ledger in the upcoming "Brokeback Mountain" - should establish him as a bankable leading man for a long time.
As Staff Sgt. Sykes, Jamie Foxx proves that his success last year with "Ray" was no fluke. Sure, he'll give you "Stealth" every now and then, but given the right direction and a decent screenplay, Foxx is capable of turning in a fantastic performance. An Oscar nomination for supporting actor isn't out of the question.
One surefire lock for "Jarhead" at the Oscars is in the cinematography category. Mendes has a knack for providing stunning visuals and his previous two films have both won the Oscar for cinematography. Although his previous cinematographer, Conrad Hall, has passed away since "Road to Perdition," Mendes was able to fill the void with Roger Deakins. A veteran cinematographer, Deakins has five Oscar nominations to his own credit.
Now, hopefully, he can make it six. From the staggering sight of the burning oil fields in Kuwait, to the sharp contrast between boot camp and the Iraqi desert, Mendes and Deakins have collaborated to shoot a visual masterpiece. Every scene here is breathtaking.
Combine those visuals with a solid screenplay, top-notch directing and a terrific ensemble cast and you have the first great film of the second half of 2005. Congratulations to Sam Mendes for making it three for three.
(11/02/05 12:00pm)
If you've read any of the pre-release buzz on "Elizabethtown," it's no secret that writer/director Cameron Crowe was having major editing problems with the film as late as last month. He screened it in mid-September at the Toronto Film Festival, but was eager to warn critics that the movie was far from finished. Based on feedback from Toronto and other screenings, he cut almost 18 minutes for the final version.
Unfortunately, the final edit still fails to conceal several major drawbacks in plot and development. For an Oscar-winning screenwriter like Crowe, this could easily have been avoided.
It's sad, because this is a movie you really want to like. Crowe - who wrote and directed both "Jerry Maguire" and "Almost Famous" - based "Elizabethtown" on his own experiences. The film was truly his labor of love, and his effort is certainly present throughout.
But what kills "Elizabethtown" is a lack of focus. During the movie, three separate storylines are vying for position, each overshadowing the other. Each cookie-cutter theme could have been crafted into its own full-length feature, but instead, none of the three is developed to full potential.
First, Drew Baylor (Orlando Bloom) learns of his father's death and must travel to Elizabethtown, Ky. for the memorial service. There, he attempts to come to grips with the fact that he never really got to know his father.
Drew also meets his father's side of the family, in what tries to be a poignant look at small-town family life.
On top of all this, he experiences a budding, romantic comedy-style relationship with a flight attendant named Claire Colburn (Kirsten Dunst). Instead of complimenting each other, the three storylines only manage to fall on top of themselves and cut each other off.
It doesn't help that Bloom and Dunst may have the worst chemistry since Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. Bloom has proven to be serviceable in supporting roles when he gets to carry a bow or a sword, but being a leading man is a very different undertaking.
Dunst hit the jackpot with the "Spiderman" series, where overplaying her character is not only necessary, it's almost a requirement. Here, she can't carry her weight. I still don't know if she was supposed to have an accent or not, since she was fading in and out of one every other scene.
But, as I said before, you really want to like this movie. Even if Crowe fell short on the screenplay this time around, he was still able to direct supporting actress Susan Sarandon to one of the best performances of her career.
Indeed, if "Elizabethtown" has a savior, Sarandon has to be it. Despite only receiving about 15 minutes of screen time, her quirky performance as Drew's mother, Hollie, is a joy to watch. At the memorial service for Drew's father, she gives a show-stopping speech that is easily the best scene of the film. It's a shame she didn't get more opportunities to shine. If Sarandon had better actors to work with and the movie had a more fluid storyline, "Elizabethtown" could have been a great accomplishment.
(10/19/05 12:00pm)
Halloween is quickly approaching and it's time to hit the video store for a few scares. With so many generic slasher flicks lining the shelves these days, it can be hard to pick through the garbage and find some quality movies to satisfy your need for thrills and chills. When in doubt, it's best to stick with the classics. Here are five recommendations for the ultimate Halloween movie marathon:
"The Exorcist" (1973)
Dubbed by many as the scariest movie ever made, "The Exorcist" is so effective because it deals with chilling subject matter that could arguably be considered real. With a stellar cast and countless legendary scenes, this is one for the ages.
In short, "The Exorcist" is the story of a priest (Max von Sydow) who is sanctioned to perform an exorcism on 12-year-old Regan (Linda Blair) after she begins levitating and showing fits of extreme strength associated with demonic possession. While some of the scenes - especially the ones involving bodily functions - may seem a little amusing today, this was standard scare fare back in 1973.
"Halloween" (1978)
This is the movie that started it all. Before "A Nightmare on Elm Street" or "Friday the 13th," John Carpenter's "Halloween" redefined the horror genre and sparked a slasher flick craze that is still alive and well almost three decades later.
This film is the story of Michael Myers, a deranged youth confined to a mental hospital after killing his sister on Halloween night in 1963. Fifteen years later, on Halloween night in 1978, he escapes from the hospital and returns to the town for a killing rampage.
"Halloween" introduced audiences to "scream-queen" Jamie Lee Curtis for the first time, but the real star was Michael Myers, the faceless killer who has starred in six sequels to date with another on the way soon. His blank, white mask - a plaster of Paris of William Shatner's face - sent the message that a killer could be anyone, from anywhere. Nobody is safe from pure evil.
"A Nightmare on Elm Street" (1984)
Wes Craven wasn't a big name in Hollywood by the time 1984 rolled around, but he was getting there. After he wrote and directed "A Nightmare on Elm Street," his fame was never in doubt. In "Nightmare," Craven created another of cinema's iconic characters while preying on one of the deepest human fears.
The main character in this story is Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a brutal child murderer who comes back to life after he is killed by a lynch mob. Years after his death, Krueger returns to terrorize the children of those who killed him. How, you ask, can he return if he is already dead? Actually, it's Krueger's spirit that begins to prey on the teens - in their dreams. When they die in their nightmares, they die in real life.
It all seems silly at first, but watch the original and you'll soon see that Freddy means business. In fact, this is one of the only horror franchises with multiple watchable sequels - six to be exact - and a final installment effective enough to hold up to the original.
"Scream" (1996)
It's the ultimate satire of the horror genre, but it's also a solid film itself. "Scream" proved that Wes Craven still had something left in the tank after "A Nightmare on Elm Street" ran dry. The story - a psychopathic killer stalks a group of teens who like to drink and have sex - is simple, but that's the way it's supposed to be.
"Scream" pays homage to the horror franchises before it, but it isn't afraid to point out the trends or inconsistencies associated with them. The film's main character, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) says it best when she declares "What's the point (of horror movies). They're all the same. Some stupid killer stalking some big-breasted girl who can't act and is always running up the stairs when she should be running out the front door. It's insulting."
This is soon followed by a big-breasted girl who can't act running up the stairs when she should be running out the front door. "Scream" works flawlessly, both as a horror film and as a horror satire, which makes it the perfect slasher flick for our generation.
"Wishmaster" (1997)
For fans of ridiculous, gross-out horror flicks, it doesn't get any better than "Wishmaster." This film was directed by Robert Kurtzman, a veteran special effects supervisor and makeup artist, and it really shows during the many grotesque scenes.
"Wishmaster" deals with a demonic being called the Djinn (Andrew Divoff). His goal is to destroy the human race and rule the earth. However, he can't gain his power until he grants three wishes to the person who wakes him. When he is awoken by a gemologist (Tammy Lauren), the Djinn begins his quest to gain complete entry into our world.
The heart of this movie is when the Djinn begins to grant wishes. Things aren't what they seem for the wishers, as he twists the meaning of their words to create what amounts to a grisly mess. The makeup and gore in this movie is over the top, sometimes funny, but always disturbing. Some of this stuff will stay with you through your Sunday brunch.
- Just Missed The Cut:
"Beetle Juice," "The Blair Witch Project," "Child's Play," "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," "The Mothman Prophecies," "Saw," "The Ring," "Friday the 13th"
(10/12/05 12:00pm)
Al Pacino is one of the greatest actors in film today. Let's start with that, because it's all downhill from here. Pacino should be commended for his efforts to rescue the doomed-from-the-start "Two For The Money," but even he can't save the movie from its horrendous screenplay and amateur direction.
Pacino has been nominated for eight Oscars and took home the award in 1993 for "Scent of a Woman." Unfortunately, after dozens of hits spanning almost four decades, he still makes a mistake now and then when choosing a role. His co-star here, Matthew McConaughey, has made a habit of it. If you don't believe me, check out "Sahara" or "Reign of Fire."
"Two For The Money" is the story of Brandon Lang (McConaughey), an ex-football player with a penchant for picking winners. His journey starts in Las Vegas, where he works at a small-time sports betting hotline, providing tips to America's gambling population. Shortly after the movie's opening, Lang is recruited to work for Walter Abrams (Pacino), the big shot owner of the largest sports betting agency in the nation.
At first, the partnership between Lang and Abrams is flawless. Lang takes on a new moniker, John Anthony, and a new sense of confidence. He is consistent with his picks and the two rake in millions in cash. But when things start to go wrong - horribly, predictably wrong in fact - both men are pushed to the limit.
"Two For The Money" was directed by D.J. Caruso and written by Dan Gilroy. Caruso has only recently made the transition from directing television to directing film. His only other mainstream project was the ridiculous 2004 thriller "Taking Lives," and his inexperience shows here again. The film constantly teeters on the edge of being decent, but never really finds itself. It is billed as a drama, yet the laughs are aplenty in the early stages. There are unnecessary voiceovers from McConaughey, music that just doesn't fit and editing sloppy enough to give you a migraine headache.
About midway through, there is a dramatic shift in tone. The second half of the film is certainly the better portion, but at that point the viewer has been pulled in one direction for so long that the sudden change comes off as too abrupt. Had the dramatic element been evident from the beginning, "Two For The Money" might have had a better fate.
While Caruso's direction deserves a lot of the blame, the screenplay is equally awful. Gilroy hasn't produced a script since 1994's "The Chasers," directed by Dennis Hopper. He phones it in here, churning out work that could have been crafted by a C-level college student. The characters are terribly underdeveloped, despite a running time just over two hours.
At the end, we are rewarded with a manipulative, contrived final scene, which attempts to tug at our emotions by interlacing sports action with a dramatic confrontation between Abrams and his wife, Toni (Rene Russo). Simply put, it doesn't work. None of it does, despite the best efforts of the actors. Gilroy never realistically deals with the genuine negatives of the gambling world or the struggles he is putting his characters through.
Pacino will recover from his momentary lapse in judgment. He always does. After all, this is the guy who starred in "The Godfather," "Scarface," "Dog Day Afternoon" and "Heat." Needless to say, he deserves a few free passes. One movie can't make or break a career.
It can ruin your night though.
(10/05/05 12:00pm)
In "A History of Violence," Viggo Mortensen plays Tom Stall, an average guy in a small rural city. He and his wife, Edie (Maria Bello), share a healthy and loving marriage with two children (Ashton Holmes and Heidi Hayes). Tom owns a diner in the center of town, frequented by the locals. The townsfolk eat, drink and carry on inconsequential conversations about the simple life.
It all seems like a story lifted right out of "Leave it to Beaver," but things take a sharp turn for the worse when two thugs hold up Tom's diner one evening. In one swift move, Tom is forced to shoot and kill the men, saving his life and the lives of his employees. He becomes a town hero, attracting national attention and fame.
Tom's newfound celebrity brings a slew of new patrons to his diner, but it also brings some unwelcome guests. In walks the mysterious Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), who seems to be mistaking Tom for someone else. Their encounter sets the stage for a poignant, albeit flawed look at violence and its influence on those it touches.
"Violence" is based on a graphic novel by the same name, but it strays from that version drastically after the initial premise has been laid out. Director David Cronenberg has even said he had no idea Josh Olson's screenplay was based on a graphic novel until they had completed several drafts of the script.
Despite its ingenious premise, this is far from a perfect movie. Among many, two particular faults stand out. First, the initial half hour is an uncomfortable mess, as Cronenberg tries to establish the character of Tom Stall and his relationships with those around him. It isn't until Tom's encounter with Fogarty that the film finally begins to take shape.
The score is also way too overpowering for this type of film. With all the huge, sweeping horns and strings blaring over every scene, you'd think you were in the middle of a superhero movie if you had your eyes closed. In a movie like "Violence," less would have certainly been more.
Even with its many shortcomings, "Violence" rebounds mainly on the shoulders of its cast. Each actor should be recognized for raising the level of Olson's mediocre screenplay. Mortensen really shines here, giving a nuanced performance as Tom. He plays the character sheepishly at first, but drastically changes his approach as the story unfolds.
Then there's Ed Harris, who gives what may be his best performance since 1999's "The Truman Show." In "Violence," he gets a great chance to show his terrific range as an actor, although I would have liked to see his character developed a little bit more.
The real gem, though, is Bello, whose character has to watch this story unfold for the first time along with the audience. Edie Stall doesn't know what to think, let alone what to do about the situation, and the subtle emotion in Bello's eyes works better than words ever could. She received a Golden Globe nomination for her work in 2004's grossly underrated "The Cooler," and turns in another fantastic performance here.
Cronenberg has earned quite a cult following over the years for his offbeat work. He is best known for directing bizarre and grotesque scenes in movies like "The Fly," "Shivers" and "Scanners." So, in a film about violence directed by one of the masters of violence - along with Quentin Tarantino - you would expect some scenes to be particularly sadistic, but while the bloodshed in "Violence" is gritty and certainly gruesome, it is also incredibly real.
In this film, Cronenberg has chosen not to glorify the brutality. Instead he has painted a stark portrait illustrating how a seemingly idyllic society and its inhabitants can be affected when violence is inserted into the equation. While it is reasonably flawed, "A History of Violence" still manages to serve its purpose adequately.
(09/21/05 12:00pm)
The spring movie season is not often looked upon as a hotbed for Oscar contenders. That's why it was such a surprise when "Crash" came along last May, as writer/director Paul Haggis brought his first project to the screen since the success of his previous writing endeavor, the Oscar-winning "Million Dollar Baby."
"Crash" follows the stories of several different characters interspersed throughout the streets of Los Angeles. During a span of 36 hours, their stories begin to interweave in unique, interesting and sometimes breathtaking ways. The film sets out to examine the issue of racial diversity by tackling everyday stereotypes - the things we think, but never say. It succeeds in every way imaginable.
Be forewarned, "Crash" is not for the narrow-minded. In order to fully appreciate the film, you have to be willing to scrutinize yourself. No one can say they've never had a preconceived notion about another race or ethnicity. "Crash" challenges these ideas and succeeds in showing that things are not always what they seem. It illustrates that every human being - black, white, Hispanic or Asian - has multiple layers and different motivating factors behind their actions.
The stellar ensemble cast helps to convey this point. No actor has more than 20 minutes of total screen time, but everyone makes a significant contribution. Don Cheadle is excellent as always, while Matt Dillon gives a sometimes repulsive, sometimes heart-breaking performance as Officer Ryan, a racist cop dealing with his personal demons. Terrence Howard is also flawless in his first role of what has proved to be a breakout year for the actor.
Then there's Sandra Bullock, who uses what little screen time she has in "Crash" to show us that she really has some acting chops, despite what those who have seen "Miss Congeniality 2" would say. For Bullock, "Crash" proves to be a refreshing departure from her normal work.
The DVD for "Crash" is a one-disc edition with some decent special features. Those lucky enough to get their hands on the limited edition will receive a second disk with some extra special features. Fans can probably expect an official re-release of this film as the awards season approaches.
On the DVD, the film is presented in 2.35 anamorphic widescreen. A full-screen version is also available. The video has made a perfect transition from the big to small screen and the audio track is wonderful as well. This is particularly important in a film like "Crash," where many scenes feature dialogue and music simultaneously.
The special features on the "Crash" DVD are interesting for a one-disc set. The big disappointment is a waste of an introduction from Paul Haggis, literally consisting of "Hey, this is the 'Crash' DVD. Thanks for watching."
Despite the terrible intro, the two other main special features are exceptional, specifically the making-of documentary. It features a good number of cast and crew members discussing their reasons for participating in the film and exposes the environment on the set.
The DVD also comes with an optional commentary track featuring Haggis, Cheadle and co-writer Bobby Moresco. It is both insightful and humorous at times. The lively commentary provides "Crash" fans with a lot of fascinating information including tidbits about lighting, acting and unintentional goofs. Some of the most interesting remarks come as the three discuss their feelings about each of the actors and the casting process.
Overall, the result of the hard work shown in these extra features is a film that transcends the typical movie-going experience, forcing viewers to examine their own beliefs and prejudices.
(09/14/05 12:00pm)
Although the trailers playing repeatedly on television these days paint "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" as a nonstop horror fest, moviegoers will find a completely different tone once the lights go down.
Those going in with thoughts of 1974's "The Exorcist" may be caught off-guard. In fact, "Emily Rose" is actually a courtroom drama first, and a thriller second. While flawed in some areas, the film still succeeds in thrilling the audience and inspiring each viewer to question his or her own beliefs.
Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) is a savvy lawyer with the task of defending Father Richard Moore (Tom Wilkinson). Father Moore has been charged with negligent homicide in the death of 19-year-old Emily Rose (a spine-chilling Jennifer Carpenter) after performing an exorcism on her.
"Emily Rose" is actually a sensationalized account of the events surrounding Anneliese Michel, a German college student who struggled for almost a decade before dying during exorcism rituals in the summer of 1976. As a result of her death, Michel's parents and the priests who performed the exorcism were put on trial for manslaughter.
Most of the film is told inside the courtroom as Bruner spars with prosecutor Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott). At the center of the battle are the conflicting theories regarding Emily's untimely death. Was she really possessed by the devil or was she merely a victim of epilepsy and other psychological diseases? While some of the courtroom scenes play out like a glorified episode of "Law & Order," the format still serves as a logical and effective way to facilitate this spiritual debate.
Throughout the trial, Emily Rose's story is told largely through sporadic flashbacks, where we see her point of view as her health begins to deteriorate. The flashbacks are nothing if not chilling, and there are plenty of jump-out-of-your-seat moments to satisfy viewers. The real chills, however, come from the uncertainty of what really happened to Emily Rose and the film is smart enough to leave it up for interpretation.
In that vein, Linney gives an exceptional performance as Bruner. In many ways, she serves as an extension of the audience's uncertainty. Bruner is a self-proclaimed agnostic, yet she can't seem to shake the fact that what happened to Emily Rose may have been supernatural in nature. Throughout the movie, she struggles with her own convictions along with the viewer. Linney was nominated for an Oscar last year for "Kinsey" and, while this isn't an Oscar-caliber role, the film is certainly a nice addition to her strong body of work.
Wilkinson, after great supporting turns in 2004's "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and this summer's "Batman Begins," gives another strong performance as Father Moore, but the same can't be said of Campbell Scott. His single-layer performance as prosecutor Ethan Thomas turned the character into more of a crybaby than a worthy adversary for Linny's Bruner.
"The Exorcism of Emily Rose" is easily the best work thus far for writer/director Scott Derrickson, whose credits include "Urban Legends: Final Cut" and "Hellraiser: Inferno." While portions of the dialogue often seemed a bit contrived, they didn't hinder the story enough to be anything but a footnote. It is also a testament to Derrickson that he did not take the easy way out by having to rely on big-budget special effects and cheap scares. By taking a chance and presenting the story of Emily Rose as a courtroom drama, he has created an original and thought-provoking film instead of a generic and clich?d horror flick.
(03/04/03 12:00pm)
Local nightclubs and music venues are doing their part to secure the safety of their patrons following recent events in Rhode Island and Chicago. The question of precautionary measures has been posed at similar clubs accross the nation as well as locally.
Jen D'Imperil, manager at KatManDu in Trenton, was quick to assure club-goers that her club has been thoroughly checked and meets the current standards.
In late February, 21 people were killed and dozens were injured during a stampede inside Chicago's "E2" nightclub.
Authorities believe security guards used pepper spray to try to break up a fight that reportedly invited shouts about a terrorist attack, causing a death and personal injuries.
"We've had our systems and facilities checked again," D'Imperil said. "And it's our policy that our guards are not allowed to use pepper spray."
Shortly after the incident in Chicago, at least 96 were either burned or crushed to death as a result of an intense blaze at The Station in West Warwick, R.I. Great White used pyrotechnics on stage without authorization, setting off the violent flames.
Many students are aware of the danger present when they go out for a night on the town.
"I'm just going to definitely know where all the emergency exits are," Jackie Tutela, freshman English major, said.
"I just need to make sure I can get to one, God forbid something should happen," Tutela added.
On the other hand, Ed Marion, sophomore engineering major, doesn't see the need for additional precautions and says the danger has always been there.
"As long as you're always cautious there is no reason to upgrade your own security," Marion said. "Clubs are no more dangerous now than they were before."
Philadelphia mayor John Street has also taken action towards making nightclubs safer.
According to the mayor's office, Street has imposed mandatory inspections on every Philadelphia nightclub.
While he hasn't set a date for these inspections, the mayor's office guarantees they will take place sometime in the very near future.
Philadelphia clubs, Egypt and Gotham, could not be reached for comment.