Feel-Good Movie of The Year?

I won't lie, I have not been overly impressed by the work of Steven Spielberg lately. "Catch Me if You Can" and "The Terminal" both lacked the passion and care that makes us love him in the first place, and "Minority Report" and "War of the Worlds" felt too overblown, without any of the intimacy that we are usually given by this cinematic maestro. But nothing that Spielberg has done since "Saving Private Ryan" has had the gravitas that Munich has. Nothing since then has had the buildup, either. A troubled set in a politically troubled climate helped create the back-stage edginess to the film, especially considering the film's subject matter. Eric Bana (Hulk) is a former Mossad agent who, after the 1972 Massacre at the Munich Olympics, is tasked with a special mission by Golde Maier: he and three other men must track down and kill several Arabs who they are told "had a hand in Munich." They are given no evidence, but they don't need it. As the mission goes on, the men wear thin, and Eric Bana begins to miss his wife and newborn daughter. In all, the film is a great exploration of civic duty and what we do for what we believe is right. Eric Bana truly gives a great performance as a man who is being destroyed from the inside out with an intensity and depth that should have earned him a nomination for either SAG or the Oscars, but that's another matter. Daniel Craig gives a great performance as well, as an English Jew on the team. Unfortunatley, his character was lacking in depth. He plays an agent who doesn't care who he kills, or why he does it. After all, as he says: "The only blood I care about is Jewish blood." The logic seems a bit thin, but I'm willing to overlook it. Geoffery Roush gives just one of the many great supporting performances in what is a great film, save for one thing: the ending. The film contains many flashbacks to Munich, the most unfortunate of which is at the end, where it is cut between the terrorists in a shoot out and Eric Bana having sex with his wife. Even more unfortunate in Tony Kushner's otherwise great screenplay is definitely the last shot, which is of the World Trade Center, standing ominously behind Eric Bana, and there it remains as he leaves. A seemingly cheap ending to an otherwise great film.

Grade: A-

Just A Little Plug Here...

This fall at 10pm on Mondays, please head on over to NBC so that you can enjoy the latest Aaron Sorkin-penned TV Show (see: Sports Night, The West Wing, seasons 1 - 4) "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip." It stars Matthew Perry, Bradley Whitford, Steven Weber, Amanda Peet, DL Hughley, and Nate Cordry (yes, from The Daily Show.) I've been following production, and from the trailers I've seen and scripts I've read, I have to say, this promises to be great. So, Mondays at 10 on NBC. Be there. Woah.

Oh my stars and garters...

The title of this review (the first in quite a long time,) is one of Beast's (Kelsey Grammar, wearing all-blue make up) lines, and, incidentally, is one of the more realistic pieces of dialogue in this weeks film, "X-Men 3: The Last Stand." I won't spend any more time talking about the crappy dialogue (well, maybe,) but I felt that mentioning this utterly ridiculous line would help set the tone for this review. Granted, the film had pretty big shoes to fill, after the first two X-Men essentially set the new, fresh tone of superhero movies, thanks enirely to director Bryan Singer, who gave "X-Men," and "X2: X-Men United" a certain realism and drama that could best be characterized as gravitas. The films had intensity, and managed to take away the silliness and add an urgency to a comic book movie, even when the debate is of "mutant rights." The themes of the first two were honor, love, friendship, peace, and understanding. The theme of X3 is... I don't know, exactly... special effects? In X3, the 'war' that has finally been promised has finally come, with Magneto (Ian McKellan, undoubtedly the best thing about the movie) leading his army of mutants against humanity, which has now introduced and weaponized a "cure" for mutation. There are several good scenes debating whether or not it is right for a mutant to take this "cure," and we once again see the conflict between the two different schools of thought in trying to protect the minority: violence or peace? The plot itself is pretty solid, and it certainly does sound like agood time, but unfortunately, they also decided to stuff in a secondary plot about The Artist Formerly Known as Jean Grey (Famke Janneson, now a lovely redhead) becoming Dark Phoenix, an evil being of destruction... or something, it's not made entirely clear in the film. Not enough time. And therein lies the true flaw of the film: too much to do, not enough time. For some reason, the film ends at about one hour and forty odd minutes, while the others took a bit longer to draw their plot. They had two great plot ideas, each with personal and cultural significance, but tried to cram it into an unreasonably small amount of time. The result is a film that feels half-baked at best: teenage love triangles with very little heat, epic battle sequence leading into... epic battle sequence #2, and about eight characters each with their own half-a-scene long character arc that I'm somehow supposed to care about. So please, Mr. Rattner, no offense intended. It was a great try, and I wish you well on Rush Hour 3, but please... stay off Bryan Singer's turf. After all, how would you feel if he took a movie from your franchise and made it good? Sorry, that was snippy.

Grade: C+

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's...

...a hooker with a samurai sword killing five guys in slums called "The Pitts." The five guys were bad men, all of them, who had just recently been at a lady named Shellie's house fully prepared to rape and murder Shellie and some of her friends. Not a suprising event to take place in a film that contains castration, child molestation, domestic abuse, blood, gore, disembowelment, rape, cannibalism, torture and enough death to satisfy Sam Peckinpah on a meth bender. According to imdb.com, Sin City "...[is] based on the graphic novels "Sin City" (the first graphic novel was just called "Sin City;" this story has been renamed "The Hard Good-Bye" by Miller), "The Big Fat Kill" and "That Yellow Bastard", by Frank Miller The opening footage with Josh Hartnett and Marley Shelton is from the Sin City short story "The Customer is Always Right" from the "Babe Wore Red" collection." One is the story of a cop named Hartigan, who tries to protect a small girl from a pedophile with government connections but is put in jail for years. The second story is that of a warrior named Marv, again wrongly accused of an innocent. And the third is Dwight's story, who is out to kill five guys he doesn't trust and to protect "the girls", the aforementioned prostitutes. The film has many problems: it's bloody, it's gory, and there are even some punches that can make you wince. Visually, it's absolutely stunning, the action is non-stop and a helluvalot of fun. In conversation with a friend of mine, Max, he remarked: "...the problem is that they abandoned the medium of cinema and instead tried to recreate the medium of comics on the screen." I'd have to say I agree, though it certainly made for an interesting two hours. I enjoyed Sin City, yes, though there are times when Rodriguez (the director) abandons substance for a great deal of style. So, rent it. By all means, see it. But bring the Tums. My grade: B.

And to think I could've been seeing Sky High...

"The Beat My Heart Skipped" is a French remake of an American film, which, in itself is an oddity.
The American film was a flop, so director Jaques Audiard decided to remake it- Parisian style. I know, I know, the prospect scared me too. My spidey-sense was tingling, I knew something was wrong... yet... I saw it anyway. Took the train in, subway, walked a dozen blocks... and then found myself watching a seemingly endless film. Let me say this: a film is not good if you ever think the phrase "Well, it has to be over this scene, because this is absolutely the longest film I've ever seen. It's not humanly possible for it to go on another... oh crap." Then you check your watch, and the film has been going for twenty seven mintues. The film is about... well, several things, really. The main character is something of a low-level real estate hit man, who dreams of playing piano, and has problems with his father... and drinking... and he's sleeping with his best friend's wife... I couldn't get a hold of it. It seemed like there were about 4 movies in there with a willing director, but it was too much for one film. Yet nobody seemed to recognize that. I'll give it this: the acting was tight, all of it. I particularly enjoyed the piano sequences. But the film just dragged and seemed pointless, and maybe I'm not nearly deep enough to understand French cinema (it's been suggested), but still, this film absolutely merits my grade, of a C-.

The paradox that is Zach Braff's "Garden State"

The first time somebody sees Garden State, they love it. Absolutely. And why not? The intimitely told and cleverly acted story of one man's coming of age was directed with grace and dignity, with a killer soundtrack (The Shins, Nick Drake...etc.) And it's a love story (also, I have four words for you: Peter Skarsgaard on Ecstasy.) Then you watch it again. But here's the thing: it's a pretty terrible film. Early on in the script, clearly when he was less sure of the film, Braff relies heavily on sight gags (his shirt matches the bathroom wall [see below], walking past a series of motion-sensitive faucets, they all go off...), and then quickly drops them once he gets into his stride. The dialogue (dutifully noted by Nate) is awful... you want a sample?

Kelly: Well, we just ate all this fucking 'X', so what the hell else are we supposed to do?

I believe, as Nate put it... "Terrible line. Terrible delivery." Nate's fun that way. He would also like me to remind you about one line that comes in the middle of what can be called the emotional epicenter of the love story, where Portman sums up the film with the cringe worthy... "That's life." But he was right. The problem with Garden State is that it simultaneously takes itself way too seriously at the same time that it's groaning under the weight of it's own self rightousness. Another problem: Zach (writer, director, star) can only write good dialogue in two-person scenes. The stuff between Portman and Braff is usually pretty good, but the problem comes in other scenes... when other characters enter the mix. It's just a bit depressing. The acting is solid, which counter acts the oddly placed drug sequences. Inside the mess there is a good story to be told, but it just didn't come out right. Ah well. As of right now, I can't get my head wrapped around this film. I think I'll go watch it again. My grade: ???

As David H. put it, "The Bhutan Death March of Penguins... it wasn't their war, man."

I'm going to admit this: I've never really been a big fan of animal documentaries. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm just as big a fan of Animal Planet as the next guy, and I can handle watching the inevitable stock footage: the lion eating the gazelle, the crocodile eating... the gazelle... have you noticed that gazelles are like the guys in the red shirt on Star Trek of the animal kingdom?) But back to the movie. Basically, the film charts a year in the lives of a group of Emperor Penguins. Narrated by Morgan Freeman (who, by the way, is the world's first Official Movie Voice Over Guy), we learn of the hard march they must endure to get to their mating ground, finding a mate (a truly noteworthy scene), and the harsh process of child rearing. The film also featured, obviously, some of the most adorable moments in (penguin) film history. The anthropomorphisis has given many people pause in regards to this film, but I disagree. I think that it was what really made the film work. We see that there is a real bond between parent and child. To put it another way, for one of the first times, a film about animals has actually inspired empathy, not just pity, and for that I give this film an A.