Monday, June 15, 2009

Movie Review: The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009, Directed by Tony Scott)

As long as you are okay with accepting a plethora of absurdities in the plot, Tony Scott’s remake of The Taking of Pelham 123 is a fun ride. This is the kind of summer movie that is meant to be experienced more than analyzed.

By now anyone who has seen a trailer for the picture knows the basic plot. John Travolta plays a former Wall Street man who has hijacked a New York subway and taken hostages. Denzell Washington plays an MTA official who must find a peaceful solution to the public crisis. As we all know, Denzell Washington can do no wrong as an actor. Travolta, on the other hand, can do wrong and does in this picture. He is so over the top in his crazed terrorist posturing that I found him more humorous than chilling.

But, this movie isn’t really about the acting. It’s about the suspense inherent in the plot. Some in the press have discussed how the filmmakers were given unprecedented access to New York subways and MTA transit centers in the making of this movie. I don’t doubt that this is true. However, it’s impossible to discern the setting’s authenticity with Tony Scott’s camera continually whizzing around in fevered patterns of aggression. We’re not so much watching an action movie as playing a high-energy video game.

If you’re looking for a movie that has the slightest semblance of thoughtfulness or purpose, this film isn’t for you. But, heck, we’re in the middle of the summer action pic season. Why not get out of the heat, grab some popcorn, and turn your mind off for a couple of hours? I had great fun immersing myself in this frenzied picture, and then calmly taking the subway home.

Movie Review: Away We Go (2009, Directed by Sam Mendes)

I must confess that I enjoyed Away we Go, director Sam Mendes’ latest take on American family life, much more than I probably should have. The film is practically crying out for some intelligent and articulate critic to catalogue its many faults. Let’s just say that the movie’s ending is one of the most contrived and underwhelming I have seen recently on the screen. The film’s two TV star leads, John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph have a thing or two (or three) to learn about film acting. The film is populated by secondary characters so under-developed and “quirky” with a capital “Q” that they would have been better suited in a Warner Brothers cartoon short.

OK … enough with the negatives (read A.O. Scott’s New York Times review if you want a scathing critique). Focus on the positives …

Krasinsky and Rudolph play a thirtyish couple who still haven’t “discovered” themselves. A baby is on the way and they don’t want to raise the child into a life of quiet confusion. So, they take off on an emotional journey of sorts, visiting different cities to determine where they should “settle” before the child is born. They’re seeking not so much a stimulating environment in which to exist, but rather people with whom they can share their parenting responsibilities. Thus, they look up “friends” from their past who may be able to help shed some light on what it means to be a caring parent.

The result, as you might anticipate, is that there are no easy answers (at least until the film’s misguided ending in which the protagonists literally stare into the camera and explain the lessons they have learned to the strains of Dylan’s “Mr. Tambourine Man”). Somehow, though, the couple finds an authentic sense of peace in their multi-city journey through the inevitabilities of adulthood. They also learn quite a bit about each other (never a bad idea for a successful relationship).

I suppose the reason I enjoyed this film is simply that it made me laugh quite a bit. There’s something touching about Krasinky and Rudolph’s relationship and the moments when they are onscreen alone (away from the so-quirky-you-want-to-vomit characters they meet along the way) are at times fresh and insightful. Therefore, I have to at least give the movie a mild recommendation. It’s at least a nice quieter anecdote for the loud and explosive summer movie season. It’s just too bad that this cute film is so offensive to thoughtful filmgoers on so many levels. Oh well … I guess I’ll just do what this film’s lead couple would do … shrug my shoulders and move on.

Movie Review: Drag Me to Hell (2009, Directed by Sam Raimi)

Drag Me to Hell represents a return to form for director Sam Raimi, after the blockbuster success of the Spider-Man series. He proves that he is still able to mix comedy and horror together in just the right proportion, á la Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2. While Drag Me to Hell succeeds more as a comedy than as a horror picture, it still has enough thrills to make me jump in my seat a time or two. What more could you really ask for?

The film’s plot is not terribly important. Let’s just say it’s about a young woman who makes an old lady mad and there’s hell to pay (literally). Along the way, we get the typical horror tropes of stolen Gypsy jewelry, unseen (but deeply felt) spirits, a cursed jacket button, a haunted goat’s head, a capitalistic fortune teller, an unfortunate little kitty cat, and a grave-digging during a torrential downpour.

I am not by any means a connoisseur of horror cinema, but I admired the way this movie implies rather than shows much of the horror. During much of the film, Raimi winks his eye at us and reminds us that it’s only a movie we’re watching. The director’s goal is more to have fun with the audience than to deliver legitimately creepy moments of graphic gore and horrific images.

If Drag Me to Hell made me think about anything, it is how deeply moralistic and totalizing most horror films are. Raimi’s film could be described as a parable about the consequences of dishonesty and unchecked personal ambition. The protagonist makes one arguably immoral decision with the aim of advancing her career as a loan officer. The weight of this questionable choice is felt throughout the entire movie and leads to its fatalistic, yet tragic ending. Horror movies seem to operate on the assumption that there are deep consequences for every one of our sins, no matter how great or slight.

I would love to see a talented director play with these conventions and explore what a horror picture might look like in a world not as obsessively consumed by guilt. Until then, I’m perfectly content with Raimi’s moralistic, yet good-old-fashioned-fun, creepshow.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

FaveFilms Review: They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969, Directed by Sydney Pollack)

Depression-era “dance marathons” are dark clouds on American history that few people know much about. Desperate unemployed men and women participated in competitions in which they danced for a long, long time. These contests lasted for weeks, sometimes even months. Contestants hoped only for monetary prizes or the limited fame that might come from winning, or simply participating in, these contests. Some came out of the contests unscathed, whereas others experienced profound emotional or physical damage.

Author Horace McCoy recognized the emotional power inherent in such a dark chapter of American History. His 1935 novel They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? was received poorly by American critics but found an underground following with burgeoning French existentialists. Apparently they recognized the underlying futility of the seemingly unending marathons. Director Sydney Pollack and screenwriters James Poe and Robert E. Thompson take McCoy’s source material and emphasize its Sisyphusian qualities. Watching the actors grasping onto one another for dear life in a repetitive trajectory around the dance floor, we are reminded of Camus’ hero pushing a boulder up the hill for the thousandth time.

Jane Fonda reportedly understood the existential underpinnings of the script when she agreed to take the lead role in They Shoot Horses. At first she didn’t want to take the part. However, her husband wanted her to accept the role because of the film’s intriguing philosophical implications. Indeed, the film serves as an acute reflection on what it means to live in a state of poverty and desperation. Unfortunately, the film’s thematic concerns resonate as deeply in today’s recession-era America as they did upon the initial publication of McCoy’s novel.

Fonda plays Gloria, a cynical young woman who clearly enters the competition only as a last resort. Gloria’s demeanor, actions, and words throughout the entire film read like a desperate plea for help. At the film’s conclusion, in fact, we find out that Gloria has indeed struggled with her troubled mental state and her apparently rude behavior throughout much of the movie begins to make more sense. Gloria ends up dancing with an aspiring director named Robert (Michael Sarrazin) who really wants nothing to do with the contest, but simply wandered into the dance hall at the “wrong time.” Also in the cast of characters are Alice (a want-to-be Hollywood glamour queen), an old sailor who looks like he just came from sea (Red Buttons) and the opportunistic announcer named Rocky (played by Gig Young in an Oscar-winning performance).

While all of these characters are fascinating to watch on screen, the force of Fonda’s performance as Gloria is the glue that holds the film together. We feel for every moment of her suffering as she stands in for the misfortunate, the unemployed, and the underprivileged of America. The little dance hall in Depression-era Los Angeles becomes a symbol for the condition of all “ordinary people” just trying to get by in an environment in which only the strong survive.

Upon the film’s initial release in 1969 many critics found the film’s narrative and basic message “heavy handed.” Indeed, one could quibble about the rather obvious symbolism inherent in the film’s title. The force of the central performances, though, is enough to make the film consistently fascinating in 2009. In fact, They Shoot Horses might be one of the most excruciating depictions of human suffering depicted on screen. While not as brutally violent as Mel Gibson’s gore-fest The Passion of the Christ, it is almost more difficult to watch because of the number of sufferers involved. Pollack’s dark vision of an America in the grips of social Darwinism seems less cynical today than remarkably perceptive.

Friday, April 3, 2009

FaveFilms Review: Waking Life (2001, Directed by Richard Linklater)

How many of us go through the day without thinking about anything that really “matters”? We are so concerned with the realities of the everyday rat-race that we very rarely pause to reflect on why we are here and why we do what we do. We are living in an era in which more Americans vote for the American Idol contestants than vote in presidential elections. If we believe Plato’s injunction that “the unreflective life is not worth living,” then it becomes clear that many of us are living lives devoid of real purpose.

These thoughts were inspired by Richard Linklater’s 2001 mind-trip of a film Waking Life. The movie follows a twenty-something man who wanders through a persistent dream state in which he meets diverse individuals who discuss with him nothing short of the meaning of existence. Some of the many topics discussed include existentialism, situationist politics, free will vs. determinism, postmodernism, dream theory, and the film theories of André Bazin.

I realize that some people may already be zoning out at the mention of these seemingly bookish discussion topics. I must say, however, that Linklater presents these ideas in a way that is not only lucid, but downright adventuresome. There’s more action in this masterpiece than all of the Die Hard films combined!

As we drift with the protagonist from discussion to discussion and from dream to dream, we evaluate the validity of the arguments presented. Some are quite brilliant; some are convoluted, yet intriguing; whereas others are downright silly. The diversity of ideas encountered underlies Linklater’s principal strategy. We are presented a cornucopia of contradictory ideas without being explicitly told which are viable and which are just plain daft. What is most important in this film (and, arguably, in life) is the journey of discovery, not the point of destination. We do not walk away from this film with the answer to the meaning of life (leave that to Douglas Adams and Monty Python). Instead, we feel that we have accompanied our protagonist on a journey of epic proportions, although the incidents in this film are probably all inside our hero’s head.

I haven’t even mentioned the central technical achievement of Linklater’s movie yet, an animation technique based on rotoscoping. The animators overlaid the director’s live action footage with animation that approximates the images physically filmed. The result is a truly dream-like visual style that fits perfectly with the film’s central plot device.

While watching this film, I was reminded of one of my other favorite movies, My Dinner with Andre. Both of these pictures call to mind some of the most stimulating conversations I have had in my life. Whether with dear friends, casual acquaintances, or strangers on the street, these conversations are the lifeblood of the reflective person’s life. I would encourage all to join in the conversation. See Waking Life even if you think it may not be your cup of tea or may challenge you in uncomfortable ways. It will give you something to talk about for quite awhile to come.

Movie Review: The Class (Directed by Laurent Cantent, 2009)


Most popular films about teaching are of the “inspirational” variety, depicting teachers who overcome great odds to fill their pupils with hope and determination for the future (see, among others, Mr. Holland’s Opus, Dead Poets Society, Freedom Writers, To Sir with Love, etc., etc., etc.). Laurent Cantent’s The Class is exceedingly refreshing in the way it fails to live up to all expectations of a “teacher” movie. We see a version of some of the prototypical scenes we are used to from other films set in the classroom (i.e. moments of inner discovery, disturbed children acting out in class, etc.). However, we also see the reality of the day-to-day struggles of an urban teacher who might not be cut out for the job.

The movie’s stark realism can be attributed to the fact that François Bégaudeau, The Class’s writer and star, is a real school teacher. The film depicts Bégaudeau’s semi-autobiographical account as a French teacher in an inner-city Parisian middle school. Many of the teenage actors in the film are Bégaudeau’s actual students. The images we see on the screen, then, fall somewhere on the ambiguous continuum between documentary and constructed reality.

The Class feels stunningly like a year in the life of a real middle school. Moments of profundity are coupled with moments of frustration. Displays of genuine affection between teacher and students precede displays of outer violence. We find ourselves simultaneously smiling and cringing at the behaviors of teacher and students alike.

To describe the film’s plot in detail is to do the movie an immense injustice. It is better to experience the flow of the film as naturally as possible. Let’s just say that I never stopped caring what was going to happen next. This is film is interesting and insightful because it cares about the characters we see before us. They aren’t Hollywood stereotypes, but real people we come to view with simultaneous admiration and frustration.

Watching The Class, I was thinking of other great films that depict an individual’s professional work with great acuity and clarity. Bubble, Chop Shop, and Man Push Cart are three that come immediately to mind. As far as I’m concerned, we need more films of this sort. These movies might not inspire you to join the profession they depict, but they sure provide some insight into why workers in that profession look so tired at the end of the day and why what they’re doing is so important.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Movie Review: Knowing (2009, Directed by Alex Proyas)


Try this one on for size: An MIT professor (Nicholas Cage) is convinced that an elementary student’s page of seemingly random numbers enclosed in a time capsule from the 1950s has accurately predicted tragic events from the past 50 years and will predict tragic events in the future. Which seems more far-fetched: the numerological prophetic premise or the fact that Nicholas Cage could seem credible as an MIT professor?

One simply discards all sense of logic when dealing with a cinematic scenario as wild as I just described. Director Alex Proya’s Knowing is both a sci-fi thriller and a philosophical meditation on determinism vs. randomness. I am honestly not sure if it succeeds on either level. I am still trying to process the film’s bizarre quasi-Biblical premise and tripper-than-thou ending. I do know that I was never bored during the movie and it has stimulated my thinking in unexpected ways.

I should begin by noting that I am not a particular fan of the science-fiction genre. I have enough trouble figuring out things that actually exist in the world without trying to also contemplate fantastic galaxies and strange creatures with funny-looking faces. When I do find sci-fi films stimulating it is usually because they lead me to think about the real world in interesting and unusual ways.

On this level, I found Looking successful. Proya, of I, Robot and Dark City fame, sets up a scenario in which the characters (and the audience) are forced to come to terms with one of life’s fundamental questions: do we have any control over what happens to us, or are we merely pawns in the game of life? The film sets itself up as a kind of allegorical consideration of this basic philosophical quandary.

As for Nicholas Cage’s acting, I feel like he delivered what was necessary most of the time. He seemed to lack credibility for the first half of the movie. I had a hard time believing he could be an MIT professor, much less possess the intelligence to put the numerological puzzle pieces into place. But, by the end of the film I found myself sympathizing with him and, in fact, forgetting that he is Nicholas Cage. I’m still not sure exactly how or why this happened, but I don’t feel I can say that Cage was ineffective in his role.

Many critics have found the ending befuddling and I have to say that understand where they are coming from. Nevertheless, I sincerely believe the ending’s ambiguity was intentional on the part of the filmmaker. We understand on a literal level the images we see before us but do not necessarily comprehend their significance. I was reminded of the notoriously poetic ending to Kubrick’s masterwork 2001: A Space Odyssey. Who’s to say that movies must always be wrapped up in a neat package with a pretty bow at the end? Why shouldn’t audience members suffer and be forced to grapple a bit with what they see on the screen? Life isn’t free of ambiguity, so why should the movies always provide easy answers?

Overall, I would say that Knowing is definitely worth seeing, especially in the late winter cinematic void in which we currently find ourselves. It is rare that a filmmaker can thrill and provoke thought simultaneously, so I recognize Knowing as no small feat.