Opposing Demographics

Three films, Three different themes.

If you're in the mood for some Government bashing, see:

** Stars

The Plot: Shia Lebeouf and Michelle Monaghan are on the run after being targeted through their cell phones by a mysterious woman. Lebeouf's character (Jerry Shaw) discovers weapons and a small fortune in his name at his apartment just seconds before being taken into custody by the FBI, where Rachel Holloman (Monaghan) is forced by the voice to follow her orders otherwise her child will be killed. The two attempt to learn what is actually going on through car chases, interrogations, and assassination attempts.

Why the film doesn't work: Director D.J Caruso is given an $80 million budget, a hot topic in today’s culture, and Steven Spielberg as a producer. What could possibly go wrong? Well, the problem with Eagle Eye is that it tries to be too much at once. In order to nab young moviegoers, the film relies heavily on ludicrous action scenes, ultimately creating moments filled with implausible scenarios. Example: When Shaw is escaping custody, the film cuts to signs and electronic billboards telling what Jerry has to do. There is no possible way that Shaw could see all of these orders to follow as he is jumping off buildings and trains.

I usually never have problems suspending disbelief, but when an entire film relies on stunts like this, it gets a little frustrating. Especially when the material is trying to tackle a very important and very real problem in our country. I give props for its guts, but in the end, Eagle Eye goes for the entertainment factor. I didn't hate it by any means, but its potential versus the film itself is an absolute waste.

Review in a nutshell: An incoherent disappointment.

If your heart needs melting, try:

*** Stars

The Plot: A one-night trip through Manhattan surrounding two characters named Nick (Michael Cera) and Norah (Kat Dennings). Nick is coming off being dumped by his girlfriend Tris. He goes to a club to perform with his band "The Jerkoffs" where he meets Norah, who is forced into babysitting her drunken friend Caroline (Ari Graynor). The two connect, and spend a night arguing, gossiping, listening to music, discovering life, and learning the truth about love.

Why the film works: Did that sound corny for you? Sure does. Sounded corny when I wrote it. But when watching Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, I felt touched by its sincere portrait of young love. The way it unfolds does feel familiar, but that's only a disguise of what the film is really about. It's a story about finding yourself through someone else. We all need someone to bring our best side, and Nick and Norah show us that. The chemistry between the two leads is unavoidable.

Review in a nutshell: Even for you cold-hearted guys out there, this is the epitome of date movies. Best of luck.

If you want something brutal, witness:

*** Stars

The Plot: Pride and Glory raises the question of morality surrounding a family of cops. Edward Norton, Colin Farrell, Noah Emmerich, and Jon Voight lead this ensemble in a tale of corruption versus loyalty. Ray Tierney (Norton) investigates a case that involves his brother-in-law Jimmy Egan (Farrell). Ray is stuck between protecting the family legacy and protecting the law. The story follows his choices and the outcomes of his actions.

Why the film works: Directed with gritty style by Gavin O'Connor (Miracle), Pride and Glory is a powerful film that has moments of brilliance sadly trapped by Hollywood conventions. To enjoy the film, you'll have to ignore them. (What are they? Pretty much every scene that doesn't include a principle actor). On that note, the lead cast is wonderful, especially Colin Farrell, who has a juicy role as the questionable brother-in-law. With this and In Bruges, it looks like Farrell is steadily becoming the actor we all knew he could be.

Review in a nutshell: We Own the Night's slightly stronger half.

W. (Dub-Ya)

***1/2 Stars

Oliver Stone tackles George W. Bush.

Not much of a surprise.

Stone’s biopic of the 43^rd President is very well done, with an electric performance from Josh Brolin in the title role. It is however, much different than expected. Instead of purposely tackling the controversy on Bush’s tactics, it stays pretty close to an old-fashioned profile story, of how this man went from a booze-crazed Yale playboy to the most powerful man in the world. I found it refreshing that Stone has the ability to second-guess all those who have the man figured for a liberal who just loves to bash people.

Now don’t panic just yet. There are several moments of Bush-bashing here, but there's rarely any cheap laughs. Everything that comes out of Bush’s mouth is proof enough that the man is pretty incoherent to the English language.

The popular example: Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning? (My computer’s spell check won’t stop bugging me about that sentence’s phrasing. Maybe it doesn’t understand normalcy.)

W. is a showcase for Josh Brolin. The man doesn’t just reference Bush’s mannerisms. He literally transforms himself completely to become him. The way Brolin moves, talks, squints, laughs, drinks, and stares while playing Bush are all so effortlessly created that he actually plays Bush better than, well, Bush. How? He actually makes us care about the man. How the hell did he manage to do that?

The rest of the cast includes several heavyweights. Elizabeth Banks (who seems to be in every film this fall, no complaints here) plays the first lady, James Cromwell as Bush Sr., Ellen Burstyn as Barbara, Richard Dreyfuss as Cheney, Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell, Thandie Newton as Condi, Toby Jones as Carl Grove, and Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair. It’s hard to explore every character subjectively, and Stone stays away from that because this is in fact the sole-story of Bush. Smart move.

The film won’t make much at the box-office and won’t change the way we look at Bush, but it’s nice to know that filmmakers are still able to question those in power through the medium of artistry. I look forward in seeing how this film will be placed in years to come when we know for sure just how bad Bush did at his job he got paid $400,000 a year to do.

-Spell Check: is our children learning (Order of words: Consider revising)

Suggestions: Are our children or Is our child

Ignore all.

The spelling and grammar check is complete.

Pride and Glory

If you want something brutal, witness:

*** Stars

The Plot: Pride and Glory raises the question of morality surrounding a family of cops. Edward Norton, Colin Farrell, Noah Emmerich, and Jon Voight lead this ensemble in a tale of corruption versus loyalty. Ray Tierney (Norton) investigates a case that involves his brother-in-law Jimmy Egan (Farrell). Ray is stuck between protecting the family legacy and protecting the law. The story follows his choices and the outcomes of his actions.

Why the film works: Directed with gritty style by Gavin O'Connor (Miracle), Pride and Glory is a powerful film that has moments of brilliance sadly trapped by Hollywood conventions. To enjoy the film, you'll have to ignore them. (What are they? Pretty much every scene that doesn't include a principle actor). On that note, the lead cast is wonderful, especially Colin Farrell, who has a juicy role as the questionable brother-in-law. With this and In Bruges, it looks like Farrell is steadily becoming the actor we all knew he could be.

Review in a nutshell: We Own the Night's slightly stronger half.

Body of Lies

*** Stars

Compared to almost all the names currently in the top ten at the box office, Body of Lies is easily the superior film. It's directed with expected maturity and grit by Ridley Scott, has a top-notch performance from my man Leonardo Dicaprio, includes a minor yet solid supporting role by Russell Crowe, and it explores a very important theme about today's world. But, in the end, Body of Lies is a little disappointing from a commercial standpoint for two reasons. 1.) It’s not the film that could have turned around the Box-office poison surrounding the Iraq War and 2.) It lost to Beverley Hills Chihuahua. Can you seriously imagine how depressed Scott, Dicaprio, and Crowe must feel when their very important film lost to talking dogs? Maybe it’s true, the world is actually coming to an end.

Dicaprio plays Roger Ferris, a covert CIA operative working throughout the middle-east searching for freelance terrorists who have been bombing civilian targets. After surviving several close calls through car-bombings and on-foot chases, Ferris discovers information on an Islamic terrorist leader named Al-Saleem (Alon Aboutboul). With the help from his boss Ed Hoffman (Crowe), who somehow coordinates these missions during his routine errands (breakfast, dropping kids off at school, etc.), Ferris goes undercover to find the truth behind what this chaos is all about.

Body of Lies is a difficult process to render. Maybe because it feels completely untouched with reality. Maybe it relies too much on Dicaprio's and Crowe's performances. Then again, maybe the whole point is that there are no answers to its incoherency.

The character of Roger Ferris seems like a really interesting person to profile. This man is so good at what he does that he sometimes forgets to look at things objectively. However, there are several subplots about Ferris's life that are completely out of focus with the film’s narrative. We hear that he is getting divorce through two or three lines of dialogue. Then he falls for a middle-eastern doctor who treats him for rabbi bites. And then, without crucial development in their relationship, Roger decides to sacrifice everything for her safety. The film starts with CIA connections in the middle-east, then trails off into that land’s uncharted territory, and then it ends with a character study about one man figuring out if what he is doing is truly and morally right.

It is hectic yes, but inside this chaotic story is a smart and exciting film that sometimes hits brilliance. I want to talk a little bit more about Dicaprio. Here is an experienced, mature, and still young actor who is giving his all in every film he touches. He is one of the finest actors working today who deserves to be challenged in films like this, and in this case involving the Iraq War. It was unlikely that Body of Lies was going to be a box-office hit because of its nature, but I think that films like these will be very respected in the years to come. Let's just hope that's soon because I am seriously getting sick and tired of talking dogs that are ruling the movie world.

Religulous

**** Stars

I am not a huge Bill Maher fan. I occasionally watch his HBO show when I need that occasional (and lately, frequently) uncensored Bush bashing rant, but I think he can be a complete smartass. The way he asks question is purposely slanted towards the answer he wants, which usually consists of making the other person look like a moron. He also seems to be very self-absorbed and absolutely in love with himself. However, I have to give Bill Maher some serious credit. His documentary Religulous is something you've never seen before. This guy has the balls to go to some of the most sacred places on earth and ask monumentally controversial questions to some of the most religious people on earth. This film hits you hard from the start, and ends with a finale that is the scariest ten minutes of footage I have scene since Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

For all contingent purposes, I was raised a Catholic Christian. I spent years in CCD and was confirmed over four years ago. I never really liked the church that I attended. It was run like a business and was forcing young minds to believe in such awful ideals. I am so glad I have great parents who are realistic to the issues of a teenager. They laid to me straight when I asked for truth. When I asked my church for advice, they gave me some random biblical reference to live by. I will never forget one of my confirmation classes that occurred during my sophomore year of High School. It was a dangerously touchy subject. It was the subject of premarital sex. Oh no, run for the hills! Teenagers learning about sex? That's devil talk! But don't worry, the church set it straight. NOT. (I felt it was appropriate to ad that Borat reference considering the director of this film is also that of Borat.) In fact, my church gave such demeaning advice that day, that it actually made me question the faith I grew up with, at that point, for almost sixteen years. Our teacher told us that every time you had sex with someone before marriage, regardless of age, emotional intimacy or length of relationship, that you were losing a piece of your soul, and it would be impossible to get back. It was a sad moment in my life. Sad for those around me who had to hear such words, and sad for the teacher herself, who actually thought this was the right way to approach a generation who is already in such confusion about the world.

I eventually got confirmed later that year and was no longer forced to go to church. As that force decreased, my faith actually increased. I still attend church twice a year (Easter and Christmas) not because I want to, but because it's a nice reason for my family to be together. I certainly still believe in God, but I'm afraid that people are so hypocritical and radical when it comes to religion, that Bill Maher's bashing seems to make unusual sense.

On that note, back to the film. Bill Maher begins by saying that he is not in the know when it comes to religion. He never actually says so, but we assume he is an atheist. He wants to understand what people are thinking. How can someone believe that Jonah lived inside a whale for three days? Is judgment day truly coming? Does anyone really know what Scientology is about? I really don't. I know Tom Cruise and John Travolta are apart of it. And it was created by the author L. Ron Hubbard, who wrote Battlefield Earth. I think I actually blame him more for creating the source material for that morbid film adaptation than that religion. Bill Maher actually disguised himself as a Scientologist and started preaching it on the streets of a city. Dozens of people started to listen. I mean they were really listening. Are people just looking for answers to all of the world's proposed questions? In this case, Maher makes a point. Maybe people really don't know what the hell they are talking about.

In fact, he actually applauds one Christian for coming up with such "brilliant bullshit". In Orlando, Florida, Maher travels to a place called The Holy Land Experience. It's a reenactment through songs, interpretive dance, and really bad acting, of Jesus's crucifixion (if you do go, don't worry, Jesus is connected to a microphone, so you can hear him from the back row). The actor playing Jesus tells Maher that God works in higher levels than humans. We may not always understand what he's doing but we know it’s him. Like water, it works in three different forms. A gas, a solid (ice cube), and liquid. Bill Maher is so impressed with this "bullshit" that he is at a complete loss of words.

As the film continues to bash religion silly, it does tend to get a little redundant. I wish Maher would let some of his interviews be more focused on what others had to say. It's undeniably appropriate that the man wants to play hardball, but he's flirting dangerously close towards spite's gimbal lock. Then again, you kind of expect this behavior considering it is what made him famous in the first place.

Spite aside, Bill Maher knows what he is doing. In the final ten minutes of Religulous, putting all "bullshit" aside, he abandons humor and says his final peace on this crazy little thing called religion. I think he understands that God can give us comfort when we have no one to turn to. He even admits that he has turned to him at a younger age. That's not the problem he is referring to. The problem that emerges are those who are willing to sacrifice the decency of human morality, that referring to religious wars, for something that no one can really understand but God himself. Even though it always has been so, religion is becoming more and more abused; as an excuse for creating empires and establishing dominance. We may just be seeing things clear now because we are using such apocalyptic weapons on each other. Maybe that confusion I felt in my confirmation class that day now seems more comprehensible. If abused, religion can tear people apart and create a pointless, endless war. We Americans should know. We’re smack-dab in the middle of one.

Miracle at St. Anna

** Stars

I am glad to see that the whole pointless debacle between Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood has subsided (Lee criticized Eastwood for failing to have one African-American in his Iwo Jima films). Even though Spike Lee does have a point, Eastwood's Letters From Iwo Jima is the much superior film. Miracle at St. Anna is a huge disappointment. There is so much talent in this picture that to see such potential fail, is an eyesore to any film fan, especially Spike Lee's.

There are several positive things to say about St. Anna. Both the scope and cinematography are visually exceptional and there are moments of brilliance. However, I found myself trying so hard to focus on those moments, as they were quickly cut from existence and lost in a shuffle of other pointless historical reflections, that I finally gave up on its entire purpose. It's another classic example of a wonderful concept for a film gone wrong with its execution.

This is the story of the African American 92nd Infantry Division, who during World War II, is trapped near a small Tuscan village (Sant'Anna di Stazzema) after Private Sam Train (Omar Benson Miller) risks his life to save an Italian child. It's also the story of that town's heartbreaking massacre caused by Neo-Nazi Germans (these scenes are actually some of the strongest shots I have seen all year). It's also the story of a modern day murder case surrounding one of those soldiers who killed a man responsible for evil-doings during his time at St. Anna. It is ALSO a story about that Italian boy and whether or not he is an angel descended from heaven.

Now does that all sound like one movie? Sure, I guess. And it seems that Spike Lee would be the perfect filmmaker to bring that story to life. Wait, which one am I talking about? I'm not sure either. There are so many things going on here that we are frantically trying to understand Spike Lee's vision. I really wish he expanded more on the massacre itself rather than having the primary focus on the African American soldiers dealing with racial issues of its time. Then again, it is Spike Lee. This is a passion project, sure, and I absolutely respect that, but Spike Lee made one mistake. I will explain it in the next paragraph.

As I was leaving the theater, my roommates and I spent our twenty minute walk home discussing the film. One liked it. The other didn't. I began to hear their arguments and the one who liked it had a very interesting point. The film runs at 166 minutes. He said he wanted it to be longer. It didn't hit me right away, but he was absolutely right. Spike Lee has such conviction and passion for every project that he touches and his ability to explore important historical moments is truly the work of a gifted filmmaker. In 1992, he gave us Malcolm X. It was 202 minutes long. It was also an absolute masterpiece. What stopped him from adding on to this one? Did the studio force him to cut it down? Was their financial issues? If there is ever a film that needs a director's cut, this is the one.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

If your heart needs melting, try:

*** Stars

The Plot: A one-night trip through Manhattan surrounding two characters named Nick (Michael Cera) and Norah (Kat Dennings). Nick is coming off being dumped by his girlfriend Tris. He goes to a club to perform with his band "The Jerkoffs" where he meets Norah, who is forced into babysitting her drunken friend Caroline (Ari Graynor). The two connect, and spend a night arguing, gossiping, listening to music, discovering life, and learning the truth about love.

Why the film works: Did that sound corny for you? Sure does. Sounded corny when I wrote it. But when watching Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, I felt touched by its sincere portrait of young love. The way it unfolds does feel familiar, but that's only a disguise of what the film is really about. It's a story about finding yourself through someone else. We all need someone to bring our best side, and Nick and Norah show us that. The chemistry between the two leads is unavoidable.

Review in a nutshell: Even for you cold-hearted guys out there, this is the epitome of date movies. Best of luck.