The rise of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his simultaneous estrangement from his wife Cécilia.
viewed 3/1/12 7:10 at Ritz Bourse
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Act of Valor (**)
The big deal about this film is that real Navy SEALs took part in the filming. The bad deal (besides the storyline) is that they aren’t great actors, and, unlike having a real mixed-martial-arts star in Haywire, their presence probably doesn’t add much to the action scenes either. You can see Gina Carano’s fighting skill on display in the former, but a sniper’s shooting skills and quick response time could be more easily faked. Still, there seems to be some realism to the first action sequence, in which a team of SEALs take down kidnappers in the Philippines. A couple of later set pieces, while upping the action quotient, bring diminishing returns in terms of dramatic tension.
Directors Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh had previously made a documentary short, but this is the first feature for both. Waugh was a former stunt coordinator, so it makes sense that the action is good in terms of technical quality, though only average in terms of how they’re filmed. Where the movie is weak, though, is in supplying an interesting storyline or characters. I forgot the credentials of each of the SEALS even as they were recited (in a voiceover), save for the “chief,” who is said to be a fearsome interrogator. Aside from the chief, there’s very little to differentiate the heroes, though one of them, shown leaving a wife at home and heard quoting Tecumseh (“A single twig breaks, but the bundle of twigs is strong”), is sort of a main character.
The bad guys are more interesting (and more convincingly portrayed) and have a novel new weapon at their disposal. One of them, at least, is given a little more dimension than your typical action-movie villain. When interrogated, he even appears to care for his wife and children. Given the movie’s reverence for the military, it’s not surprising that, when we get to see the chief in action, there’s no waterboarding, but actual interrogation. This is a welcome novelty, but the questioning is so brief that it’s not a whole lot more realistic than movies in which beatings produce uniformly reliable confessions.
As for the plotting, it basically comes down to the team being told of some bit of intelligence, then progressing to somewhere else on the globe, now the Philippines, now Africa, now Mexico. How the intelligence is actually gathered is not of concern; basically the goal is to provide an excuse for the SEALs to go somewhere else and kick some ass. Those who like their action with a patriotic patina may find Act of Valor stirring, and the screen crawl at the end listing SEALs who have actually died in combat is sobering, but this is still a pretty mediocre movie at best.
viewed 2/8/12 at Ritz East [PFS screening] and reviewed 2/9/12 and 2/27/12
Directors Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh had previously made a documentary short, but this is the first feature for both. Waugh was a former stunt coordinator, so it makes sense that the action is good in terms of technical quality, though only average in terms of how they’re filmed. Where the movie is weak, though, is in supplying an interesting storyline or characters. I forgot the credentials of each of the SEALS even as they were recited (in a voiceover), save for the “chief,” who is said to be a fearsome interrogator. Aside from the chief, there’s very little to differentiate the heroes, though one of them, shown leaving a wife at home and heard quoting Tecumseh (“A single twig breaks, but the bundle of twigs is strong”), is sort of a main character.
The bad guys are more interesting (and more convincingly portrayed) and have a novel new weapon at their disposal. One of them, at least, is given a little more dimension than your typical action-movie villain. When interrogated, he even appears to care for his wife and children. Given the movie’s reverence for the military, it’s not surprising that, when we get to see the chief in action, there’s no waterboarding, but actual interrogation. This is a welcome novelty, but the questioning is so brief that it’s not a whole lot more realistic than movies in which beatings produce uniformly reliable confessions.
As for the plotting, it basically comes down to the team being told of some bit of intelligence, then progressing to somewhere else on the globe, now the Philippines, now Africa, now Mexico. How the intelligence is actually gathered is not of concern; basically the goal is to provide an excuse for the SEALs to go somewhere else and kick some ass. Those who like their action with a patriotic patina may find Act of Valor stirring, and the screen crawl at the end listing SEALs who have actually died in combat is sobering, but this is still a pretty mediocre movie at best.
viewed 2/8/12 at Ritz East [PFS screening] and reviewed 2/9/12 and 2/27/12
Rampart (***)
A few more movies like this and the LAPD might get a bad reputation. Woody Harrelson’s character, Dave Brown, instantly dislikable yet, by the end, a bit pitiable, is the unclean cop in a film that starts out seeming something like Training Day. As Brown, nicknamed “date rape,” but not for the reason you think, instructs his own trainee on the ways of controlling “wetbacks” and other riff raff, she asks if he isn’t afraid of getting a “128” (sanction for misbehavior). “Illegal is just a sick bird,” he replies. But the recruit moves on, and the Brown’s misconduct catches up the modern way, by being caught on video. Arrogant charm is enough to get a lawyer (Robin Wright) into his bed, but seems less likely to win over Internal Affairs. A retired cop buddy (Ned Beatty) may not do it either. And his two exes—sisters—and two daughters (one by each sister) are losing patience with him. (The high school-age daughter, especially.)
Unlike most cop films, this is very much a character study, not an action thriller. The director is Oren Moverman, who previously directed Harrelson in The Messenger, but the low-key realism, and no doubt much of the gritty, witty dialogue comes partly by way of cowriter James Ellroy. Ellroy wrote the book on corrupt Los Angeles cops, several in fact; one was L.A. Confidential. (Rampart is an L.A. police involved in a real misconduct scandal in the late 1990s, but this story is narrowly focused.) Wisely, the movie doesn’t drift into obvious moralizing like Training Day. There’s no Ethan Hawke character to serve as audience surrogate. Brown’s family serves some of the same function, but mostly this is about a man who has lived by his own rules slowly coming to grips with the cost. By the end, that theme has been reiterated to the point of near redundancy. Still, Moverman is not heavy handed, and the movie stops before depicting an ending that is by then, broadly obvious.
viewed at Ritz Bourse 2/16/12 7:30 pm [PFS screening] and reviewed 2/16/12
Friday, February 17, 2012
Thin Ice (***)
Like Double Indemnity, another film about an insurance man, or A Simple Plan, another film set in the snowy upper Midwest, this is about a scheme gone wrong, and about how men’s weaknesses can lead to their downfall. Greg Kinnear plays a Kenosha, WI, salesman who never misses an opportunity for a new client, even if the client is an elderly man (Alan Arkin) who doesn’t seem to have much income or property worth insuring. His weaknesses are gambling, professional jealousy, a blonde in a hotel lobby’s bar, and a certain lack of moral conscience. His adversaries are a mild-mannered violin broker (Bob Balaban) and a fairly unhinged (and darkly comic) security system installer (Billy Crudup).
I only noticed a couple of possible plot holes in the story, which comes from director/cowriter Jill Sprechter, last heard from in 2001’s Thirteen Conversations About One Thing. As events conspire against this antihero, I expected a certain kind of ending and got another, one that seems to make Kinnear’s character into an avuncular figure and that doesn’t really seem suitable, since he has previously displayed virtually no redeeming feature. It’s also rather clumsy in requiring the character to re-explain the entire preceding 90 minutes.
Though no doubt the final twist will delight some, and surprise most (but pay attention to the briefer voiceover at the beginning), I’d have just as soon left things more predictable. A surprise ending is, after all, a feat achieved remarkably easy so long one can make it contrived and wildly implausible. That Sprechter’s film was re-edited without her involvement or consent after playing at festivals may explain why the conclusion seems both wrong and tacked on. Ignore it and you have a decent suspense drama. Replace it and you’d have a very good one.
viewed 2/29/12 at Ritz Bourse and reviewed 2/29/12
I only noticed a couple of possible plot holes in the story, which comes from director/cowriter Jill Sprechter, last heard from in 2001’s Thirteen Conversations About One Thing. As events conspire against this antihero, I expected a certain kind of ending and got another, one that seems to make Kinnear’s character into an avuncular figure and that doesn’t really seem suitable, since he has previously displayed virtually no redeeming feature. It’s also rather clumsy in requiring the character to re-explain the entire preceding 90 minutes.
Though no doubt the final twist will delight some, and surprise most (but pay attention to the briefer voiceover at the beginning), I’d have just as soon left things more predictable. A surprise ending is, after all, a feat achieved remarkably easy so long one can make it contrived and wildly implausible. That Sprechter’s film was re-edited without her involvement or consent after playing at festivals may explain why the conclusion seems both wrong and tacked on. Ignore it and you have a decent suspense drama. Replace it and you’d have a very good one.
viewed 2/29/12 at Ritz Bourse and reviewed 2/29/12
This Means War (**1/4)
When computer programs become sophisticated enough to write and direct movies on their own, this may be the kind they create. Carefully designed with an easy-to-describe high concept—CIA agent pals fight over Reese Witherspoon—it’s the perfect entertainment to sell to men and women, whether they like a little comedy, a little romance, or a little action, and it’s unerringly pruned of any possible dull moments. Appealing up-and-comers Chris Pine (Star Trek’s Kirk) and Tom Hardy (Warrior, Inception) are a complementary womanizer/sensitive guy pair; both guys can kill a bunch of folks or destroy a restaurant or almost die and still manage to make a wisecrack right after. This isn’t exactly Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.
Of course, at least for awhile, you won’t expect a computer to create characters that seem like real people, or for the movie to spark the sorts of feelings one feels about real humans, but a certain type of formulaic humor will not be beyond the capacity of the machine. Most of the humor revolves around the males’ predictable attempts to undermine each other’s attempts at seduction, and one scene involving some private viewed, very expensive art definitely made me chuckle. (How being a CIA agent gives you access to million-dollar paintings, or how one might explain this to a date who thinks he’s a cruise-ship captain, is one of several such situations that go unexplained.)
It’s pretty certain the real CIA didn’t cooperate with this, since none of their agents seems to have any qualms about spying on a coworker or private citizens who happen to be dating the coworker. I longed for the scene in which Reese’s character finds out how much her dates have been lying to and spying on her, but maybe that’s in the sequel. Then again, she herself lies too, at first inventing a boyfriend to impress her ex, then avoiding telling either of two about the other. The most interesting thing for me was watching how the potential sexual complications would be handled. It’s okay for Chris Pine’s character to have a fuck buddy, but is letting Reese Witherspoon sleep with two guys at once acceptable? Hmm.
Actually, a computer didn’t make this film, although you could be forgiven for thinking that McG, which is what the director goes by, is one. He’s best known for the Charlie’s Angels films, and if you can think of something like that with a little more comedy replacing some action, you’ll have an idea of his approach. That is, this is pure Hollywood product, but with a slick competence; it’s silly but not cheesy, and never slow. I suspect it will be appealing, if quickly forgettable, to many people. The action scenes are too choppily edited, though. They’re just okay. Of the actors, Hardy has a certain charm, and Chelsea Handler invests her best-friend character with more personality than the leads.
As for the heroine’s dilemma, you won’t figure out who she winds up with by watching the date scenes—we never really see these characters connect, so any resolution would have made equal sense—but rather by using a simple romantic comedy truism, which is that no character, except a villain, can be allowed to be sad and alone at the end of the movie. Realize this and you can figure out what happens. (Hint: sadly, they don’t end up as a threesome.) In fact, though, you can skip the whole movie.
viewed 2/9/12 at Ritz East [PFS screening] and reviewed 2/9 and 2/10/12
Of course, at least for awhile, you won’t expect a computer to create characters that seem like real people, or for the movie to spark the sorts of feelings one feels about real humans, but a certain type of formulaic humor will not be beyond the capacity of the machine. Most of the humor revolves around the males’ predictable attempts to undermine each other’s attempts at seduction, and one scene involving some private viewed, very expensive art definitely made me chuckle. (How being a CIA agent gives you access to million-dollar paintings, or how one might explain this to a date who thinks he’s a cruise-ship captain, is one of several such situations that go unexplained.)
It’s pretty certain the real CIA didn’t cooperate with this, since none of their agents seems to have any qualms about spying on a coworker or private citizens who happen to be dating the coworker. I longed for the scene in which Reese’s character finds out how much her dates have been lying to and spying on her, but maybe that’s in the sequel. Then again, she herself lies too, at first inventing a boyfriend to impress her ex, then avoiding telling either of two about the other. The most interesting thing for me was watching how the potential sexual complications would be handled. It’s okay for Chris Pine’s character to have a fuck buddy, but is letting Reese Witherspoon sleep with two guys at once acceptable? Hmm.
Actually, a computer didn’t make this film, although you could be forgiven for thinking that McG, which is what the director goes by, is one. He’s best known for the Charlie’s Angels films, and if you can think of something like that with a little more comedy replacing some action, you’ll have an idea of his approach. That is, this is pure Hollywood product, but with a slick competence; it’s silly but not cheesy, and never slow. I suspect it will be appealing, if quickly forgettable, to many people. The action scenes are too choppily edited, though. They’re just okay. Of the actors, Hardy has a certain charm, and Chelsea Handler invests her best-friend character with more personality than the leads.
As for the heroine’s dilemma, you won’t figure out who she winds up with by watching the date scenes—we never really see these characters connect, so any resolution would have made equal sense—but rather by using a simple romantic comedy truism, which is that no character, except a villain, can be allowed to be sad and alone at the end of the movie. Realize this and you can figure out what happens. (Hint: sadly, they don’t end up as a threesome.) In fact, though, you can skip the whole movie.
viewed 2/9/12 at Ritz East [PFS screening] and reviewed 2/9 and 2/10/12
Friday, February 10, 2012
Pentecost [short] (**3/4)
This short film, set in 1977, tell the tale of a sin-prone Irish altar boy whose short-term salvation—being able to watch Liverpool play in the European Cup match—depends on his performance in an important mass. Pithy like a short story, but without the interior monologue that the written form could have incorporated, it’s a bit thin. The bit in which the priest instructs the boys in the manner of a football coach before a big game is inspired, though.
viewed 2/17/12 9:35 at Ritz Bourse [Oscar-nominated live-action shorts program] and reviewed 2/18/12
viewed 2/17/12 9:35 at Ritz Bourse [Oscar-nominated live-action shorts program] and reviewed 2/18/12
Raju [short] (***1/2)
A German couple’s joy at meeting their adoptive son in India is temporary as they learn that Kolkata’s crowded streets are an easy place to lose someone. The film becomes a cultural window into the vast gulf between a poor country and a rich one, and the way a crisis can reveal a schism between spouses. Probably the best of the five nominees for the Oscar for best live-action short.
viewed 2/17/12 9:35 at Ritz Bourse [Oscar-nominated live-action shorts program] and reviewed 2/18/12
viewed 2/17/12 9:35 at Ritz Bourse [Oscar-nominated live-action shorts program] and reviewed 2/18/12
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)