All About Movies

`The Reader' is a masterpiece. Okay, I'm done now. Having read Bernhard Schlink's beautiful novel I was really anticipating this film. I feel that Kate Winslet is the finest working actress today and this just seemed like such an ideal role for her (Oscar, if you pass her over this year I vow to never watch another telecast). I of course try and shrug off all `high expectations', and thankfully with `The Reader' there was no hype. It hasn't been hailed as the best of anything, and while it has landed on a few top ten lists it rarely breaks close to the top. The reviews have been mixed, some raving it as a masterpiece, some labeling it a faux; an imitation of a more insightful film. The only awards the film has garnered up until the point have been for Winslet so walking into the film, I was not feeding into hype. I was simply hoping to see a good movie. The film tells the story of Michael Berg, a young fifteen year old boy living in Post-WWII Germany. One day while making his way home he falls ill and is helped back by an older woman named Hanna. After waiting out his illness he attempts to thank Hanna but he winds up falling into a steamy affair. The two bond over books, using reading as a form of foreplay, and the two become almost inseparable. Then for no apparent reason Hanna leaves town without a word and Michael is left wondering why his only love has left him. Years later while Michael is attending law school he gets the opportunity to sit in on a trial being held over war crimes and is stunned, and ultimately heartbroken, to see Hanna is one of the accused. First and foremost it should be addressed that this is not your typical Holocaust film, for quite frankly the Holocaust is the least impressionable part of this film. The film, like the novel, deals strongly with the feelings of guilt and redemption. There is a moral play that runs throughout each scene that begs the audience to cast judgment, but not in an absolute way but in a more complex and understanding way. `The Reader' has no easy answers, but it throws at the audience a bit of a conundrum. It reminds me very much of `Dead Man Walking', a film that appears to have such an easy answer yet causes you to rip apart your own ideals. I am keeping SPOILERS to a minimum here, but be forewarned that there may be a few. When we meet Michael and Hanna they seem like an odd match. He is obviously better off financially than she is. He is attending school and is doing rather well. Hanna is working a dead end job and living in a small apartment. Her education is limited but her yearning for more is apparent. There is an attraction physically, which cannot be denied. While Hanna is rough due to the nature of her life she is a diamond in the rough, a beautiful woman trapped within the shell of her former life. Michael is young and coming into his own; a handsome boy with a head on his shoulders. There's innocence within him that Hanna desires. Their relationship is very fast and very graphic, but there is a sincerity there that one needs to truly look for. Some have complained that the relationship was pure surface; nothing but lust. They are missing something crucial. `The Reader' is a film filled with quiet moments that speak volumes about the characters. There is a deeper connection between these two souls, one that maybe they can't even recognize. There is a moment where Hanna finds herself inside a small church listening to a young choir and the tears are streaming down her face, and as Michael watches her from the doorway we can see it; even if he or even she doesn't truly understand it. It is there. As the film progresses and the two are separated we begin to truly see the deeper connection that they are feeling for the first time. As the trial proceeds Michael is caught between his own feelings of right and wrong; between what is ethical and what is not. He is disturbed by the revelations concerning his former love; distraught over what this means for him and whether or not it had anything to do with his personal attachment to this woman. Can he bring himself to hate her? Can he bring himself to forgive her? Does she deserve that hatred or that forgiveness? There is a moment when Michael is attempting to visit Hanna in prison when everything makes sense; his eyes swelling with an emotion he has yet to fully realize. He struggles to convince himself that he hates this woman, because hating her would make it easier to forget her. `The Reader' is a masterfully crafted tale of love and loss; of what we tell ourselves in order to better understand something we haven't the capacity to grasp. There is the shame in Hanna's eyes as she hides her secret (one that you no doubt had guessed long before it was revealed, but the revealing of the secret is not really the point of the story), willing to sacrifice her very life so as not to be downgraded or looked down on. There is the guilt in Michael's eyes as he blames himself for Hanna's fate, unable to step outside his skin long enough to decide the correct course to case. This is a story about mistakes and missteps and regrets and the ultimate loss that comes from not fully understanding how to feel. Technically, this is a flawless film. I remember reviewing `...Jesse James...' last year (this site still won't let me type in that full name) and going on and on about how technically perfect it was, from the cinematography to the score to the lighting to the mood to just about everything. `The Reader' is the exact opposite in scope yet just as profound. It is a much subtler film, and so the score, the lighting, the cinematography and the set designs are smaller, yet just as pristine. Everything is so crisp and delicate; adding layers to the mood perfectly presented by director Stephen Daldry. I was a little hesitant about Daldry's ability to transfer Schlink's novel to the big screen. I loved `Billy Elliott' and continue to love it more and more every time I watch it, but Daldry's latest effort was that 2002 debacle `The Hours' and so I was truly afraid that he was going to run the same gamut and deliver a similar piece. `The Reader' is not only much more profound and poignant, but it is also executed much better than `The Hours' (to be fair, I need to watch this movie again, but I was not impressed the first or second go around). When it all boils down to it though, this movie is all about two things; Kate Winslet and David Kross. Both actors deliver career highs (and to say that about Winslet is saying a lot since she is always top notch). Their performances are truly organic. That has become my new favorite word this year, for I feel as though it truly taps into the depth of these performances. There is a naturalness that fortifies itself within these performances, deepening with each flicker in the eyes or twitch under the skin. Try your hardest to watch Winslet's face (I know it's hard, especially since she is without clothing for practically the whole first hour of the film). There is a scene where she is lying in the bathtub and Kross comes in to hash out their argument. As he speaks you can see for the first time her hard exterior melting away and revealing this woman that she doesn't even know exists. It is so subtle yet so profound. Winslet is utter perfection. Kross is just as superb, sinking into his character and delving deep into his emotional responses to his current situation. The scene in the courtroom (all of the courtroom scenes are beyond breathtaking) when he notices Hanna for the first time is utterly immobilized. Watch as Kross exhibits such a natural gut reaction; as controlled as he can be yet giving way to lapses of uncontrollability. The supporting cast is also superb, from Fiennes' dynamic understanding of Michael's emotional regression to Bruno Ganz's grasp of the real situation at hand. The one standout here is truly Olin, who proves to be one of the most important facets of the film. Her final scene with Fiennes is what makes the movie work, dispelling any easy sympathies for Hanna's atrocities with her cold standing. For anyone who has complained (and there have been many) that this film tries to condone the actions taken by Hanna I urge you to rewatch and study this scene, for in a few short words Hanna's actions are condemned wholeheartedly. Remember, it is not her actions that we are sympathizing with, it is her inner person; cold and rigged yet incomplete, pleading for something or someone to make her feel whole. Thanks in large part to David Hare's marvelous adaptation, `The Reader' lives up to its source material and delivers a truly outstanding and utterly astounding look at this tragic yet beautiful love story. If you walk away from `The Reader' unmoved then maybe you are just plain unmovable. I'll close by saying that the Oscar's have passed, Kate won the gold (YES!!!) and I still agree wholeheartedly with every word in this review.

I love the first three Indy films. Like so many others I was greatly looking forward to seeing a new one. I thought (or hoped) that the very long time they took to come up with a script meant they were polishing it to a brilliant shine. After seeing the movie, I conclude it was really a long negotiation between Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford, with some of them eager to make a crappy movie, and some of them not, with the end result being crappy, but perhaps not as crappy as it might have been. The movie started with a bit of promise (other than the infantile CGI prairie dog). I'm not as offended by the nuclear fridge scene as many are, because I know those mock towns weren't built at Ground Zero (or they would have been vaporized). They were built at a distance to judge the effect of the blast on places some miles from the explosion. So while it's not credible for Indy to survive being tossed around that much, he didn't exactly survive a nuclear explosion. Some of the other early scenes, such as those where Indy is actually discovering something, are also good. Still... About halfway through the movie, despite my fervent desire to like it, I realized it just wasn't working for me. No suspense. No real sense of urgency or danger. Low stakes. Too many marginal or pointless characters. Too much cartoon nonsense going on, far less believable than anything from the previous films (the stupid monkey vine swinging, Marian's idiotic tree-driving stunt, the multiple waterfall drops...none of it scary, none of it remotely convincing, or even fun). Marian's long-awaited big reveal was one of the biggest, flattest duds in film history. She shows up and spends most of the rest of the movie just tagging along with a dazed grin on her face like she was just grateful to be there, a flaccid dishrag compared to the character from the first film. Not Karen Allen's fault...she was just thrown in for nostalgia's sake, and was poorly written. Mutt was actually not a bad character, but I don't need or want him to be Indy's son. Is there any worse cliche in fiction than the Son He Never Knew He Had? I realize Spielberg and Lucas are fascinated by father issues, but I'm not. And then there's the whole point of the movie...the skull and the aliens...ehhhh. Who cares? The finale was a muddled jumble of flashing lights and wind that meant nothing and evoked nothing but tedium. Remember at the end of the previous films, where the characters actually seem to notice that something extraordinary has happened, were even scared, or traumatized just a little bit (okay, not so much in Crusade, where they quickly shake off any aftereffects and devolve into slapstick and lose all interest in their surroundings). Not this time. The giant flying saucer takes off, and Indy and his massive crew of sidekicks start cracking jokes. I'm inclined to blame Lucas for most of this mess. He's made a habit of lapses of taste and judgement since...hmm..."Howard the Duck"? I don't want to see this movie again, and I don't want to own it. I hope they don't make another, because these guys have proven they no longer have what it takes.

Here's the plot: the story of a bunch of actors, lost in the jungle and beseiged by drug-runners led by a twelve-year-old boy, who are filming the story of a bunch of soldiers lost in the woods and beseiged by Viet Cong. The film stars Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr., Jay Baruchel, Brandon T. Jackson, Danny McBride, and Nick Nolte. It features supporting roles by Matthew McConaughey, Tom Cruise, Steve Coogan, Bill Hader, and cameos by others. It was written by Stiller, Justin Theroux, and Etan Cohen, and was directed by Stiller. We got that out of the way? Good. Because here's the deal: "Tropic Thunder" is funny. And smart. How often do these go together, nowadays? They used to, back when Mel Brooks was running the show, and it's popped up again here and there, with "Knocked Up," "40 Year Old Virgin," and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." But "Tropic Thunder" has something all those movies don't: A point. The message isn't just about Hollywood, either; it's something about all of us, who pretend to be what we aren't. It's human nature to make believe; it's human nature to give into those beliefs and think they're real. Okay. Enough philosophy. I'm putting my soap box away. "Tropic Thunder" is absolutely gut-bustingly hilarious. It's also highly offensive, crude, and over-the-top; there are jokes that go to far, there are jokes that don't go far enough. Such is the nature of comedy. My point is, even the few jokes that fall flat serve to make the rest of the movie all the better. And it doesn't hurt that the film evokes the best from its three headliners: Stiller has never been funnier (I'm not a huge fan of his, but I have to say, the man approaches, in this film, something akin to comedic genius); Jack Black, likewise, is in top form (again, I'm not a big fan; but here, he's absolutely terrific); and Downey is, simply a wonder to behold. With all due respect to the rest of the cast and crew: This film would not be what it is without Downey's presence. It's not that he's portraying "a dude disguised as a dude pretending to be another dude" (in this case, a white Australian actor playing an African American); it's that he portrays it so eloquently. You never doubt his authenticity, a method actor so lost in his role that he doesn't drop character until after he does the DVD commentary. The entire cast is hilarious; Downey is also thoughtful and intriguing. "Tropic Thunder" is not for the faint of heart, or those who like their jokes clean, or those who like their movies without much thought put into them (if "Norbit" is your idea of classic comedy, please leave now). "Tropic Thunder" is a comedy with equal parts heart and cojones. It'll rock you out of your seat (especially with it's seventies rock soundtrack). It'll make you laugh 'til you wet yourself. And, certainly, it will make you re-think the way comedies are being made these days. If only all comedies could look this good, or be this thoughtful, or make us laugh this hard. If only.

Marley & Me is a movie about love and acceptance with lots of action, fun and the realities of life. The movie held my attention although I think they could have cut a few minutes off to tighten it up here and there. Nevertheless, the acting was very convincing throughout the movie. The cinematography works well for the crowded beach scenes in Florida as well as in the Grogan household when Marley the dog is running around like anything; and the choreography shines bright. When the action starts, we meet newlyweds John and Jennifer Grogan (Clive Owen and Jennifer Aniston) who marry during a rare springtime blizzard in Michigan. They are young and very much in love; but they decide to live in a warmer climate so they move to Florida. Once in Florida, Jennifer wants a baby; they also go to a woman who has puppies for sale--lots of them--and they pick the discount puppy that John names Marley. And Marley sure is a handful--fatherhood is less stressful! We get many funny situations in which Marley chews up anything and everything, especially when he is restless. Marley simply can't be controlled; he even flunks obedience training school on the very first day! On another occasion, Marley swallows an expensive necklace John gives to Jennifer when she's pregnant with their first child. Of course, we get drama that's much more human, too--and we see Marley becoming more and more of an equal family member going along with the family as they make decisions about their lives. Will John and Jennifer have more children; and will they always remain in Florida? In addition, look for a fine performance by Eric Dane playing Sebastian, a womanizer who befriends John after John starts working at a Florida newspaper called The Sun-Sentinel. I must admit that although many of these amusing "dog-run-amuck" scenes might not be so funny if they happened to you in real life. For example, if you had a dog that completely destroyed your garage tumbling over your stored possessions, breaking some of them and even eating through drywall, your day might be so pleasant. In the movie, however, it works for a good laugh. Moreover, the ending of the film is upsetting, especially for young children. I suggest that grown-ups talk to their children before seeing this movie so that they don't experience too much of a shock. The single DVD version of this movie comes with a gag reel; and we get some deleted scenes, too. Overall, Marley & Me gives us a tender portrait of a family that includes a dog as a true-blue member of the family regardless of how difficult the dog can be. The movie sends a great message about the importance of unconditional love; and I recommend this movie on DVD despite an ending that isn't exactly the happiest.

I love Howard Hawks' films...Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, Red River, and Rio Bravo are amazing pieces of entertainment. As I was watching Australia, the new Baz Luhrmann movie with Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman, I kept thinking...man, Baz must really love Hawks' movies, too. As evidenced by the films above, the mismatched couple who fight and fight until they realize they're perfect for each other (see Much Ado About Nothing, Taming of the Shrew, and Moonlighting as other examples of the form) and the group of underestimated misfits who come together to fight evil are two big elements used again and again by Hawks. Throw in a bit of John Ford's The Searchers and its hard look at racism leading to inhuman deeds and mix well and you have...Australia. The problem modern audiences may have with Luhrmann's new movie is it's very, very earnest. This is straight ahead epic storytelling with its heart on its sleeve and hat and boots with never a wink to the crowd in the theater to say "ain't these people quaint". You either buy in or you don't. If you do, like I did, you're in for a hell of a ride. This, I feel, is the flip-side to The Dark Knight. Good and evil are trapped in something akin to a battle and an embrace in Nolan's Gotham City. You root for Batman, but he does stuff that is on the wrong side of freedom and civil rights. The Joker is pure crazy, but he's the most mesmerizing character in the film. In Australia, there are good guys and bad guys and you are either really good or twirl your mustache evil. The main villain actually may be a bit too two-dimensional in that aspect, but it didn't hurt my overall enjoyment. Why? Well, epic melodrama is hard to pull off...I'm talking about the real stuff here. The recent BBC production of Bleak House is a great example. There are very good and very, very bad people in that story, but the acting is so fantastic you rarely if ever catch yourself rolling your eyes (like whenever I've watched Smallville...see: bad epic melodrama). Kidman and Jackman sell their characters...the displaced Englishwoman and the rough-hewn "Drover". They are thrown together just to, initially it seems, thwart a nasty cattle baron from monopolizing the beef industry in the country. But the other big story, the main one in fact, centers around Australia's "lost generation". These were Aboriginal children who were fathered by white men who didn't claim them. They were taken by the government, the mothers had no rights, and handed over to the church to be taught to "act white" and then work in the servant class. Nullah, played by the fantastic child actor Brandon Walters, is one of these "creamies" who has been hidden on the ranch now owned by Lady Sarah Ashley (Kidman). Lady Ashley discovers what is going on, is horrified by the law, and works to keep him hidden as well. Why the Drover cares so much about Nullah becomes clear later in the film (no, it's not what you think...that would be too easy) and Jackman's experience with stage and musical work does him proud here. He can do earnest better than almost any actor alive when he needs to and his later use of the f-word (the only curse I can remember from the entire film) hits so hard, in just the right emotional moment, that it kills. Russell Crowe was originally cast as the Drover but backed out. If Crowe had done the film, and I have liked him in other things...the Napoleon-era British navy film that I can't remember the name of right now, it would not have worked. Crowe never loses that bit of edge and the Drover, at one point, really has to fully break down and become completely vulnerable. Jackman shines at that point. Anyway...a warning, the movie is long 2 hours and 40something minutes, but I didn't realize that until I had left the theater. I saw it alone...I was out of town at a pediatrics meeting...and that's a good thing. I didn't have to hide from Holly the few times the movie hit me a bit too hard and do that cough-throat clearing thing we dudes do to cover up a stray tear.

At this point, I think it's safe to say that we can all depend on Sean Penn. What an amazingly versatile actor, gifted with the ability to transform himself into virtually anyone from virtually any background. Even the God-awful 2006 remake of "All the King's Men" was made better by his portrayal of Willie Stark. He shines once again in Gus Van Sant's "Milk," a film that chronicles the final years of Harvey Milk, who became the first openly gay man to be elected into public office in California. Before his assassination in 1978, he managed to become a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and was the driving force behind a number of demonstrations that challenged many anti-gay initiatives. His story could not be more perfectly timed; I live in California, where, in the last election, a proposition to ban same-sex marriage (Prop 8) was put on the ballot. I'm sorry to say that it passed (although, as of the date of this writing, the ruling is being challenged in California's Supreme Court). But social and political commentaries aren't the sum of the film's parts. "Milk" is a rich, enlightening character study, probing deeply into the minds of very different people. This brings me back to Sean Penn, who certainly had his work cut out for him as the title character. As an activist, Milk was such a unique personality--outrageous, bold, and even a bit theatrical, yet refreshingly earnest and straightforward at the same time. His beginnings, on the other hand, were much more conservative, and he kept it that way throughout most of his adult life. The story proper begins in 1970 on the eve of his fortieth birthday, at which point he's an insurance statistician in New York City. On the steps of a deserted subway station, he meets Scott Smith (James Franco). The two quickly become lovers, move to San Francisco, and open a camera shop in the Castro district. And yet, something is missing for Milk. "I'm forty years old," he observes, "and I haven't done a thing I'm proud of." Tired of guarding his sexuality and sick of the way law enforcement has been handling hate crimes, he soon establishes himself as a community activist, advocating equality for all. It isn't long before his political ambitions grow, and by 1975, he was ready to cut his hair, abstain from marijuana, and seriously pursue a position in city government. Three all-consuming, unsuccessful campaigns drive a wedge between Milk and Smith; by the time Milk is finally elected as a representative for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977, their relationship cools to a mere friendship. At this point, Milk has recruited Cleve Jones (Emile Hirsch), a young activist, and Anne Kronenberg (Alison Pill), a lesbian campaign manager. They do whatever they can to rally supporters, especially now that Milk is trying to pass a city ordinance that would protect people--many of them teachers--from being fired because of their sexual orientation. He faces an uphill battle with the Christian Right, specifically Senator John Briggs (Denis O'Hare) and singer/former orange juice spokeswoman Anita Bryant (seen only in actual archival news footage). He faces a battle of a different kind with Dan White (Josh Brolin), a Board Supervisor Milk suspects of being a closeted homosexual, despite his staunch anti-gay stance. Indeed, there's something both odd and desperate about White's behavior towards Milk, inviting him to his son's christening, showing up at Milk's birthday party drunk and shouting that he's got issues too. As White grows more and more resentful of Milk and his inner circle of political allies--specifically Mayor George Moscone (Victor Garbor)--we see less of a political figure and more of a man on the brink of emotional collapse. There's a fascinating association between the film's political message and Van Sant's cinematic creativity. A few select moments are true narrative masterstrokes, and they each involve quiet yet profound reflections in shiny objects. One of the earliest takes place early in Milk's political career, at which point gays in San Francisco were issued whistles; when Milk arrives at the crime scene of a murdered young man, his conversation with a police officer is shown entirely as a reflection off of a blood stained whistle. Another moment takes place much later on in White's living room, after Milk had established himself as a prominent politician. White's television set displays Milk in the middle of a news interview; we see White's reflection in the bottom left corner of the screen, and while we don't know what he's thinking, we do know that he's interested in what Milk is saying. One of the most striking subplots involves Milk and his new lover, Jack Lira (Diego Luna), who quickly proves that he's ill-equipped to handle Milk's rising political clout. He's painfully insecure, and it only gets worse as Milk's schedule goes from heavy to full. Lira clings to Milk like a frightened animal, which is understandable but also pathetic. The real sorrow comes from the fact that Milk was too busy fighting a good fight to take any notice. What if he didn't have anything to fight against? What if there was no discrimination? "Milk" will no doubt inspire many people, but it's also likely to infuriate many others. If you're like me, then you might feel a little bit of both. Why are we still at a point where equality has to be fought for? Are we not in the twenty-first century? Shouldn't we have gotten over this issue a long time ago? It's sad to leave a movie theater and realize that not much has changed in thirty years.