DVD Review: A Cat in Paris

A Cat in Paris

Directed by: Jean-Loup Felicioli & Alain Gagnol.

Written by: Alain Gagnol & Jacques-Rémy Girerd.

Starring: Dominique Blanc (Jeanne), Bruno Salomone (Nico), Jean Benguigui (Victor Costa), Bernadette Lafont (Zoé's Nanny), Oriane Zani (Zoé), Bernard Bouillon (Lucas).

When the Oscar nominees were announced last year, the Belgium film A Cat in Paris surprised many by being nominated for Best Animated Film. Having seen the film now, I am even more surprised, as I found the entire film to be rather thin, and not very involving. Yes, it has some charming moments – and the animation has a certain flair to it – but overall, this was just an exercise in style.

The plot centers of Zoe, a young girl living in Paris with her mother, Jeanne, who is the police superintendent. Zoe’s father was killed by a gangster named Victor Costa, and Jeanne has been trying to prove it ever since. Zoe has taken to stop talking since her father’s death – her only friends her seemingly nice Nanny, and her cat Dino – who unbeknownst to everyone, leads a double life. At night, Dino sneaks out and accompanies a cat burglar – Nico – on his jobs. While following Dino one day, Zoe not only discovers his secret – but also her Nanny’s, and falls into the clutches of Victor. Nico, car burglar though he may be – is not that bad of guy, and tries to save her.

A Cat in Paris has its charms – it falls with film noir conventions at times, and there are some wonderfully choreographed chase sequences over the roofs of Paris – including the climax, which ends up at Notre Dame. And while I liked the character animation – which uses some bold geometry to create the characters, there was a constant flickering of shadows across everyone’s faces that I found to be rather distracting.

Overall, I’d say that at best, A Cat in Paris is an interesting, mildly amusing distraction. It is charming in fits and starts, but it never really adds up to anything.

DVD Review: Margaret

Margaret Directed by: Kenneth Lonergan.
Written by: Kenneth Lonergan.
Starring: Anna Paquin (Lisa Cohen), J. Smith-Cameron (Joan), Mark Ruffalo (Maretti), Jeannie Berlin (Emily), Jean Reno (Ramon), Sarah Steele (Becky), John Gallagher Jr. (Darren), Cyrus Hernstadt (Curtis), Allison Janney (Monica Patterson), Kieran Culkin (Paul), Matt Damon (Mr. Aaron), Stephen Adly Guirgis (Mitchell), Betsy Aidem (Abigail), Adam Rose (Anthony), Nicholas Theodore Grodin (Matthew), Rosemarie DeWitt (Mrs. Maretti), Matthew Broderick (John), Hina Abdullah (Angie), Olivia Thirlby (Monica), Kenneth Lonergan (Karl), Michael Ealy (Dave the Lawyer).

Kenneth Lonergan’s long delayed, barely released Margaret became a critical cause celebre late last year when critics rallied beyond the troubled production to try to get the studio behind it, Fox Searchlight, it give it a chance in the awards season and at the box office. Despite all the headlines the so-called “Team Margaret” generated, it really had no discernible impact. Now, for those of us who don’t live in one of the few markets that Margaret was released in, we can finally see the film on DVD to see what all the fuss was about. But unlike many overhyped movies, Margaret was worth the wait. This really is one of the best films of 2011 – and will hopefully finally get the audience it deserves.

Margaret opens with a horrific, and graphic, bus accident that leaves a woman (Allison Janney) bleeding to death on the streets. Lisa Cohen (Anna Paquin), holds the dying woman in her arms, and gets blood on her hands – both literally and figuratively. She feels that she is responsible for what happened, but she was running alongside the bus, trying to get the drivers (Mark Ruffalo) attention, causing him to run a red light and hitting the innocent woman in the intersection. Yet when she`s interviewed on the scene, and then later, she lies – telling the investigators that the light was green when the bus entered the intersection. It is this decision that will haunt her for the rest of the film.

Margaret tries to do a lot of things during its running time – which has led some to argue the movie is disjointed or flawed, and probably explains why the studio had doubts about the film in the first place. To me though, Margaret is a great movie because it is not narrowly focused on any one subject, but rather is a complex examination of Lisa, and the world around her. But it is the fact that Margaret tries – and to me succeeds – in doing so much that makes it one of the best films of the year.

On one level, the movie is a moral puzzle, as Lisa tries to figure out what the right thing to do is – should she tell the truth, and let the consequences be what they are, or should she just let it go, and let the bus driver return to his normal life? When she finally decides, after much consultation, to tell the truth, she first visits the bus driver in person – the only scene in the movie where Mark Ruffalo gets to speak. The movie wisely leaves it to the audience to try and figure out how he feels about it. Does he really believe, as he states, that it was simply and accident and he’s blameless? Or is he simply trying to protect himself and his family? The scene, which comes almost exactly half way through the movie, becomes a turning point for the film. Right around that time, Lisa meets Emily (the brilliant Jeannie Berlin), who was the best friend (perhaps more?) of the dead woman, who encourages Lisa to tell the truth, and who Lisa begins to trust more than anyone. This underlines another part of the movie, which is the story of the strained relationship between teenage girls and their mothers. Lisa’s mother Joan (J. Cameron Smith) is trying her best to help Lisa – but finds herself rebuffed at every turn. True, Joan is busy with a new play she’s starring in, and a new boyfriend (Jean Reno), but Lisa barely gives her a chance. In Emily, Lisa sees an alternate mother – one who seems to care and understand her more. Yet, the best scene in the movie may just be when Emily finally calls Lisa on her “self-mythologizing” – and rips into her something fierce. This serves to confuse Lisa even more.

The moral puzzle of the bus accident and the mother-daughter relationships – both real and surrogate – are the two main story threads, but there are others. A number of fascinating classroom conversations about the post 9/11 world that get heated, another classroom conversation about Shakespeare is just as fascinating. A too close teacher-student relationship between Lisa and Mr. Aaron, a painfully realistic and awkward portrait of losing one’s virginity. Lisa trying desperately to connect with her distant – both emotionally and geographically – father (played by Lonergan himself). Margaret develops all of these story threads to certain degrees, and they all make the movie a more complex – more complete portrait of this teenage girl trying to figure things out.

It must be said that Anna Paquin delivers an amazing performance as Lisa – she deserved to at least be nominated for an Oscar last year for it. This is a difficult performance because it forces her to hit so many different notes, and she handles it all remarkably. Like many teenage girls, her actions often seem to wildly impulsive – but they make sense in the moment, which for teenagers, is really all you can ask. She is supported by an amazing cast – particularly Jeannie Berlin, whose pain is real, and J. Cameron Smith, as a mother trying so hard to juggle so many balls, and failing at times. But even the smallest roles are filled with great performances, in what is one of the best ensembles in recent memory.

Kenneth Lonergan made his directorial debut in 2000 with the great You Can Count on Me, which was a much simpler, more straight forward film than Margaret. He is a playwright, turned script doctor, turned filmmaker. With Margaret, he establishes that You Can Count on Me was no fluke – he is the real deal – one of the most interesting filmmakers with only two films on his resume working right now. It took a long time for Margaret to hit theaters – but it was worth the wait. Let’s hope that all the crap that surrounded this masterpiece does not derail his filmmaking career. Few filmmakers would attempt a film as complex as Margaret – even fewer would pull it off so brilliantly.

Note: This review was of the the theatrical version - which was the only one available to me when it was released on Tuesday. There is a Blu-Ray edition that includes both this version, and the "extended version", which is over three hours long, or about a half hour longer than the theatrical version. It is my understanding however that this version is available "exclusively" through Amazon for the time being. When it becomes more widely available, I will be definitely be checking it out.

DVD Review: Atlas Shrugged Part I

Atlas Shrugged Part I * ½
Directed by: Paul Johansson.
Written by: John Aglialoro & Brian Patrick O'Toole based on the novel by Ayn Rand.
Starring: Taylor Schilling (Dagny Taggart), Grant Bowler (Henry Rearden), Matthew Marsden (James Taggart), Paul Johansson (John Galt), Edi Gathegi (Eddie Willers), Patrick Fischler (Paul Larkin), Michael O'Keefe (Hugh Akston), Geoff Pierson (Midas Mulligan), Michael Lerner (Wesley Mouch), Jon Polito (Orren Boyle), Rebecca Wisocky (Lillian Rearden), Christina Pickles (Mother Rearden), Jsu Garcia (Francisco D'Anconia), Navid Negahban (Dr. Robert Stadler), Graham Beckel (Ellis Wyatt), Ethan Cohn (Owen Kellogg), Neill Barry (Phillip Rearden).

Despite how bad it is as a movie, it is almost a shame that the second two parts of the proposed Atlas Shrugged trilogy do not look like they will ever be made. Producer and co-writer John Agialoro blames critics for the bad reviews they gave they gave the film for sinking it at the box office, and has effectively decided to go on strike, like the exceptional people in his movie. But it wasn’t bad reviews from liberal film critics that sunk Atlas Shrugged Part I at the box office – it`s that it really is a bad movie. After all, films like Courageous and Fireproof also got bad reviews from most critics, and marketed themselves outside normal channels to a mostly conservative audience, and did quite well. Still, it is a shame that the heart of Ayn Rand`s paranoid, right wing fantasy will never make it to the big screen. As ridiculous as I find the premise, it could have made for some good entertainment.

Last year, upon hearing that a film version of the book was coming out, I finally bit the bullet and read Rand`s magnum opus of a book – well over 1,000 pages – and one of the most popular books ever written. It was a long, slow read – and not one I particularly enjoyed, but before you accuse me of it simply being because of my liberal bias – I`m not trying to hide the fact that I am in fact a  liberal – what bugged me about the book was the stilted dialogue between the characters, and how one dimensional everyone was. People will either 100% great or 100% awful. The characters that Rand admires are logical all the time – like a race of Spock`s – and make every decision – even who to have sex with – with their brains. To me the book, as entertaining as a paranoid fantasy as it was at times, really didn’t understand human nature or behavior. This movie is the same way – without the redeeming value of being an entertaining paranoid fantasy, because the movie never really gets to that part. The movie doesn’t really end, but just stops.

The film centers of Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schiller), second in command behind her incompetent brother James (Matthew Marsden) of Taggart Transcontinental, a railway line that was once great, and has fallen into disrepair. It is 2016, and the American economy is on the brink of collapse (damn Obama!), and for some reason railway transportation is of upmost importance (the reason is that when Rand wrote her book, railway transportation was much more important than it is now). She decides to repair the railways using Rearden Metal, the brainchild of Hank Rearden (Grant Bowler) which is being attacked even though it is lighter, cheaper and stronger than steel. The Government is trying very hard to ensure they regulate everyone out of business. And the worst part is that many of the country’s best and brightest are disappearing. And everyone is asking “Who is John Galt?”

There are multiple problems with Atlas Shrugged Part I. Rand’s stilted dialogue is pretty much retained word for word – and no matter how stilted it seemed on the page, it sounds even worse when spoken by the actors. The leads – Schilling and Bowler – are wooden and emotionless throughout. Although there is the presence of some fine character actors in supporting roles – Jon Polito, Michael Lerner, Patrick Fishler and Michael O’Keefe – none of them are really given a chance to develop their parts. The visual look of the film isn’t half bad – yes, it looks and feels like a TV movie, but not a horribly directed one. There is some nice art direction despite its low budget.

The biggest one though is that the movie is just so damn slow. Yes, Atlas Shrugged is a very long book – and unlike say Breaking Dawn you definitely need to split it up into multiple movies or a miniseries to get it all in there. But it appears to me that the filmmakers were so in love with Rand`s novel, they didn’t want to lose everything. This means the forward momentum of the movie quite simply isn’t there. Ayn Rand`s Atlas Shrugged was a lot of things – but boring wasn’t one of them. I may disagree with almost everything she said in her life, but she was interesting in how she said it. So no, I do not agree with the politics of the movie – but that`s not why I hated it.

Movie Review: W.E.

W.E. **
Directed by: Madonna.
Written by: Madonna & Alek Keshishian.
Starring: Abbie Cornish (Wally Winthrop), Andrea Riseborough (Wallis Simpson), James D'Arcy (Edward), Oscar Isaac (Evgeni), Richard Coyle (William Winthrop), David Harbour (Ernest), James Fox (King George V), Judy Parfitt (Queen Mary), Haluk Bilginer (Al Fayed), Geoffrey Palmer (Stanley Baldwin), Natalie Dormer (Elizabeth), Laurence Fox (Bertie), Douglas Reith (Lord Brownlow), Katie McGrath (Lady Thelma), Christina Chong (Tenten).

I can say a lot of bad things about Madonna’s W.E. – that it is overlong, over directed, over designed – both in determines of its art direction and costume design – over scored, that the acting either seems rather flat or completely over the top, that it is a whitewash of history. And yet the one thing I cannot say about W.E. is that it was boring. It held my interest throughout despite the fact that so little of the films actually works. I’m not sure why it held my attention, and yet it did.

The film takes place in two time periods – in 1930s England, where a twice divorced American named Wallis Simpson (Andrea Riseborough) falls in love with the Crown Prince of England Edward (James D’Arcy), so much so that he will abdicate the throne so he can marry her – and 1998 New York, where another woman named Wallis (Abbie Cornish) has married a rich, famous doctor named William (Richard Coyle), but falls in love with a refuge Russian intellectual currently working as a Security Guard at Sotheby’s – who are auctioning off much of the original Wallis and Edward’s estate – named Evengi (Oscar Issac). Both love stories are supposed to show strong women who bucked the societal pressures to be with the person they love. Both women give up everything they know for love.

As I mentioned off the top of the review, W.E. has many problems – and they track back to Madonna as writer and director. The screenplay is a little bit of a mess – the modern day story is shallow and unconvincing, and Abbie Cornish as Wally, is too much of a blank slate – it’s hard to feel that much sympathy for a woman who shows little to no emotion, and when she does it feels forced and insincere. The story of past doesn’t really work either – Madonna goes to great pains to try and convince you that Wallis and Edward were not Nazi sympathizers as many believe, but she may have been better to leave it alone. Not only that but Risen borough doesn’t really seem to be playing Wallis Simpson at all – but rather, she seems to be playing Madonna herself. The result is an odd mixture of past and present that doesn’t really work.

As for Madonna’s direction, it really is all over the map. Madonna tries hard to make the film look artistic – strange camera angles, different film stocks, strange close-ups, a strange dance sequence Wallis does set to the Sex Pistols (but not to God Saves the Queen, which would have made much more sense), but all these tricks undercut the movie – it makes it seem like a director lacking in confidence trying to cover up the holes in the movie with self-conscious “artistry”. The score by Abel Korzeniowski is ever present and distracting. The Oscar nominated costume design is quite good – but it’s also too much – you find yourself watching the clothes, and not the people in them.

This is Madonna’s second film as a director – following 2008’s Filth and Wisdom, which remains unseen by me. I think she needs to settle down behind the camera and realize that sometimes less is more. Every frame of W.E. seems painstakingly crafted, but they don’t really fit together. And yet, the movie did hold my attention from beginning to end. Maybe it’s simply because in so many ways W.E. is a train wreck of a movie, and it’s hard to look away. But I do feel that if Madonna simply settled down a little bit, she may actually make a better movie next time.

Movie Review: Rampart

Rampart *** ½
Directed by: Oren Moverman.
Written by: James Ellroy and Oren Moverman.
Starring: Woody Harrelson (Dave Brown), Steve Buscemi (Bill Blago), Robin Wright (Linda Fentress), Sigourney Weaver (Joan Confrey), Ben Foster (General Terry), Anne Heche (Catherine), Ice Cube (Kyle Timkins), Brie Larson (Helen), Ned Beatty (Hartshorn), Cynthia Nixon (Barbara), Jon Foster(Michael Whittaker), Robert Wisdom (Captain), Stella Schnabel (Jane).

The Rampart scandal that rocks the LAPD in the late 1990s is too big for any one movie to handle. In all, 70 officers were implicated in crimes such as murder, assault, sexual assault, theft, drug dealing, and planting evidence, framing suspects, perjury and obstruction of justice. When the scandal came to light, it resulted in hundreds of over turned convictions. The full extent of the scandal will never be known, but it certainly was one of the widest reaching examples of police corruption in American history. Officers involved have even been linked to the shooting rapper Notorious B.I.G.

So, faced with such a huge, daunting scandal co-writer/director Oren Moverman (alongside writer James Ellroy, who has made a career out of LA set noirs) does a smart thing – and focuses on one man. This is Dave Brown (Woody Harrelson), based in the Rampart division of the LAPD in 1999, and how through his own actions, he starts to slowly hang himself. From the first scene in the movie – where Brown goes on a rant about what being a LAPD officer really means and pretty much forcing a female rookie to coke down French fries she doesn’t want, it’s clear that Brown is at the very least a mean, cruel asshole. When he follows that up by brutally beating a man he gets into a car accident with, it’s clear he’s even worse than that. Of course, some enterprising citizen has a camera, and records Brown beating the suspect, which makes thing worse for the LAPD. The Rampart scandal is just starting to come out, and now, the LAPD has to deal with a rogue cop beating people in broad day light. But that is just the tip of the iceberg to Brown. He has been given the nickname “Date Rape” Dave because in 1987, he killed a man he says was a repeat date rapist, and the shooting has always been clouded by suspicion – that at the very least, Brown over reacted, and at most, it was nothing more but cold blooded murder.

Brown is not really liked by anyone. At work, he is now pretty much persona non grata – the chief (Steve Buscemi) wants him gone, but Brown says if they fire him, he won’t go quietly and they can’t afford another scandal. Internal Affairs (led by Sigourney Weaver) wants to get something on him, but he’s playing coy. The DA’s office is even keener to catch him, and doesn’t much care about how it looks, but so far Kyle Timkins (Ice Cube) can’t find anything on him. He is helped from on high by Hartshorn (Ned Beatty) a former cop, and a friend of Brown’s dead father, who has enough connections to pull some strings to save him. Even at home, Brown is not well liked. He first married one sister (Cynthia Nixon) then the other (Anne Heche) and fathered the daughters of both. Strangely, they all live in the same house and Brown will go to whatever woman will have him that day – although increasingly, neither wants him. He goes to the bar often, and picks up women who will have him (including Robin Wright), but she doesn’t much like him either. His oldest daughter Helen (Brie Larson) despises him, and it seems to be more than just regular teen angst. His younger daughter still loves him, but even he knows that probably won’t last. He knows he can only avoid being arrested or thrown off the force – either option about as appealing to him – for so long.

The main reason to see the movie is for Woody Harrelson’s brilliant performance as Brown. He doesn’t try to soften his edges at all, but he does make Brown into a three dimensional person, not just a monster, as he easily could have become. He is a man slowly drowning, who knows it, but cannot stop it. Sure, he puts on a brave face in public, but behind that false bravado is a man at the end of his rope, just looking for a way out. Harrelson commands the screen every second he’s on it – which is pretty much the entire movie. Harrelson makes the most of this juicy role.

 The writing is fine as well, and is perfectly suited for novelist James Ellroy, whose books usually document some sort of police corruption in LA (his most famous, and best novel, is LA Confidential). His style is spare, violent and cynical – and that describes the movie as well. Oren Moverman, who wrote and directed the wonderful The Messenger a few years back (for which Harrelson received a richly deserved Oscar nomination), has made another fine film.

Rampart suffers a little bit because none of the other characters as well written as Harrelson’s is. They remain firmly in the background, and for the most part, are cookie cutter roles. But Harrelson makes up for that. It is a brilliant performance – in a wonderful film.

Movie Review: Oscar Nominated Animated Short Films

Oscar Nominated Animated Short Films
One of my favorite things to do in Oscar season is watch the short films. Last night, I watched the animated short films program – all five nominees, and four “highly commended” films. The program runs only about 80 minutes, but for the most part was pure joy – and I suggest that you check them out. Mini reviews of the shorts follows.

Nominees

Sunday/Dimanche ***

Directed by: Patrick Doyon.
This is a charming, old fashioned little film about the routine on Sunday for a French Canadian family – church, Grandma’s and home. The visual look of the film is stylized – the characters, the houses, the cars, the animals, are not realistic, but made up mainly of interesting geometric shapes more than anything else. It centers on a young boy, who begins his day by squashing a quarter on the train tracks. I liked the animation more than the story itself, which is a little slight, a little obvious, but it’s an enjoyable little film.

A Morning Stroll *** ½
Directed by: Grant Orchard and Sue Goffe.
The morbid side of me thinks that A Morning Stroll is the best of the nominees. It is a little film, taking place in three parts – one in 1959 one in 2009 and one in 2059 – and tells the same basic story – a man walking down the street in a major city, who sees a chicken pass him by, knock on a door and go inside. The changes to the story – in terms of animation, which goes from very simple black and white almost like a New Yorker cartoon to high tech compueter animation, and the story – the guy in 1959 is amazed by it, the guy in 2009 is amazed, briefly, then distracted by a new game on his cell phone, the guy in 2059 – a blood thirsty zombie with a throbbing brain – makes this the funniest, bloodiest of the bunch. Yes, it’s a bit slight compared to some of the other nominees, but it was the most amusing 7 minutes I spent during this program.

Wild Life **

Directed by: Amanda Forbis and Wendy Tilby.
My least favorite of the nominees is this painterly film about a young British man who travels to Alberta in 1909 to become a rancher. His letters home to his rich family tell a sunny story of him finding success, but what we see is much harsher, as he struggles for survival – and intertitles compare his fate to that of a comet. Personally, while I didn’t mind the animation, I didn’t love it either, and I found the storytelling rather pretentious and unmoving. Perhaps its only because this was the only film of the nine shown that realized used dialogue, but I felt it was out of place. Overall, this felt much longer than its 15 minute running time.

The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore *** ½

Directed by: William Joyce and Brandon Oldenburg.
This wonderful film is starts with a Wizard of Oz in reverse, as the title character, obsessed with books, gets swept up in a wind storm and goes from a color world to black and white – but when he discovers a magical library, full of walking, floating books – and one very animated copy of Humpty Dumpty – his world turns back to color – and books do that for everyone he shares them with. This is an old fashioned story, extolling the love of books and reading, always an important message, that uses cutting edge technology and many different techniques to tell its emotional story. Yes, I think I loved A Morning Stroll more, but this is probably the biggest technical achievement in the race.

La Luna *** ½

Directed by: Enrico Casaroasa
Pixar always seems to have a nominee in the running, and their entry this year La Luna is up to their usual high standards – unlike their feature from 2011 Cars 2. It is the charming, heartfelt little story of two old men and their new protégé, a young boy, whose job it is to clean up the moon. This is a beautiful film from start to finish, with distinctive visuals and character designs. Certainly a possible winner, and it would be a deserving one, as it once again proves why Pixar does this better than anyone else year after year.

Highly Commended

Skylight *** ½

Directed by: David Baas.
There were two Canadian films nominated – Dimanche/Sunday and Wild Life – but personally, this Canadian film, which just missed the cut, was the best from my home country. It is an hilarious, very short (five minutes) animated mock documentary about the dangers to wild life – especially penguins – because of the hole in the ozone layer. It’s technical aspects are spot on, making this look and feel like the typical of film your teacher used to show in class on the old reel to reel projector. Yes, it’s a one joke film, but at only five minutes, its still hilarious.

Nullarbor ***

Directed by: Alister Lockhart.
This is an amusing road comedy about a young hotshot in his sports car desperate for a cigarette and the road war he wages with an old man in his beat up old car on a long stretch of nearly deserted Australian highway. Personally, I would have nominated this film instead of at least two of the actual nominees (Dimanche and Wild Life), as it was witty, funny, well animated and extremely entertaining. Yes, the ending was a little obvious, but it was still effective.

Hybrid Union ** ½

Directed by: Serguei Kouchnerov.
This is an amusing little film about three little vehicles competing in a race with each other – one using an old fashioned fossil fuel consuming engine, another using solar power, and how they compete against each other despite their limitations – until a “smart” vehicle comes along and shames them both. Again, I liked the animation itself – the amusing designs of the vehicles is a highlight – but this was a one joke comedy that went no where – and unlike something like Skylight, its one joke wasn’t nearly as funny.

Amazonia **

Directed by: Sam Chen.
Easily my least favorite film on the bill, this one centers on a very hungary lizard, who makes friends with a frog, and tries to find food in the Amazon, while avoiding becoming food for larger predators as well. The whole thing seemed a little too childish too me – well animated to be sure – but also exceedingly obvious, without a hint of darkness, and just quite simply not very good. I wouldn\t have chosen this one to end the program with, but that’s just me.

DVD Review: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part I

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part I *
Directed by: Bill Condon.
Written by: Melissa Rosenberg based on the novel by Stephanie Meyer.
Starring: Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan), Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen), Taylor Lautner (Jacob Black), Billy Burke (Charlie Swan), Sarah Clarke (Renée), Ashley Greene (Alice Cullen), Jackson Rathbone (Jasper Hale), Peter Facinelli (Dr. Carlisle Cullen), Elizabeth Reaser (Esme Cullen), Kellan Lutz (Emmett Cullen), Nikki Reed (Rosalie Hale), Anna Kendrick (Jessica), Michael Sheen (Aro), Booboo Stewart (Seth), Alex Rice (Sue Clearwater), Kiowa Gordon (Embry), Tyson Houseman (Quil), Chaske Spencer (Sam Uley), Bronson Pelletier (Jared), Alex Meraz (Paul), Julia Jones (Leah).

I read all four Twilight books, and while I wouldn’t describe any of them as good books, Breaking Dawn reached a level of stupidity and ridiculousness that was simply mind boggling. I feel the same way about the movies – only the third installment – Eclipse – directed by David Slade even approached being a good movie. For the final installment – split into two parts a la Harry Potter – they hired a very good director in Bill Condon – whose three previous films, Gods and Monsters, Kinsey and Dreamgirls – were all entertaining and well made. But he is undone by the material he has to work with here, which is just plan awful. No, he really doesn’t do the movie any favors – the film is poorly made – but hell, if you hired Martin Scorsese to direct this movie, it would still be shit.

The final chapter of the Twilight Saga (and how pretentious is it to refer to it as a Saga?) begins with Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward (Robert Pattinson), her vampire boyfriend, getting married in what is admittedly an absolutely beautiful wedding, even if it is the type of wedding that only ever really happens in the movies. They then head off to an island off the coast of Brazil for their honeymoon – where after years, they will finally give into the urges they have been fighting since the beginning of the series and have sex. After the honeymoon, when Bella can experience sex as a human (and the sex here is literally bed shatteringly amazing, once again setting up unrealistic expectations of first time sex that will never be met in real life), Edward will turn her into a vampire, so they can “live” together forever. Of course, things don’t go as planned – and Bella ends up pregnant with some sort of vampire/human hybrid, that no one even knew was possible to create. While the obvious thing to do would be to give Bella an abortion – after all, no one believes that Bella will survive the pregnancy or the birth, and they cannot turn her into a vampire until the baby is born – she refuses. So the series, that has always been a religious series about not giving into sexual urges before marriage, becomes a pro-life tale.

The problem I have always had with the Twilight series – both as books and movies – is that for all the serious talk, for all the threats and bubbling resentment and sense of impending violence between vampires and the werewolves (led by Taylor Lautner’s Jacob), is that nothing much actually ever happens in the movies. They are all talk and no action, films that build and build and build towards a climax, and then simply deflates at the end. This is even more the case with this film, because the filmmakers decided to milk the series for all it is worth, and split the final movie into two movies, even though there is barely enough material in the book to make one movie let alone two.

The acting in the Twilight films has always been suspect at best. My favorite actor in the series has always been Billy Burke as Bella’s father, whose bitterness, resentment and almost hatred of Edward comes out in hilarious ways at times – unfortunately, he’s barely in this film. Kristen Bell has proved in other movies (Into the Wild, The Runaways) that she actually is a gifted actress – but Bella is such a blank slate, such a nothing of a character, that frankly, it’s annoying to watch her whine her way through another movie. I hope she gets good work after this series is over. Robert Pattinson’s Edward is perhaps an even more boring character – even more of a blank slate than Bella – and Pattinson really doesn’t bring anything to it either. Isn’t Edward supposed to be a bad boy? Why the hell is he is miserable all the damn time? I have seen nothing in Pattinson’s performance so far to suggest he is actually a good actor, but really, truly hope that he proves me wrong, as David Cronenberg has cast him in the lead role of his next film. The most interesting of the three main characters has always been Jacob, but unfortunately, Taylor Lautner is clearly one of the worst actors I have ever seen. If he didn’t look so good without his shirt on, there would nothing in worth watching.

The screenplay for this movie is awful – full of horrible dialogue that makes already questionable actors look even worse than they probably actually are. Condon, as director, brings nothing to the table here – the special effects, even the most simple ones, are laughably awful. The numerous CSI-like shots inside of Bella’s blood stream are also awful – and I defy anyone to watch the scenes between the werewolves where they communicate telepathically and not break out into unintentional laughter.

 
I know a lot of teen girls love this series – and they don’t care what I have to say about it. They made it one of the biggest hits of 2011, and no doubt, Breaking Dawn Part II will be one of the biggest hits of 2012. Good for them. I just wish that the Saga they love so much had something more to offer them. You can make a mass market entertainment about teenage romance, and not make it so god awful. Twilight isn’t that series.

Movie Review: Le Havre

Le Havre *** ½
Directed by: Aki Kaurismäki.
Written by: Aki Kaurismäki.
Starring: André Wilms (Marcel Marx), Kati Outinen (Arletty), Jean-Pierre Darroussin (Monet), londin Miguel (Idrissa), Elina Salo (Claire), Evelyne Didi (Yvette), Quoc Dung Nguyen (Chang), François Monnié (Epicier), Little Bob (Himself), Pierre Étaix (Docteur Becker), Jean-Pierre Léaud (Le dénonciateur), Vincent Lebodo (Francis), Umban U'kset (Mahamat Saleh).

Aki Kaurismaki’s Le Havre is essentially a modern day fairy tale. Life doesn’t work like it does in this film – certainly not for poor, illegal African immigrants caught in France on their way to England – but don’t we all wish it would? It is an inspiring film, where really only one character is all that bad, and everyone else pulls together to do something for the greater good. No, life doesn’t work like this, but no, I didn’t really care while watching Le Havre. I was simply having too much fun.

Marcel Marx (Andre Wilms) is a failed artist who works in the small French coastal town of Le Havre shining shoes. He has been married for a long time to Arletty (Kati Outtinen), who stays at home and waits from him to come home and give her the money he earned that day to put it in a little shoe box for later use. In the paper he sees the story of a group of illegal African refugees who were caught in a shipping container (who miraculously despite being forgotten there for weeks on end, all survive) and the one young boy who escaped and is on the run (the paper wonders if he’s armed and dangerous or has possible connections to Al Qaeda). But Marcel meets the poor boy hiding under a pier, and takes him home. By this point, Arletty has been taken to the hospital, and told she has incurable cancer – although she lies to Marcel about the extent of her illness. Through the course of the movie, Marcel will seek help from all of his friends and neighbors – none of whom doubt the innocence of the boy. He’s just trying to get to London and his mother. Even the police inspector assigned to the case (Jean-Pierre Darroussin) doesn’t much care about catching the boy – he knows Marcel has him, but tells him that he investigates crimes, not immigration issues.

Many of Aki Kaurismaki’s films have been much darker than Le Havre, although they almost all share this films deadpan comic tone. His work has often been compared to American indie maverick Jim Jarmursch, and the similarities between the two filmmaker’s styles is clear. I’m sure that Jarmursch loved the performance of Little Bob in this film, and this is exactly the type of strange musical act that he would love – a one of a kind musical act, that is completely strange, but mesmerizing in its own way.

 
Kaurismaki’s latest film is much more hopeful than any of his other films that I have seen. It ends with not just one miracle ending, but two, as he fully embraces the fairy tale aspect of his story, And yet, this is still clearly a Kaurismaki film – his films are often about desperate losers in impossible situations, and so too is this film. Andre Wilms does an excellent job in the lead role, but he is essentially a Kaurismaki hero – a man whose dreams have been crushed, who lives now a desperate existence, And yet, while most Kaurismaki heroes fail at their dreams, this is a man who sacrifices everything, and actually succeeds. Perhaps this is a sign that Kaurismaki is softening after nearly 30 years of making films, or perhaps he just wanted to see his lovable losers finally succeed for once. Either way, this is one of his best films.

DVD Review: In Time

In Time ** ½
Directed by: Andrew Niccol.
Written by: Andrew Niccol.
Starring:  Justin Timberlake (Will Salas), Amanda Seyfried (Sylvia Weis), Cillian Murphy (Raymond Leon), Vincent Kartheiser (Philippe Weis), Olivia Wilde (Rachel Salas), Johnny Galecki (Borel), Alex Pettyfer (Fortis), Matt Bomer (Henry Hamilton).

I know I’m not the first person to say this, but I have always thought that if you’re remake a movie, you probably shouldn’t remake a classic, that was perfect to begin with, but rather a movie that had promise that for whatever reason just didn’t work the first time around. If studios would do that, I would suggest that someone remake In Time, because the idea behind the movie is brilliant, but the execution of that idea just isn’t up to the idea itself. The idea of currency literally being replaced by time – so that the rich can live forever, where the poor literally live day to day, under the constant threat of death. This near future, science fiction film could not possibly be timelier. And yet, In Time never quite figures out what to do with this premise – and instead of crafting an intelligent film, it devolves into action movie clichés. Too bad, because this movie had the potential to be great.

The film stars Justin Timberlake as Will Salas, a poor factory worker who has to go to work every day just to earn enough time to get back to work the next day. In this future, everyone has been genetically engineered to stop aging at the age of 25 – until then, you’re clock doesn’t wind down at all. When you hit 25, you get one year of time. The poor need to use this time to pay off their parents debts, so that shortly after they hit 25, they are living day to day. The rich can pass their time down to their kids, so that they can live forever. Everyone is split into certain districts, based on their time remaining – and it costs so much to move between zones, that no one ever does it. But one day Will meets a rich man in a bar – with over a century of time on his arm (which is where your countdown clock is located). Will saves him from some people who want to steal that time from him. To pay him back, the rich man gives Will all his time – killing himself. Will, angry at the system (which had just allowed his mother to die), decides to travel to the richest district to get revenge.

There are great ideas running through In Time – at least beneath the surface. Will quickly draws the attention of the timekeepers (led by Cillian Murphy`s Raymond Leon), who track him down quickly. But by then, Will has connected with Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried), the daughter of the richest man in the world. Sylvia essentially becomes his Patty Hearst – first a hostage Will uses to get away from the timekeepers, but soon joins Will in trying to bring down the system.

 
Andrew Niccol is a talented writer and director. His Gattaca was one of the best science fiction films of the 1990s, and his Lord of War was a grossly under rated, very entertaining film about an amoral arms dealer, who wins. In Time is more like his Simone, which was also a film with a brilliant premise – a Hollywood director (Al Pacino) who creates a virtual actress so he doesn’t have to deal with the ego of other actresses, only to find the virtual star becomes a huge celebrity that overshadows him. That film aimed to mock our celebrity obsessed cultures, and although that target should be easy, Simone missed the mark. In Time is like that as well. In a year where the Occupy Wall Street Movement made headlines, and the chasm between the rich and the poor grew wider and wider, a movie like In Time should have easily tapped into that anger. But instead, In Time devolves into an action movie – with bank heists, shootouts and car chases galore, that takes center stage and pushes the ideas into the background. Too bad, because the idea at the heart off In Time deserves a better movie.

Movie Review: We Need to Talk About Kevin

We Need to Talk About Kevin ****
Directed by: Lynne Ramsay.
Written by: Lynne Ramsay & Rory Kinnear based on the novel by Lionel Shriver.
Starring: Tilda Swinton (Eva Khatchadourian), John C. Reilly (Franklin), Ezra Miller (Kevin, Teenager), Jasper Newell (Kevin, 6-8 Years), Rock Duer (Kevin, Toddler), Ashley Gerasimovich (Celia).

I have read Lionel Shriver’s brilliant novel We Need to Talk About Kevin twice now. Both times, I loved it, but I was amazed by how different my reaction was to the novel each time. Perhaps it shouldn’t be too big a surprise, since the first time I read the novel was about five years ago, and the second time was in preparation for the movie adaptation, and in between, I had my first child. I felt more sympathy for Kevin the second time through the novel. What is brilliant about the novel is that it is told entirely from Eva’s point of view – so that we can never be sure if what we are reading is the truth, or her perceptions. Was Kevin an evil little shit right from the beginning, destined to one day walk into the high school gym and massacre his fellow students, or was Kevin warped by the fact that he has a mother, who from the moment he is born, hates him? It is the central question that the novel never answers, because there is no definitive answer. What is amazing about Lynne Ramsay’s adaptation of the novel is that it keeps that central question intact. I recently complained about the movie version of One Day, saying that the filmmakers never found a way to make what worked in the book work in a movie – they failed to turn the literary into the cinematic. That is not a problem Ramsay’s film has. It is a brilliant adaptation of a brilliant book, but it is also clearly a cinematic achievement. This is one of the best directed films of the year.

The movie flashes back and forth in time, as we see Eva (Tilda Swinton) trying to raise Kevin (played at various stages by Rock Duer, Jasper Newell and most memorably by Ezra Miller), alongside her sweet, well-meaning but clueless husband Franklin (John C. Reilly) and then scenes after Kevin has perpetrated his high school massacre, with Eva,  alone, trying to deal with her guilt, and visiting Kevin on a weekly basis.

Some critics have complained that the movie presents Kevin not unlike the movie The Omen presents its demon child Damien. But this misses the point entirely. First of all, the movie is clearly told from Eva’s point of view, meaning that we see Kevin as she sees him – as the child who came along and ruined her life. Before Kevin, she had a job where she travelled around the world, which essentially stopped when Kevin was born so she could stay at home with Kevin and raise him (despite the fact that they both have high paying jobs, and Franklin is the mother nurturing of the two, it is never even brought up that he should stay at home). Eva sees everything Kevin does as a calculated plot to annoy her – even though much of what he does could be construed as just being a kid. Ramsay also underlines the fact that Eva and Kevin are remarkably similar, even though they hate each other. The casting of Ezra Miller is particularly ingenious, as he has the same angular face and androgynous features as Swinton does. As well, she emphasizes how both hold themselves outside – and above – their peers, seeing themselves as better. In one particularly chilling exchange, Eva goes on about fat people, and how they’re fat because they eat all the time to which Kevin responds “You know, you can be kind of harsh”, Eva responds “You’re one to talk” to which Kevin says “Yeah. I wonder where I got it from.” Eva hates Kevin, and Kevin hates Eva because in each other they see themselves – and don’t like what they see. This is also why Eva is so easily able to love her second child – a daughter, because she is so different.

Swinton’s performance as Eva is quite simply remarkable. She has long established herself as an actress who has no fear, and will take on the riskiest projects. Her Oscar win for Michael Clayton is a great performance, but one of her safer choices. Think back to her remarkable work as an unsympathetic drunk in Julia or how she learned to speak Italian with a Russian accent in I Am Love for recent examples. But her work in We Need to Talk About Kevin is on a different level from even those great performances. She isn’t afraid to make Eva completely unsympathetic – she is, after all, a mother who hates her own child. It’s even better considering the way Ramsay shoots the movie – with little dialogue in long stretches, establishing mood with its haunting score (by Johnny Greenwood) and her visuals. Swinton does so much in her silences here. It is one of the very best performances of the year. It should also be mentioned that newcomer Ezra Miller is great as well as the teenage Kevin – with his cold, dead eyes and calculating stare and his calm chilling delivery.

We Need to Talk About Kevin is one of the best films of the year – and one of the most difficult. This is a dark, depressing film that looks at a side of parenthood rarely seen in the movies. It was a brave film for Swinton and Ramsay to make – and the fact that they pulled it off so brilliantly is a testament to their skill.

DVD Review: Dream House

Dream House **
Directed by: Jim Sheridan.
Written by: David Loucka.
Starring: Daniel Craig (Will Atenton), Naomi Watts (Ann Patterson), Rachel Weisz (Libby), Elias Koteas (Boyce), Marton Csokas (Jack Patterson), Taylor Geare (Trish), Claire Geare (Dee Dee), Rachel G. Fox (Chloe Patterson), Jane Alexander (Dr. Greeley).

Dream House is a supernatural horror movie that develops pretty much exactly as you would expect it to. Directed by Jim Sheridan, who has made some excellent movies in his career, including My Left Foot, In the Name of the Father, The Boxer, In America and most recently Brothers, the film is skillfully put together. The ensemble cast is made up of fine actors, including Daniel Craig, Naomi Watts, Rachel Weisz and Elias Koteas, do what they can with the material they are given. The problem is the movies setup is so obvious, so we spend the first half of the movie waiting for the characters to catch up with us, and then when they finally catch up with us, the movie goes completely off the rails into ridiculousness.

Craig stars as Will Atenton, who has just quit his job as a book editor to work on his own novel. He comes home to his new house, to his beautiful wife Libby (Weisz) and their two wonderful daughters. The neighbour from across the street, Ann (Naomi Watts) watches on suspiciously, and when Will discovers a group of teenagers in his basement, holding some kind of weird séance, he finds out that a man named Peter Ward was suspected of killing his whole family in that house 5 years ago. But, for some reason, when Will tries to find out more information about the crime, everyone stonewalls him.

You can probably guess the truth from this very basic plot outline – and if you’ve seen the preview, than it gives away far more than I did, so you know even more than you should going into the movie. I can see a movie like this working – after it, the movies haunted house structure recalls both The Shining and Shutter Island in different ways. But Dream House tries to switch things up a few too many times. As the movie goes along it, and its main character, gets darker, creepier and more violent as more information comes out that makes us question what we think we know. And then, the movie tries to tack on an unconvincing ending, as it tries to ensure that the hero of the movie really is just that. It chickens out from becoming the dark horror movie that it really should.

The actors are pretty much given impossible roles to play, which means it’s no real surprise that none of them are all that convincing. Craig has to go through one change after another after another, meaning we never truly know what the hell is going through his mind. Weisz, who in seemingly half her roles is great, and half is terrible, is given nothing to work with her. Her character is written in a way where her secrets are all too obvious from the first moment we set eyes on her, and as a result, her performance strikes the wrong note from the beginning and never recovers. But Naomi Watts is given the worst role of all – because her character has no reason to behave the way she does, other than if she behaved like a normal person, than the movie would unveil its mysteries far too early in the proceedings. And why you even bother to a great, creepy actor like Elias Koteas and give him nothing to do is beyond me. The less said about Watts ex-husband Martin Csokas, the better.

 
Jim Sheridan is a director who works best when the films he makes means something to him – his trio of collaborations with Daniel Day-Lewis about his native Ireland were obviously important to him, as was the immigrant drama In America, written by his daughters. Even Brothers, although a remake, obviously meant something to him. Dream House is more akin to his 50 Cent film Get Rich or Die Trying, where he was just a director for hire. But as clichéd as Get Rich or Die Trying was, it was at least a simple story, well told. Dream House is a movie where the director and the cast doesn’t matter, because the screenplay is so redundant and ridiculous, that it never should have been made by anyone.

DVD Review: Buck

Buck *** ½
Directed By: Cindy Meehl.

Buck Brannerman is a quiet man who has found his niche. He can train horses better than just about anyone else, and unlike many, he does not use force, whipping, abuse or cruelty to do it. Instead, he gains the horse’s trust, and makes them feel a part of what is happening. You can get a horse to do anything if you make them scared to make mistakes. But for Buck, who was abused mercilessly by his father as a child, he would prefer to do it the kinder, gentler way. And if you love horses, who can you possibly disagree with him? His horses can do anything that any other trained horse can do – in fact they can do more than most – and not only that, but they actually seem to love him as much as he loves them.

Buck relates everything to horses. When he talks about the abuse he suffered as a child – that got worse once his kindly mother died, and his father, already a mean drunk, just got meaner – he relates how he was after he got out of that situation to how horses, who were trained the wrong way, reacts. When he first met his new foster father, he was scared, and the foster father didn’t talk to Buck about it, just gave him a pair of gloves, and went off to work on a fence with him. Just that simple act helps Buck come out of his shell – just like a horse who was abused.

Buck spends 9 months of the year on the road giving 4 days horse training clinics to whoever will have him. He knows full well that for some his clients the cost is a throwaway and others save up all year just to be able to afford it. He treats everyone the same – he believes that the horses can tell you a lot about their owners. But while Buck is a great horse man, he is also a great husband and father – completely opposite of his own father as he offers help and encouragement to his youngest daughter, who accompanies him for a few months every year. He sees himself in her, and there is some regret in that – because she is outgoing and friendly and he doesn’t speak much – he wonders if the abuse he suffered has made him what he is.

Buck reminded me a little of another documentary from 2011 – Bill Cunningham New York. Both films are about men who have found their passion in life, and have devoted everything they have to it. Buck is more open about his past that Cunningham was – and better able to deal with it. Buck has made peace with his past, and moved beyond it – and been able to become a husband and a father. Yes, like Cunningham, his profession is something he does because he absolutely loves it. But Buck has more introspection that Cunningham has. If Cunningham is gay, he is not able to admit it on camera. He has shut himself emotionally from the world – he doesn’t admit to ever having a romantic relationship, and literally does nothing except work – at a job he loves yes, but there is more to life than that. Buck moved me more than Bill Cunningham New York did, because Buck understands himself a little better than Cunningham does – or at least allows us to see him more clearly. Buck Brannerman loves horses – but he has lived a full and complete life, never allowing his past to dictate his future, even if he can never forget it.

Movie Review: Chico and Rita

Chico and Rita *** ½
Directed by: Tono Errando & Javier Mariscal & Fernando Trueba.
Written by: Ignacio Martínez de Pisón & Fernando Trueba.
Starring: Limara Meneses (Rita), Eman Xor Oña (Chico), Mario Guerra (Ramón), Lenny Mandel (Ron).

Animation will always been viewed by some people as just for children – but a movie like Chico and Rita, which is clearly aimed at adults, once again proves how shortsighted that view is. This is a charming movie that goes from pre-Castro Cuba to New York to Paris to Vegas, and back to Cuba again. This is a charming love story, and contains some great music.

The movie opens in present day Cuba, where Chico makes his living shining shoes. He goes home to his lonely apartment, and turns on the radio – and hears a song that he and Rita recorded way back in 1948, and he flashes back to that time. In 1948 Cuba, Chico was a cocky piano player at the heart of the Cuban jazz scene. He meets Rita at a club, and is immediately drawn to her – although she needs more convincing. They make a great team on stage – and in bed – but outside of that, they spend more time fighting than anything else. Chico is stubborn and unwilling to compromise, and Rita is already under contract to an unscrupulous manager who thinks he can make her a big star – and is right.

The animation is highly stylized and moves with effortless motion, perfectly capturing the music, which is the real star of this movie. The love story, while moving, is also pretty standard issue stuff – the rise and fall of brilliant musicians, whose egos and stubbornness – along with some racism – is ultimately what keeps them apart. We want Chico and Rita to simply get out of their own way, and find a way to make their relationship work, but the truth we know it’s unlikely.

 
The music really is wonderful – sensual and sexy, as is the movie itself, which doesn’t shy away from sex or nudity, although the movie is far from pornography. It’s one of the only animated films I can recall that I would actually call sexy. This is definitely one for adults, even though its animated.