Movie Review: Red

Red ** ½
Directed by: Robert Schwentke.
Written By: Jon Hoeber & Erich Hoeber based on the graphic novel by Warren Ellis and Cully Hamner.
Starring: Bruce Willis (Frank Moses), John Malkovich (Marvin Boggs), Mary-Louise Parker (Sarah Ross), Helen Mirren (Victoria), Morgan Freeman (Joe Matheson), Karl Urban (William Cooper), Brian Cox (Ivan Simanov), Richard Dreyfuss (Alexander Dunning), Rebecca Pidgeon (Cynthia Wilkes), Ernest Borgnine (Henry, The Records Keeper), Julian McMahon (Robert Stanton), James Remar (Gabriel Singer).

Red has a better cast than any movies of this ilk really deserves. This is a B-action movie, with an Oscar winning cast. While the cast keeps things interesting for a while – the first half of the movie is pretty solid entertainment – eventually its genre trappings take over, and we are left with one over the top action sequence after another to get through in the films second half. When everyone was shooting each other, or going through elaborate car chases, or suffering through long, expository monologues to explain the plot, I kept thinking that I wanted to go back to the films first half – that was more relaxed and allowed its top notch cast to play off of each other wonderfully.

The film has an interesting set-up. Frank (Bruce Willis) is a retired CIA agent living in Cleveland. He is bored with his new life, after spending year’s globe hoping for his government. He has no family, no real friends, and the only joy he gets is calling into the CIA pension office to flirt with Sarah (Mary Louise Parker). But then a group of highly trained assassins shows up at his house, and Frank has to go back into his old CIA operative mode. He travels to Kansas City to pick up Sarah, who he has never actually met before, because he rightly thinks she is also in danger. He then tracks down some former CIA friends – the paranoid Marvin (John Malkovich), the wily veteran Joe (Morgan Freeman) and eventually the sexy Victoria (Helen Mirren) to try and piece together who is after them and why. Meanwhile, the CIA has sent William Cooper (Karl Urban), the new Frank, to catch up with them.

But the plot of the movie is really just a Macguffin – it doesn’t really matter who is after them or why, it’s just an excuse to first bring together these old former spies, and then an excuse to string together one action sequence after another. The films first half was to me, much more entertaining the second. I love seeing Bruce Willis as the retired CIA agent in those opening scenes struggling through his life where his biggest concern is Christmas ornaments. He has an easy chemistry with Mary Louise Parker, who is as delightfully offbeat as ever (my wife says she always appears to be stoned, and that’s as good of description as I can come up with). For the second time in two weeks, John Malkovich gives a wonderfully, offbeat comedic performance, although his paranoid Marvin is miles away from his work in Secretariat. He delights in his own paranoia – and I loved the glee on his face when he announces its “time to break out the pig” – and then proceeds to carry around a comical stuffed pig around with him. Morgan Freeman however is pretty much wasted – he has a couple of nice moments, but he’s barely in the film. Helen Mirren proves yet again that she’s still one of the sexiest women in the world, despite her age. And it was fun to see Brian Cox as a KGB agent, who was once their enemy, but now looks back at those cold war days with nostalgia – and considers his former enemies now to be friends. Equally nice to see was Ernest Borgnine (who I had though had long ago died, considering he won an Oscar for playing middle aged schlub Marty back in 1955!) and Richard Dreyfuss who appears late in the game.

But once the movie introduces all of its characters, it doesn’t really have anything interesting to do with them, except make them shoot at each other, and the faceless people who are coming after them. The cast keeps things interesting, but once the setup is complete, it quickly becomes apparent that the filmmakers don’t plan to do anything all that interesting with the plot. They are going through the motions, hoping that because they have assembled a great cast, no one will notice that the film is rather cheesy – and once the action starts, kind of dull. Director Robert Schwentke does as much as I think can be expected of him, but I wish the screenplay in the second half had been more developed. Based on a very short, spare graphic novel (that none of the characters accept for Willis and Parker’s voice are even in) the screenplay runs out of steam long before the movie ends.

I will say that I enjoyed much of Red. It is an interesting diversion for the first hour, and even when the movie devolves into nothing but action, it is never really boring. But I expected more from a movie with this cast then they delivered. Red, as good as it is in parts, never really adds up to anything.

Movie Review: Stone

Stone *** ½
Directed by: John Curran.
Written By: Angus MacLachlan.
Starring: Robert De Niro (Jack), Edward Norton (Stone), Milla Jovovich (Lucetta), Frances Conroy (Madylyn), Enver Gjokaj (Young Jack), Pepper Binkley (Young Madylyn), Sandra Love Aldridge (Miss Dickerson), Greg Trzaskoma (Guard Peters), Rachel Loiselle (Candace), Peter Lewis (Warden), Sarab Kamoo (Janice).

Stone is an intricate moral puzzle of a movie in which everyone is guilty of something. Each scene in the film changes the moral playing field somewhat, and I was left changing my mind about the characters throughout. If not handled properly, a film like this is likely to go off the rails, and become a mere exercise in screenwriting. But what makes Stone as good as it is the performances by a great cast, that make the characters feel real, even when they are mere pawns in the screenwriters game. They add weight to the movie.

The film stars Robert DeNiro in his best performance in more than a decade (that isn’t saying very much, as DeNiro has pretty much coasted in the past 10 years, with the exception of his great directorial effort The Good Sheperd) as Jack, a man on the verge of retirement from his job at a prison. He meets with convicts who are coming up from parole soon, and writes a report to the board to let them know what he thinks. He is coasting through his last few weeks, when he meets Stone (Edward Norton) – a con with a nasally voice and cornrows, in jail for accessory to the murder of his grandparents. Jack is initially unimpressed with Stone, and his obvious attempts to get under his skin. But as things progress, and he continues to meet with Stone – and then Stone’s wife Lucetta (Milla Jovovich) starts seeing Jack, with the obvious intention of seducing him to help get her husband free, Jack’s life begins to spiral. We already know that Jack has a dark, violent side to him – the opening scene is a flashback where his wife (Frances Conroy) threatens to walk out on him and take their daughter, and Jack snaps. Now, years later, Jack seems to be keeping that rage bottled up – and his wife has become a shell of woman, drinking constantly, and scared to step out of line. Stone and Luceta bring that darkness back.

What I admired about Stone is that it does not take the most obvious route to get where it’s going. Perhaps it’s because it’s Robert DeNiro, who we have seen explode into violence in films like Taxi Driver, or perhaps because of that opening scene, but we expect Jack to explode, to lash out violently at Stone or Luceta or his wife, but he never really does. Instead, he implodes on himself, his buried rage coming to the surface, but instead of lashing out, he impotently does nothing. DeNiro, always a masterful actor when he wants to be, makes Jack into both a character to hate and one to pity – he is a man who hates the situation he’s in, yet can think of nothing to do to get out it. It truly is a great performance.

The rest of the cast is fine as well. Edward Norton may have the title role, but it really is a supporting one. He is constantly playing everyone. With that strange voice, that makes him kind of sound like Terence Howard in Hustle and Flow, and those ridiculous cornrows, it is easy to laugh at Stone at the beginning – and I think that’s just what he wants Jack to do. But gradually, he starts turning the screws, not just on Jack, but on Luceta as well. He is a sociopath is capable of lying without remorse or feeling. When he finds religion, we’re not sure of what to make of it – he seems genuine – but I was struck late in the film by a comment about a stone that Frances Conroy made in the pamphlet that apparently led to Stone’s religious conversion – well after we have been introduced to him, and he says he prefers to be called Stone, and not Gerald. Coincidence? I think not. Norton is an actor whose reputation for being difficult may have cost him some great roles, but he still among the best actors working today when he gets a good one, and this is one of his best.

Not to be outdone, the women in the movie are also excellent – and completely opposite of each other. I have never thought much of Milla Jovovich, who has spent most of her career doing C level action movies, and the last time I remember her in a serious role was The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc, where she had the lead and was horrible in it. But here, she is truly a revelation. Her eyes are huge, her voice soft and quiet in the kind of sexy, seductive voice of a teenage girl who doesn’t really know what she’s doing. She struck me as a big kid, easily manipulated, and also gifted at manipulating. She has a femme fatale role here, and she delivers a complex performance that hits all the right notes. It is impossible not to feel sorry for her, even as she deliberately screws with Jack’s life. Frances Conroy is also great – just as she was for all those years on Six Feet Under. She is so quiet in the early going of the film, that she almost feels like a non-entity – a character there only for the convenience of the plot. But as the movie progresses although she does not get much more forceful, we start to see her as a whole person – or as whole as she can be given her life – and she has several great moments where she lets Jack know that she knows what is going on, who he is, and that she is no longer going to pretend. It is a great, quiet performance.

I’m not going to say that Stone is a movie without flaws – it has quite a few. Despite the great performances, which elevate the material well beyond where it probably should be – the film does at times feel like a screenwriter’s invention, more than an organically unfolding plot. And the direction by John Curran (We Don’t Live Here Anymore and The Painted Veil) is at times a little too overwrought (the sex scenes are a good example of this). I also kind of wish that the opening scene, that shows us from the get go that Jack is has a violent streak, had been moved to the end – or cut altogether and we had been allowed to discover this more organically in the film. Ultimately perhaps Stone is more interesting movie to dissect than it is to watch. And yet, I didn’t mind these flaws. Stone engaged me intellectually from the start, and the performances kept me interested throughout. A great movie it isn’t, but there are so few movies that are this interesting, that the distinction is hardly worth making.

Year in Review: 1955

I am positive that I am going to be criticized for this list. After all, I have left some of the most acclaimed films of all time sitting in the runners up section, and looking at the notable films missed section, I see a much longer list than normal (I console myself of this fact because many of the films missed are not available on DVD as far as I know, and the fact that out of all the years included in this exercise, I watched more films from this one in preparation of this list than any other). And yet, I am happy with this list. If and when I see any of those notable films that I missed, they will have to be pretty spectacular to even get considered for the top 10 – and I find it impossible to believe that any of them could even come close to being as good as the best film from this year – which after all, is one of the very best films ever made.

10. Lola Montes (Max Ophuls)
The final film of the great Max Ophuls career is this scandalous, sexual journey through the life f dancer Lola Montes (Martine Carol). She is currently making her living as a circus performer, where the ringmaster (Peter Ustinov) tells the story of her past life as a dancer – and as the lover of some very powerful people – including Anton Walbrook as the King of Bavaria. Butchered behind all comprehension at the time of its release, the film has been restored to its former glory – with the wonderful use of color by Ophuls (quite an accomplishment since this is his only color film) and the flashback structure of the narrative. The film is, of course, rather ludicrous in its plot, but Ophuls remains in complete control from beginning to end – his ever roaming camera taking in all the artificial action with ease. It was one of the great accomplishments of Ophuls career that he was often able to make such seemingly meaningless plots and turn them into operatic melodramas. While I do not think Lola Montes represents Ophuls at his finest – it is a fitting way to end one of the great careers in cinema.

9. All That Heaven Allows (Douglas Sirk)
As people who have been following along with my lists know, I am a big fan of the Douglas Sirk melodramas. All That Heaven Allows is one of his most famous. It deals with Jane Wyman as a recently widowed older woman who walks outside one day to talk to her new gardener – Rock Hudson – and falls instantly in love (lust?) with him. What perhaps makes it stranger is that he as well falls in love with her. He introduces her to all of his friends – and none of them find it the least bit odd that he is dating a woman of her age. Her children however are much less understanding – her son all but threatening to disown her if she continues to see this man, who to him, represents the ultimate social embarrassment. Even her friends start snickering behind her back. Of all of the Sirk films, this is probably the most influential – Rainer Werner Fassbinder remade it as Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, about an older woman who falls in love with an Arab immigrant in Germany, and you can see more than an echo of the film in Todd Haynes’ Far From Heaven, where Julianne Moore discovers her husband is gay, and starts a relationship with her black gardener. Both of those storylines would have been far too risky for 1955, so Sirk subverts it a little bit. It is entirely possible that Sirk is hinting at bi-racial relationships, and even more so homosexuality (after all, Hudson was gay, although I do not know if Sirk knew that at the time). All That Heaven Allows works as a 1950s melodrama, but like all of Sirk’s films, there are layers upon layers to the film that make it so much more than that.

8. Rebel without a Cause (Nicolas Ray)
If East of Eden (see number 5 below) is the best of the James Dean films, than Rebel without a Cause is far and away the most iconic. It stars Dean as the new kid in high school, who comes to town, falls in love with a girl, defies the local toughs who want to control everything and disobeys his parents – essentially, Dean does everything you wish your teenagers would not do. Although the film was made over 50 years ago, I bet a lot of teenagers can still relate to the feelings of isolation and alienation on display in the film – I certainly did when I was a teenager. The clothes and music have changed sure, but the issues are the same. The supporting cast – especially Natalie Wood as the girl Dead falls for, and the troubled Sal Mineo as a kid who idolizes Dean, although he is heading down a self destructive path, are excellent. Yes, you could complain that the film is a little too phony and lays it on a little thick at times if you wanted to – but director Nicolas Ray (as gifted at melodrama as Sirk when he wanted to be) keeps the film somewhat grounded – especially because of Dean’s excellent, iconic lead performance.

7. Les Diaboliques (Henri Georges Clouzut)
Les Diaboliques is one of the most twisty, turny thrillers of all time. A meek school teacher (Vera Clozut), tired of his loutish husband (Paul Meurisse) running things and treating her life crap, teams up with her husband’s mistress, and fellow teacher (Simone Signoiret) to murder her husband, and provide themselves with the perfect alibi. Things seemingly go according to plan, right up to and including disposing of the body. But then days go by, and the body isn’t discovered – and when Clozut takes it upon herself to ensure the body is discovered, she finds it is no longer where it should be. Strange things keep happening, strange sightings and weird phone calls. Les Diaboliques is an expertly crafted thriller by the great French director Henri-Georges Clouzut – it is a thriller that Hitchcock would be proud to call his own. The performances anchor the story in the realm of reality – a real accomplishment considering how outlandish the plot appears to be at first glance. As the film progresses, Clouzut tightens the screws of the plot, right up until the truly memorable finale. One of the great thrillers of all time.

6. Kiss Me Deadly (Robert Aldrich)
Robert Aldrich’s Kiss Me Deadly is an apocalyptic little film noir about paranoia in the nuclear age. Ralph Meeker plays a corrupt PI, who is driving along one day and comes across a hitchhiker (Cloris Leachman) who has just escaped from a mental hospital. Before he knows what is happening, he is beaten up and wakes up to hear Leachman being tortured to death – before he is packed into a car, along with the dead body, and shoved over a cliff. When he wakes up, he decides to try and figure out what happened. All the action seems to be trying to get back a mysterious suitcase – containing something that heats up and glows (and could be the inspiration for that mysterious suitcase in Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction). The film is one of the most cynical and nihilistic of all film noirs – and that’s saying something given the genre itself. Aldrich’s surefire direction keeps the movie going at an almost breakneck pace, as it draws us deeper and deeper into its mysteries. This is a great little paranoid thriller – one of the final masterpieces of the classic film noir period.

5. East of Eden (Elia Kazan)
The cult of James Dean is based around his performances in three films – and for my money, his work in East of Eden, no matter how good he was in Rebel Without a Cause or Giant, has always been the best work of his career. John Steinbeck’s novel, loosely based on the biblical story of Cain and Abel, provides Dean with the best role of his career. He is a young man who has always tried, unsuccessfully, to get his father (Raymond Massey) to love him as much as he loves his brother – which is complicated even more when Dean tracks down his mother (Jo Van Fleet), who he always thought was dead, and starts up a relationship with his brothers fiancée (Julie White). It has been said that Dean deliberately antagonized the old pro Massey to get him to hate him, so that there scenes would have a ring of authenticity to them – whether this is true or not, you certainly do get the sense that Massey doesn’t like Dean. Kazan’s sensitive direction allows Dean room to maneuver – and no one played brooding youth quite like he did. Dean’s performance is the centerpiece of this great movie – but the entire film is great.

4. Bad Day at Black Rock (John Sturges)
It is late 1945, and a one armed man (Spencer Tracy) arrives in the tiny town of Black Rock on the train – the first time the train has stopped there since the war broke out. He says he is looking for a man named Kokomo, but finds the residents of the town hostile to him for seemingly now reason. They tell him that Kokomo no longer lives in town – he was a Japanese-American and was forced into an internment camp. But Tracy isn’t buying the official story – and despite being warned off by the local tough (Lee Marvin), and the man who seemingly runs the town (Robert Ryan), he continues to look into what really happened to Kokomo. It took years for Hollywood to deal with the shameful behavior of America in regards to Japanese-Americans during WWII – there have still only been a handful of films down about it – but director John Sturges was brave enough to make this film – an expert blend of film noir and western genres. I think Tracy is a great actor, but I don’t think I’ve ever liked him more in a film than I did in this one – and Robert Ryan, one of the more underrated movie tough guys from the era, is excellent as a truly evil, racist little man. The film is an intense, brave little movie – controversial at the time, but since the controversy has faded, it is easier to admire just what a great little film this is.

3. The Phenix City Story (Phil Karlson)
Phil Karlson’s The Phenix City Story has long since been underrated – perhaps because until last month, it was never available on DVD. Now that it, it can take its rightful place among the best crime films of the 1950s. The film is about a small Southern town under the yoke of corruption. A young, idealistic lawyer moves back to town, with his wife and young family in tow, and is amazed to see that his hometown has become a seedy, gambling town, where change is impossible because the guys who control everything don’t want to see it changed. The lawyer’s father was once one of the most respected lawyers in the state, and tried to fight against what was happening, but has long since given up. But then, as more and more violence starts happening, the good people in Phenix City cannot hold back any longer and they fight to retake their town. Karlson, a director I need to become more familiar with, masterfully handles this would be routine plot with his excellent filmmaking – his camera that glides down the streets, the dark cinematography that shows corruption in every corner of the city. The performances – by a cast of largely unknown character actors – are all wonderful. The Phenix City Story is a great film noir – one of the best in the final years of the classic noir period – and it’s time that it took that mantle.

2. Smiles of a Summer Night (Ingmar Bergman)
When one thinks of Ingmar Bergman, they usually think of the dark, depressing dramas about a world where God, if not dead, is at least silent. But Smiles of a Summer Night couldn’t be further away from those films if it tried – it is essentially a witty, profane sex comedy by the master filmmaker, and it should be said, one of the best that the genre ever produced. Fredrik (Gunnar Bjornstrand) is a widower with a grown son, who married the beautiful, young, naïve Anne (Ulla Jacobson) over a year ago, and is still waiting for her to be ready to lose her virginity. Meanwhile, Anne is flirting with Fredrik’s self serious son (Bjorn Bjelfvenstam), who is studying to be a minister, although he harbors sexual thoughts about his step mother, and the main (Harriet Anderson). Fredrik takes Anne to the theater one night, where the star is Desiree (Eva Dahlbeck), Fredrik’s former mistress, who he goes to see afterwards, even though she has moved on and is now the mistress of a Count (Jarl Kulle), much to the chagrin of his wife (Margit Carlqvist), although Desiree indeed does want Fredrik back. All of these characters gather at the home of Desiree’s mother (Naima Wifstrand) for a weekend of flirting, duels and a hell of lot of innuendo. The film is as light weight and breezy as Bergman’s films usually are downbeat and serious. It is pure cinematic pleasure to watch these characters interact – all the performances are wonderful (I particularly love Anderson as the naughty maid).Sometimes a director can surprise you by doing something completely different. In this case, as much as I love Ingmar Bergman’s normal, serious films, I have to say that this film is better than almost all of them – and is one of the greatest triumphs of the director’s career.

1. Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton)
It has been said by more than one person that Charles Laughton has the only perfect career as a director. The famed British actor made just one film as a director – and it stands as an absolute masterpiece – one of the very best films ever made. Robert Mitchum gives the best performance of his considerable career as a crooked, depraved preacher, who has tattooed his fingers so that one hand says “Love” and the other says “Hate”. Mitchum’s Harry Powell is convinced that the children of a recently hanged man know where their father hide the money he stole – so he seduces and marries the widow (Shelley Winters, adding another great shrewish performance to her resume) to try and get the kids to tell him the secret. The movie is perhaps the best example of Southern Gothic ever brought to the screen, and is a truly frightening movie, particularly as Powell chases after the children (calling him in Mitchum absolutely chilling voice). The film has inspired filmmakers ever since it was made – you can see echoes and references to it in the films of Martin Scorsese, Terence Malick, Spike Lee, the Coen Brothers and David Lynch among others. All too often, we approach films through their filmmakers, and compare the film to everything else in their work (as a auteurist, I am as guilty, if not more so of this than many others). But a film like Night of the Hunter forces us to approach it on its own terms, as Laughton didn’t leave us with anything else as a director – and the film is so different than the ones he made as an actor. It is a masterpiece, pure and simple. One of the greatest films ever made – and it really does sadden me that Laughton never stepped behind the camera again.

Just Missed The Top 10: The Desperate Hours (William Wyler), I Live in Fear (Akira Kurosawa), Killer’s Kiss (Stanley Kubrick), Marty (Delbert Mann), Mister Roberts (John Ford & Mervyn LeRoy), Mr. Arkadin (Orson Welles), Night and Fog (Alain Resnais), Ordet (Carl Theodor Dreyer),Pather Panchali (Sayajit Ray), The Rose Tattoo (Daniel Mann), To Catch a Thief (Alfred Hitchcock).

Notable Films Missed: Il Bidone (Federico Fellini), The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de la Cruz (Luis Bunuel), The Far Country (Anthony Mann),Floating Clouds (Mikio Naruse), French Cancan (Jean Renoir),Love is a Many Splendored Thing (Henry King), Les Maîtres fous (Jean Rouch),The Man from Laramie (Anthony Mann), Moonfleet (Fritz Lang), Picnic (Joshua Logan), Princess Yang Kwei Fei (Kenji Mizoguchi), Taira Plan Saga (Kenji Mizoguchi).

Oscar Winner – Best Picture & Director: Marty (Delbert Mann)
I have a soft spot in my heart for Delbert Mann’s Marty – in a weaker year it easily would have made my top 10 list. This is one of those rare best picture winners which isn’t about some important subject, and isn’t a large, glossly blockbuster, but a simple movie about a simple guy. Ernest Borgnine is terrific in the title role as a butcher, in middle age, with no wife to come home to at night. He is sweet and shy, and pays way too much attention to what his friends think of him – which is why he initially thinks twice about going out with a seemingly plain girl, even though she seems perfectly matched to him (and of course, since he is played by Borgnine, Marty isn’t exactly the best looking guy in the world either). The film is so sweet and lovable that it often gets mocked by serious film fans who want something more serious to win the Best Picture prize. While obviously I think the Academy could have chosen a better film to win, I still don’t want to rag on this movie.

Oscar Winner – Best Actor: Ernest Borgnine, Marty
With Marty, Borgnine effectively changed his screen image. Up until this movie, he had mainly made his career on being a tough guy in supporting roles – like his work in From Here to Eternity and this same year’s Bad Day at Black Rock. After Marty, although Borgnine continued to be able to be tough guys, he also added lovable schlub to his repertoire. I wouldn’t have given Borgnine the Oscar for his work here – for one thing Robert Mitchum was brilliant in Night of the Hunter, but since the Academy didn’t deem him worthy, Spencer Tracy or James Dean were better – but much like the movie itself, I have a soft spot for this performance. Is it one of the greatest in screen history? Certainly not, but I like it too much to really complain either.

Oscar Winner – Best Actress: Anna Magnani, The Rose Tattoo
Anna Magnani is probably best known to serious film fans for her blistering, brilliant turn in Roberto Rosselini’s Open City. After that film, she was able to move to Hollywood and start making movies here. Tennessee Williams apparently wrote the play The Rose Tattoo specifically for her, but she didn’t want to do it on Broadway – but when the role – that of a feisty widow, who after the death of her husband has withdrawn from the world – until a new man, Burt Lancaster, enters her life. Magnani shows some of the same fire and spunk that made her work in Open City so memorable, and the film directed by Daniel Mann is entertaining in the way all Tennessee Williams movies are – because of the melodrama and the sweaty sexuality. It isn’t quite the triumph of A Streetcar Named Desire, but how could it be?

Oscar Winner – Best Supporting Actor: Jack Lemmon, Mister Roberts
Jack Lemmon is one of the best screen actors of all time – effortlessly being able to move from comedy to drama and back again, sometimes in the same role. His work in John Ford and Mervyn Leroy’s Mister Roberts as Ensign Pulver, aboard a not very important ship during WWII is both at different times. Most people will remember his final scene – made memorable by being with a plant – but Lemmon is great throughout the movie. Is it really one of his best performances? I’m not sure, but it really is hard to argue with his win here (it was not a particularly stacked category this year) and is better than his work in Save the Tiger nearly two decades later that one him his second Oscar.

Oscar Winner – Best Supporting Actress: Jo Van Fleet, East of Eden
Jo Van Fleet’s role in East of Eden is small but memorable. She plays the mother of James Dean and his brother who they had always thought dead. But when Dean tracks her down – she is working as madam at a brothel a few towns away – she makes a memorable appearance in the film. Is her small role worthy of an Oscar? To me, I would have wanted to see Shelley Winters get it for Night of the Hunter, but they ignored her along with the other truly great performances in this category this year. Out of the nominees, she was a fine choice.

Oscar Update: Foreign, Documentaries and Animated

I don’t have all that much to talk about this week, so I thought I’d take my first look at the three other “Best Picture” categories – Foreign Language Film, Documentary and Animated.

For the Foreign Language entries, we have 65 films that have entered the race. In December, a shortlist of 9 films will be announced. But until then, we have the 65. Let’s take a look at some of the higher profile films.

Aftershock (China) – It seems like a while since China got in, but this movie about the time period between two huge earthquakes in China – and the treatment of women during that time – could get them back into the race. A huge hit in China.

Biutiful (Mexico) – Likely the highest profile film on the list, this is from Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu (Babel, Amores Perros, 21 Grams) and stars Javier Bardem. A likely nominee, but then again, the Academy has shied away from some high profile ones in recent years (Volver anyone?)

Carancho (Argentina) – I have heard great things about this thriller, and am sorry I missed it at TIFF this year. It stars Ricardo Darin, who headlined The Secret of Their Eyes which won last year. Perhaps Argentina can repeat?

Cirkus Columbia (Bosnia & Herzegovina) – Director Danes Anodic won this award for No Man’s Land a while ago now – and it was his country’s only foray into being nominating. I have heard this isn’t as good as that one, but perhaps the Academy will look favorably on it.

Dogtooth (Greece) – A big hit with critics, but I highly doubt that apparently very strange film about a man who home schools his children, and teaches them all the wrong words, will find love with the Academy. Good on Greece for selecting it though.

Incendies (Canada) – It’s been a few years since Canada got into this race, but I think Denis Villenueve’s film about twins who travel to the Middle East will end that streak. Got great reviews out of the Toronto, and the man is one of the most talented filmmakers in Canada right now.

In a Better World (Denmark) – Susanne Bier makes intense, unforgettable films like Brothers, Things We Lost in the Fire and After the Wedding (which was nominated a few years ago). Certainly one of the more high profile directors in the running this year.

Of Gods and Men (France) – France always seems to be in the running, no matter what they nominate. Now that they have selected a highly acclaimed film (and one that one the Grand Prize at Cannes), I think that Xavier Beauvois can book his ticket to the ceremony.

Outside the Law (Algeria) – Director Rachid Bouchereb hopes to get his second nomination, following Days of Glory a few years ago. The reaction has been mixed, but it is a political drama, centered on a family during Algeria’s fight for independence. It could find favor with the Academy.

Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (Thailand) – This weird,
wonderful film has found more support than most of director Apichatpong Weerathesakul’s films in the past – including the Palme D’Or. I think the executive committee may put it on the shortlist, since it has generated such a profile, but I really do.

If I had to guess right now, I’d say your nominees are Of Gods and Men (France), Incidenies (Canada), In a Better World (Denmark), Biutiful (Mexico) and Aftershock (China). But until we have the shortlist, we don’t really know.

Documentary
We have to wait until November to get the list of 15 films shortlisted for this prize. As always happens, I expect some big snubs and some films we’ve never heard of to make the list. Regardless, these are the 15 films I would predict to make the cut.

1. Inside Job – Already getting great reviews, and solid box office. I think Charles Ferguson’s doc is the frontrunner to win because its timely, and he was a frontrunner a few years ago for No End in Sight, but ended up losing.
2. Restrepo – A critical hit about the filmmakers embedded with soldiers in Afghanstan. Sizable box office for a doc as well.
3. The Tillman Story – Many though Amir Bar Levy’s first doc, My Kid Could Paint That, should have gotten in. I think this doc, about the NFL player turned soldier killed by friendly fire, should land him in the race.
4. Waiting for Superman – Davis Guggenehim won a few years ago for An Inconvient Truth, and they have often not given noms to previous winners, but this is getting talked about so much, I doubt they’ll overlook it.
5. Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Elliot Spitzer – Like Guggenheim, Alex Gibney is a former winner (Taxi to the Dark Side), so a win is unlikely – but critical reaction has been strong for this one. Could also get in for Casino Jack and the United States of Money.
6. A Film Unfinished – In the 1990s, they loved Holocaust docs. This one about a Nazi propaganda film, that was unfinished of course, should get shortlisted, and could easily crack the top five.
7. Gasland – A timely documentary about the environment, and how oil companies are destroying people’s land through leases. Has some buzz, but it hasn’t translated into box office yet.
8. The Oath – An insider’s view of Al Qaeda. Has been popular with the critics, but not so much at the box office. But they do like important subject matter.
9. Enemies of the People – Enemies of the People offers and inside view into the Khmer Rouge, by a reporter who spent years gaining the trust of those of perpetrated the massacres. Not as timely as some of the docs, but weighty subject matter will help.
10. Exit Through the Giftshop – A very popular movie at the box office, by doc standards that is, and critically acclaimed as well. But it doesn’t have the weighty subject matter that assures a shortlist citation.
11. 12th and Delaware – The filmmakers behind Jesus Camp return with this documentary about abortion. They obviously like the filmmakers, but abortion is touchy for many.
12. Last Train Home – A documentary that takes you across China, as families travel to reunite. Been a huge hit with critics, and just hitting theater now. I think this one could move up.
13. My Perestroika – A look at the last generation of Russians born behind the Iron Curtain. Weighty subject matter helps, but it isn’t as timely as some.
14. A Small Act – A Kenyan whose life is changed when a anonymous Swede gives money for his education decides to start a scholarship fund of his own. This is the type of inspirational doc that often sneaks in.
15. Waste Land – A modern artist decides to turn the people who live in the world largest trash dump into art – and all the proceeds go to helping them out after. Will be competing with A Small Act for the inspirational prize.

Animated
It looks like there will only be 12 or 13 films in the running this year – which means there will only be 3 nominees – not five like in some years (like last year). The films listed below look like your contenders.

1. Toy Story 3 – Slam dunk to get nominated and most likely win.
2. How to Train Your Dragon – Popular early year entry that is going to get a big campaign.
3. The Illusionist – The latest from Sylvain Chomet (The Triplets of Belleville) will likely get the “adult” spot.
4. Despicable Me – A Huge hit, but not as popular with critics as Dragon.
5. Tangled – Disney will push hard to try and get this in.
6. Megamind – Without knowing the quality, cannot really say.
7. Legend of the Guardians – Got some good reviews, but bombed at the box office.
8. Shrek Forever After – Been there, done that.
9. Idiots and Angels – The latest from Bill Plympton, may not have actually submitted, and unlikely to get in even if it did.
10. Alpha and Omega – A huge bomb at the box office.
11. My Dog Tulip – Will have to work hard to convince people even to watch it.
12. Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue – Disney trying to up the number of contenders to try and get Tangled nominated.
13. Yogi Bear – Alvin and the Chipmunks has been eligible in the past, so this could be as well.

Movie Review: Nowhere Boy

Nowhere Boy ***
Directed by: Sam Taylor-Wood.
Written By: Matt Greenhalgh based on the memoir by Julia Baird.
Starring: Aaron Johnson (John), Kristin Scott Thomas (Mimi), Anne-Marie Duff (Julia), Thomas Sangster (Paul), David Threlfall (Uncle George), David Morrissey (Bobby), Sam Bell (George).

It seems like pretty much every rock star in history will eventually have a movie made about them – one that explains why they were the way they were, and how it all comes back to their childhood. Nowhere Boy is not the first, nor will it likely be the last, movie to look at the life of John Lennon. But while the movie hits a lot of familiar notes, it also hits on some unexpected ones as well.

When the film opens John (Aaron Johnson) is in high school, living with his overly prim and proper Aunt Mimi (Kristen Scott Thomas). He hates school, and takes his home life for granted. We gather that he never sees his mother, and really doesn’t understand what happened to lead him to be raised by his aunt – and until a death in the family, he doesn’t much care either. But then his cousin finds out where John’s mom lives – and wouldn’t you know it’s in walking distance – and soon John is caught between two sisters who haven’t spoken in years, and seem like complete opposites. Its his relationship that John has with these two women who shape him – at least according to the movie.

There are some standard issue biopic scenes that seemingly every movie about a musician has – although they are handled well here. It’s funny to see Lennon sitting in a movie theater looking up at the screen and seeing Elvis, and have his eyes simply light up. He’s hooked – he will be a rock star. It’s even more fun to see John at first openly mock the new kid with genuine talent for the guitar – whose name of course is Paul. Paul is the more straight laced of the two – asking for tea when the rest of the boys are drinking beer. But he is also perhaps the only one who understands John. Later, we’ll meet George as well, although he never becomes a character of any depth.

But what makes the movie as interesting and as good as it is really is what goes on between John and Mimi, and later between John and Julia (Anne-Marie Duff- his birth mother). Like all teenagers, John has a rebellious streak and he resents the well meaning, but firm guiding hand that Mimi has raised him with. She created a stable home for him, but it is perhaps a little too cold for John, who longs for something else. When he finds Julia, he seemingly finds what he needs. She is a free spirit, and there is something undeniable sexual going on between her and John – not that they committed incest, but just that their natural feeling of love was tinged with something more complex. If the relationships between these three characters don’t work, then the movie falls flat. Luckily Aaron Johnson is quite good as John – he doesn’t much look like him, but does capture the humor, the pain and that miscehvious look behind the eyes that Lennon had. Kristen Scott Thomas is even better as the ever proper Mimi – but she makes her into more than just the standard issue stick in the mud – there is feeling there, even if she has a hard time expressing it. The last scene in the film between her and John almost makes you cry. And Anne Marie Duff excels in perhaps the most difficult role in the film – there is something unbalanced about Julia, and she gets the scenes of conflicted feeling of love – maternal, sexual, etc – pretty much just right. These three performances would be reason enough to see the movie – and add in Thomas Sangster (from Love, Actually) as Paul and you have a fine ensemble.

Nowhere Boy doesn’t really feel all that new or different, but it does what it does with honesty and intelligence. There are few moments where director Sam Taylor-Wood is perhaps a little too on the nose (closing the movie with Lennon’s song “Mother” for example is far too obvious), but overall, she brings a sensitivity to the movie that is quite rare. Nowhere Boy isn’t one of the best musical biopics you’ll ever seen – but it’s still a good one.

DVD Review: Holy Rollers

Holy Rollers **
Directed by: Kevin Asch.
Written by: Antonio Macia.
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg (Sam Gold), Justin Bartha (Yosef Zimmerman), Danny A. Abeckaser (Jackie Solomon), Ari Graynor (Rachel Apfel), Jason Fuchs (Leon Zimmerman), Q-Tip (Ephraim), Bern Cohen (Rebbe Horowitz), Mark Ivanir (Mendel Gold), Charlie Hewson (Andrew), Elizabeth Marvel (Elka Gold), Hallie Kate Eisenberg (Ruth Gold).

There is a fascinating true story behind Holy Rollers, that unfortunately doesn’t really translate to the screen all that well in this movie. Sam Gold (Jessie Eisenberg) is from a close knit family, in a close knit Hasidic Jewish community in Brooklyn. He works with his father in the garment district, but may decide to study to be a rabbi instead. But then, for reasons the movie doesn’t entirely make clear, he gets involved with a smuggling ring bringing in ectasy tablets from the Netherlands. His neighbor Yosef (Justin Bartha) gets him involved with the ring, and the first time, lies to Sam about what he’ll be bringing back. But after that, Sam goes in with his eyes wide open.

This is all based on a true story, and I’m sure the real one is more fascinating the movie. Eiseneberg is fine in the lead role, but he isn’t really given much to work with. It was frustrating to watch the movie since I never could figure out why Sam was doing what he was doing. The film provides an explanation – that after his arranged marriage, to a beautiful girl, falls apart he believes it is because of money, and working with the ring gives him lots of it. But later, the filmmakers will explain that it wasn’t money that did in the arranged marriage but because her parents wanted someone to “protect her from the wolves”, so they chose Yosef’s younger brother Leon instead. This makes no sense at all to me, since when they reject Sam, he isn’t a drug dealer, and is pretty much the exact same person Leon is, who they deemed acceptable.

This may seem like a minor flaw, but to me it sunk the movie. Sam doesn’t really get “seduced” by the lifestyle – although he is drawn to Ari Graynor’s Rachel, the mistress of his boss. He doesn’t like to party, get high or having meaningless sex. And it isn’t until he is expelled from the community, that he stops dressing like a Hasidic Jew either. Yet at the same time, Eisenberg seems to go from the naïve kid who believes Bartha when he tells him they are bringing back “medicine”, into a smart, savvy businessman when it comes to dealing drugs. Yes, the same underlying business strategies exist whether you’re making fabric or making drugs, but the Sam we see in the first part of the movie, wouldn’t all of sudden assert himself like he does here. The movie may get the actions right, but it misses the psychological underpinning that would have made it more fascinating.

There are moments that work – scenes that come together, and the entire story behind the movie fascinated me. I never really thought about it, but using Hasidic Jews as drug mules make a lot of sense – who the hell is going to suspect them of smuggling drugs? But once the ritual of the smuggling becomes known to the audience, the film just keeps showing it to us again and again – for a movie that is not quite 90 minutes, there sure is a lot of repetition in it. Holy Rollers made the mistake of finding a good story, but then having no idea of how to tell it.

Movie Review: Mesrine: Killer Instinct/Public Enemy No. 1

Mesrine: Killer Instinct/Public Enemy No. 1 *** ½
Directed by: Jean-François Richet.
Written By: Abdel Raouf Dafri and Jean-François Richet based on the book by Jacques Mesrine.
Starring: Vincent Cassel (Jacques Mesrine), Cécile De France (Jeanne Schneider), Gérard Depardieu (Guido), Gilles Lellouche (Paul), Roy Dupuis (Jean-Paul Mercier), Ludivine Sagnier (Sylvie Jeanjacquot), Mathieu Amalric (François Besse), Samuel Le Bihan (Michel Ardouin), Gérard Lanvin (Charly Bauer), Olivier Gourmet (Le commissaire Broussard), Elena Anaya (Sofia).

Jacques Mesrine thinks he is a hero, a revolutionary who is going to bring down the system that he feels has screwed him over time and again. He is against the conditions in prison, because he has been in them, and didn’t like the way he was treated. He wants to blow them up and let his friends go. He thinks he will bring down the system by hitting it where it hurts – the wallet – by robbing banks. It isn’t until very late in Jean-Francois Richet’s two part, four plus hour epic about Mesrine that it is explained to him that his plan will never work. Sure, he robs the banks, but what does he do with the money? Spends it on fast cars and jewelry for his wife. He is actually feeding the system he thinks he is destroying. But Mesrine goes to his grave thinking himself a folk hero – and as the movie makes clear, for a surprisingly long period of time, he has many people convinced that he is exactly that.

Played by Vincent Cassell in one of the great performances of the year, Mesrine is cold and calculating, ruthless and selfish, charming and charismatic. His greatest talent may in fact be self delusion – how can a man who spends his entire adult life robbing and killing people, who abandons his children while proclaiming he loves them, who spends all his ill gotten gains on himself, possibly think that he is some sort of Robin Hood? Because that’s how he wants to see himself, and so that is what he becomes in his own mind.

Mesrine didn’t have to become what he was. He had a good education, came from a good family, was intelligent and even held down some good jobs in his early adulthood. He didn’t turn to crime out of poverty or need, but because it was easier. Perhaps his experience as a French soldier in Algeria – where he was surrounded by violence on a daily basis, and even forced to commit violence himself, made something inside of him break. But then again, there are millions of soldiers who come back from war and don’t turn to crime. Perhaps the greatest strength of this epic movie is that it doesn’t attempt to explain Mesrine, or give pat explanations as to why he does what he does. It defines him by his actions and his words.

Told in two parts, which end up totaling just over four hours of running time, Mesrine is often a fairly episodic movie. It looks briefly – in one scene – at his time in Algeria, then thrusts us headlong into his life of crime. He teams up with Guido (Gerard Depardieu), a French gangster who admires Mesrine’s ruthlessness, and his ability to talk his way out of any situation. When Guido gets killed, and Mesrine finds himself on the wrong side of the gang war, he flees France for Quebec. It isn’t long before he has teamed up with Jean-Paul Mercier (played by the great Canadian actor Roy Dupuis) of the FLQ. They end up in a Quebec jail together, and it’s here where Mesrine will make his first of many daring prison escapes. He will later even try to break back into the same prison to get his other friends out. Despite all his talk of a “Free Quebec”, he doesn’t actually do anything to accomplish that, thus establishing the pattern of his criminal career – a lot of lofty talk about breaking the system, back up with a whole lot of killing and robbing for no discernible purpose. I suppose you could say that Mesrine’s expose on conditions inside the prison in Quebec for FLQ prisoners did result in treatment getting better, but that would have undoubtedly have happened anyway.

The two movies are remarkably similar. What changes is not Mesrine himself, but the people around him. In the first film – Killer Instinct – it is Dupuis as his right hand man, and Cecile De France, as the woman who gets drawn into his world. In the second half – Public Enemy No. 1-, it is Mathieu Almaric as his jittery sidekick, who doesn’t share Mesrine’s delusions (“We’re thieves. You want to topple the system, and I want it to stand so I can milk it”) and Ludivine Sagnier as his wife. Both women know who Mesrine is when they get involved with him – both know that it could easily end in jail or death, but they go to him anyway. Why? He’s charming, he’s handsome, he always has money to throw around, and he is the classic “bad boy”.

The movie is anchored by Cassel’s brilliant performance as Mesrine. Cassell is that rare actor who is never the same twice in a movie. He has played villains before, but often there is a degree of sympathy to them – as in his great performance as the pathetic son of a mob boss in David Cronenberg’s Eastern Promises. Here, he presents Mesrine as a man without feeling or remorse, a man who kills without thinking about it. He buys into his own propaganda about himself as some kind of folk hero to such a degree that when a reporter dares to criticize him in the paper, he kidnaps and tortures him, before leaving him for dead. When the rest of the press discovers this, he is amazed that they have turned on him. He is an incredibly selfish man – a man who abandons his children, and in one of the most touching scenes in the movie, when his daughter comes to visit him in jail she tells him that she prefers him in jail – at least this way she knows where he is. But that doesn’t stop Mesrine, who soon is breaking out yet again. For all his railing against the restrictions of the Maximum Security Areas in French prisons, he never seems to realize that one of the reasons they have such restrictions is to prevent prison breaks – like the ones he is always pulling. Perhaps Mesrine had to delude himself into thinking he was a hero – how else could he live with himself?