Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles (a guest review by Number Three)

Zhang Yimou (pronounced Jong Yeemo) is officially my favorite foreign director to date. His masterpieces include Raise the Red Lantern, Hero, House of Flying Daggers, and Curse of the Golden Flower. Now we have Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles, which is by no means a masterpiece, but certainly aspires to the greatness I have come to expect from Yimou. Riding is not like his martial arts movies, which most Americans think of when they hear Yimou’s name. Rather, it is more like his stupendous efforts To Live and The Road Home, which show off his ability to craft a story with both human drama and visual beauty.

Riding follows Gou-ichi Takata on a multi-tiered journey of discovery of self, family, and humanity. One thing that strikes me as particularly unique with Riding is that it is a story primarily in China from a Chinese director, but the lead role is the legendary Japanese Actor Takakura Ken. In fact, Takakura is the only actor in this movie. Nobody else had ever been on screen for a movie before, which is how Yimou wanted it. After all, a story about the common people must be played by common people. It is done with tremendous success here. I didn’t even know there was only one seasoned actor in this movie until I learned otherwise from the special features. I’ve seen enough Hollywood actors unsuccessfully play the common man to no avail. Very few can because none of them are common. There is a sort of swagger in the Brad Pitts and George Clooneys and Renee Zellwegers of our acting set that they just can’t shake.

Well, Takakura Ken shakes the swagger and the rest of the actors never had it to begin with. This movie is a delight from the first frame to the very end. As I said, Riding follows Gou-ichi Takata, who lives in a Japanese fishing village far off from his son. When he learns that his son who’s back in Tokyo is ailing, he goes to visit, only to learn that they had grown further apart than he realized. His son refuses to even see him on his hospital bed. Thus begins a journey when his son’s wife passes along a video tape made by the son that reveals the son’s unfinished passion that he will now never be able to complete. Gou-ichi then sees an opportunity to win his way back to his son’s heart. This takes him to China to seek out what his son was unable to finish.

His quest meets obstacle after obstacle, and Gou-ichi’s persistence in and of itself is an astounding thing to behold, but what is yet more astounding is that his journey's purpose becomes multi-tiered as his focus extends beyond himself to those suffering around him. It is hard to describe the complexity of emotion and drama so skillfully shown, but this film was no doubt a great challenge for actor and director alike. There are moments of sadness and moments of levity, and amidst all of the emotion is the gorgeous backdrop of the majestic Yunnan province of China.

If you’re in the mood for a drama and willing to expand your horizons to another culture, give Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles a chance. There is a quality here that Hollywood often misses.

Number Three’s Score:
Mouthspeak (impact of dialog): +16
Watchfeel (impact of visuals): +18
Mouthfeel (overall watchability): +17

Number Three

Because I Said So

Initial Reaction: It's over!! There is a God!!

I, like many of you, have seen a number of movies that I've appreciated to varying degrees. There have been films that I have loved and defended passionately. There are ones that I greatly enjoy, but wouldn't label them as "great movies." Then there are those on the other end: films I've hated because of the ideology they push or because of gratuitous violence. I've felt "meh" about many movies, not impressed but glad to have some kind of distraction in front of me. Then there are those that are just painful to watch.

Because I Said So falls into the last category. I'll be honest, I initially had reservations about seeing it; my tolerance for rom coms and chick flicks has been lessening lately. But I was having a fun night with a friend, and sometimes those movies are cute when you watch them with fellow females. I should've listened to my gut.

From the very opening scene I felt uncomfortable. It was more like watching actors improvise a movie than watching an actual movie. When the movie began, I was bombarded by numerous characters, situations, and lines being spoken quickly and at the same time. Not to mention some subpar cinematography (which says a lot--I seldom notice that sort of thing). I got the distinct feeling as I watched that the actors themselves hated this movie. And that's a bad sign.

Anyway, we are introduced right away to the Wilder family, which includes mother Daphne, and daughters Maggie, Mae, and Milly. Thankfully the older two are already married, but mother Daphne can't help but get way too caught up in her daughter Milly's life. She wants to see her happily married to a very specific sort of man, but Milly has decided instead to throw herself into her career as a chef.

The humor in Because I Said So was more of an annoyance to me than any kind of comic relief. I just wanted them to stop doing funny things. Unfortunately, the humor usually centered around Diane Keaton's character Daphne, and Diane Keaton was horrendous in this film. Annoying, superficial, hyperactive, unappealing and loud, her screen presence was like fingernails on a chalkboard. Since she was intended as the most comic character, this really destroyed any potential that Because I Said So had as a comedy. So let the record show that the "com" from its genre "rom com" is officially absent. I mean, when the running joke is when the "funniest" character walks onto a chaotic scene carrying a huge cake that she spent hours on (and you can guess what happens next), eyes are going to roll.

As for the rest of the characters, Mandy Moore was pretty watchable, but played one of the two characters she always tends to play: the sweet girl. This is fine, but before long her saccharine smile started to make me feel nauseous. One of her love interests (Gabriel Macht) is pretty decent, while the other (Tom Everett Scott) seems to be made of cardboard.

Milly's sisters, played by Lauren Graham (part of the reason I bothered with this movie in the first place) and Piper Perabo have significantly more success with the comedy of the film, but aren't given much to work with and unfortunately are hugely overshadowed by Moore and Keaton.

So, the plot: Milly is single and wanting a man. Mom wants to help, so she goes online, posts a personal ad, and interviews the suitors herself. Most of these have zero potential anyway (surprise: the scene includes a long line of unattractive/unpolished men trying to impress mom... unfortunately, the most funny scene), but at the end of the day, Prince Charming shows up. I'm not even going to give his name. That's how much I care. Anyway, mom decides he is good enough and he makes plans to happen to meet Milly. In the meantime, there's a musician in the room observing this process. He goes and talks to mom to see what she's up to and she explains it to him. He, of course, decides he'll give the daughter a go as well, takes one of her business cards, and leaves.

The long and short of it is that Milly starts dating both men. Mom pushes the one she chose (while not giving away the fact that she chose him in the first place) but Milly seems to prefer the other guy. It's the standard "who is right for me?" problem. There's conflict, there's sweetness, there's baking. In the end, in one of my least favorite scenes from the movie (there are so many to choose from), (SPOILER) she tells off the "wrong" guy because of such reasons as: "You liked what my mother wanted me to wear" and "I just ruined my souffle." Obviously, people, there isn't much here. It's a ridiculous scene that's supposed to be the emotional climax and the main thrust of the "romance" in the film. And so, let the record show that the "rom" part of "rom com" is also absent. Oy.

There were no lines that were memorable, so I'll give you the worst scene instead: Mom asks Milly what an orgasm feels like. Enough said.

Rating: -15

Poorly shot, disappointing in the acting department, painfully unoriginal, and a flop of a comedy, Because I Said So does not have high heights to reach. It achieved a whopping 6% (Rotten) on Rottentomatoes.com. While watching it I felt genuinely uncomfortable because it was so bad. The last scene is a beautiful wedding, and we're supposed to all feel really happy. The movie actually succeeded in making me happy here, if only because I knew it was the end and I didn't have to watch it anymore.

Arrested Development - Season 1

As a TV watcher, I must fit into the category of “non-typical.” Granted, my favorite show is one of the most popular on television right now, 24. But my other favorites have all been cancelled after a none-too-long run. Freaks and Geeks was ignored and then unceremoniously dumped. Firefly was shown scathing disrespect and then discontinued despite overwhelming responses from its small number of fans. The best-fairing of the lot was Arrested Development, which managed to last two entire seasons, but just couldn’t make it all the way through the third. And like my other favorites, I caught onto Arrested Development only after the rest of the world did.

Arrested Development is the chronicle of Michael Bluth (Jason Bateman), high-ranking official in the Bluth Corporation, a construction firm. He is the “normal” one in a family of slackers and spoiled rich people. The family includes his father George (Jeffrey Tambor) who is president of the Bluth Corporation; Lucille (Jessica Walter), his possessive, wine-swilling, neurotic, and conniving mother; Lindsey (Portia de Rossi), his materialistic twin sister; Gob, (actually GOB, an acronym for George Oscar Bluth, played by Will Arnett), his conceited, vindictive, overly-dramatic magician of an older brother; Buster (Tony Hale), his timid and ultra-weird mama’s-boy of a younger brother; Tobias (the fearless David Cross), his ambiguously gay psychiatrist-turned-actor brother-in-law; George Michael (Michael Cera), his studious, confidence-impaired teenage son; and finally Maeby (Alia Shawkat), his disaffected, habitually naughty teenage niece. Don’t worry about keeping all the characters straight; that will come with time.

At the beginning of the first season, Michael is gearing up for what he thinks will be a big promotion at his father’s retirement party on the company yacht. In reality, his father gets arrested (hence the name of the series) and spends the rest of the season in prison. Michael then, as the only responsible (and arguably sane) member of the family, has to save the company from going under. He and George Michael, along with Lindsay, Tobias, and Maeby, move into a model home built by the Bluth Corporation. Lucille and Buster (who is more like a lapdog than an actual son) remain in their luxurious apartment, Lucille throwing money away as if the company were not crashing to the ground.

Michael, now the president, rides his bike to work every morning, and the only car the family has is one of those trucks with the stairs on top meant to be driven up to planes on the tarmac. Due to the ridiculous nature and outlandish behavior of his family members, Michael’s stress and load of responsibility are incredibly high. Gob is constantly cheating on his sweet Latino girlfriend; Lindsay is having trouble with her husband Tobias’s career choice, not to mention his unconscious homosexual tendencies; George Michael has a secret crush on his cousin Maeby, which may not be (but probably is) wrong; Buster, in rebellion from his overbearing mother, begins dating an older woman, who is oddly named Lucille; and as much work as Michael is doing to keep this family together, his mother Lucille seems to be stymieing his efforts at every turn. Yet even through the almost unending tough times, Michael’s family never fractures (despite his father being in jail), and because of that, never splinters into them not speaking to each other. Michael and his son basically have the mindset of “if we don’t take care of these incredibly inept people, who will?”

Honestly, this is one of the best shows ever to be on television. It is consistently funny throughout, features fantastic performances, is hilariously irreverent, and is incredibly sharp and quick-witted. It surpasses the great Seinfeld for TV comedies, because the situations are not just ridiculous and convoluted for the sake of being so, as the ones in Seinfeld so often were. Sometimes the characters say things that are so unbelievably politically incorrect that there is no recourse but to burst out laughing. Also, Arrested Development has a really good theme to it, though it’s buried underneath layers of caricature and hyperbole. It’s that family is the only thing you can truly count on. But Arrested Development is even more interesting than just that, because it takes that theme and then attempts to dismantle it with every single episode, but to no avail. Try as it may, it simply cannot overcome its own optimism.

The season ends much the same way as it started, with a seeming tragedy becoming a source of comedy. It’s sad that this show never really found its audience, but in retrospect, that was kind of inevitable. The brand of humor is very particular, and only certain people will be able to appreciate it. The show was kind of meant for DVD, too, because it really rewards multiple viewings. There are always new things to be picked up when one watches it again. Not too many people actually like it, as can be seen from the fact that it was cancelled, but I am proud to call Arrested Development one of my favorite TV series.

Iconic lines (or exchanges):
“Illusions, Michael. Tricks are something a whore does for money… or candy!”

Lucille: “Did that Mexican girlfriend of yours kick you out?”
Gob: “She’s not that Mexican, mom. She’s my Mexican. And anyway, she’s Columbian or something.”

“Annyong!”

22 Rating: 18

Particle Man

Daredevil/Ghost Rider

Since I’ve been writing reviews so sporadically, I thought that I’d take this opportunity to give our dear readers two, TWO reviews for the price of one! Today I’ll be looking at Mark Steven Johnson’s Ghost Rider, which is currently burning up the box office, and his previous comic book adaptation, Daredevil.

Daredevil was created by Stan Lee and Bill Everett early in the “Marvel Age” of comics. Trial Lawyer Matthew Murdock was blinded at an early age by an accident involving radioactive chemicals (what other kind is there?), which granted him a “radar sense” and dramatically increased his other four senses. Trained by the ninja master Stick, he defends Hell’s Kitchen as Daredevil, The Man Without Fear!
To be polite about it, Johnson’s 2003 film of Daredevil is quite an abortion. Johnson professes to be a big comic book fan, but this movie is plagued by a weak script, numerous character inconsistencies and weak motivations, and quite possibly the worst casting ever unleashed on a Hollywood film. The film begins with a wounded Daredevil, and moves to Daredevil’s origin (tweaked, and not for the better…..more on that later), and then moves back to the present day to explain why he was slumped against the cross on top of a church, bleeding everywhere. Matt Murdock (Ben Affleck….ewwww) and his partner Foggy Nelson (Jon Favreau, in the only good performance in the film) defend the poor and downtrodden in New York. A chance encounter in a coffee shop introduces Matt to Elektra Natchios (Jenifer Garner), daughter of a wealthy businessman in partnership with Wilson Fisk, the “Kingpin” of crime (Michael Clarke Duncan). Natchios wants out of the crime business, and the Kingpin sics assassin Bullseye (Colin Farrell) after her. Daredevil gets caught in the middle, is blamed for the murder of Daddy Natchios by Elektra, and wackiness ensues.
Batman Begins, Superman Returns, and Spider Man 2 have shown us that you can great films out of comic superheroes without taking all sorts of liberties with origins, motivations, etc. But Johnson gives us no evidence that he even really read a Daredevil comic before. First of all, his origin is tampered with so that Murdock suffers his accident by pure chance, instead of his saving an old man in the comics, a selfless act. Also, it is implied that his fighting skills are gained from his radar sense, which “makes the city his playground.” Riiiigghhhtttt. As anybody who’s studied boxing or other martial arts knows, that comes from lots and lots of hard work, not from knowing how to get from Point A to Point B. Second of all, there’s a scene early in the film where Daredevil tracks an acquitted (guilty) rapist, beats the snot out of him, and drops him in front of an oncoming train. This is a marked deviation not only from the character, but the character type. Could you get behind Spider-Man if he dropped a crook off of the Empire State Building? Or Superman if he blew up the head of a bank robber with his heat vision? This same principle applies to fans of the comics, who have seen Daredevil try and stop The Punisher from arbitrarily executing criminals time and time again. Third, he doubts himself throughout the entire film. Not only is this a characteristic the uber-confident Matt Murdock does not possess, it makes Daredevil come across as a whiny loser in the film. Whiny Loser + Blind Man Jumping Off Of Buildings = Does Not Resemble Our Earth Logic.
The casting for Daredevil? Must have been done by a blind man. I had the same problem with all four principals, in that I didn’t believe, or buy a single performance. Ben Affleck is simply the wrong choice for Daredevil. He’s really tall and stuff, sure. But he’s not much of an actor. He cannot convey intensity to save his life, which was vital to this film. A better choice would have been Matt Damon, Guy Pearce, or Ed Norton. Jennifer Garner was an unimpressive choice for Elektra, as she looks about as Greek as Condoleeza Rice. Again, not much of an acto….she can’t do dark or evil to save her life, and that hurts the role. There was a lot of controversy over the casting of Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin, since the Kingpin was very, very white, and…..well, you know the rest. Michael Clarke Duncan is a good actor, and nobody really can convey massiveness onscreen like he can, but that’s not enough. We have a Kingpin who seems to favor brute force over Machievellian manipulation and striking out at his enemies through connections and with influence. As it stands, Duncan turns in a performance as subtle as a cement truck driving through a shopping mall. But perhaps the worst performance of all comes from Colin Farrell, playing the “Lucky Charms” version of cold-blooded assassin Bullseye. As played by Farrell, Bullseye is a manic, cartoonish, extremely goofy assassin, who kills at the drop of a hat, in plain view of people, which again……cement truck in a shopping mall. Even more ridiculous than his demeanor is his “costume”, which consists of a bullseye carved in his forehead, and a jacket that looks like it was leftover from a Meatloaf video. In the comics, Bullseye is like the Hannibal Lecter of the Marvel Universe: Approach with caution. The only reason that one would need to do that to the Bullseye of the film is because he’s liable to annoy you to death.
The nu-metal soundtrack that permeates the score of Daredevil hurts, and ages the film by degrees. Using pop music can be tricky, and in a superhero movie, a traditional orchestral score is best. The cinematography is ok, nothing to write home about. The other big bone I have with the film is that when you have a subject like Daredevil or Batman, a world class fighter, the fight choreography needs to not suck. And please, no CGI to “enhance” the fights.
So what did I like about Daredevil? Well, it was better than Hulk. Jon Favreau was pretty amusing. One thing that Mark Steven Johnson seems to do very, very well is insert scenes which illustrate smart, real-world principles. Take the scene in Daredevil where he returns from patrol. He takes his uniform off to reveal a map of scars, burns, bullet holes, stab wounds, etc. He pops Vicodin in the shower, and painfully pulls a tooth knocked loose out. There aren’t a lot of scenes like that in superhero movies, and more thought like that put into the script would have improved Daredevil substantially.
I can’t give Daredevil anything higher than a -6 out of 22 on the 22 scale, unless we’re talking about the extended, R-rated cut of Daredevil. That cut, which has slightly more depth to the story, gets a -2. Now, how does Ghost Rider stack up?

Ghost Rider is the story of Johnny Blaze, a motorcycle stunt driver who makes a very foolish decision in an attempt to save a loved one, and pays a price for it. Way, way back in Marvel Spotlight #5, Blaze finds out that his foster father Crash Simpson has cancer, and reasons that “there’s only one person that can help me now…….SATAN!” He whips out the Satanic Bible, makes a pentagram on the floor, puts a goat’s skull in it, and summons the devil for a deal that OF COURSE won’t bite him in the ass in any way, shape, or form. He is “cursed” with the power of the Ghost Rider, which he uses to fight evil. While having a cult following, Ghost Rider is for the most part a really cool visual without a ton of depth. The most current Ghost Rider series, written by Daniel Way, is aiming to correct this with a sharp focus on Ghost Rider vs. Lucifer, in a way that’s never been done before. But to be fair to MSJ, GR is nowhere near as developed a character as Daredevil.
The plot of Ghost Rider is a rehash of the origin: Johnny Blaze’s father Barton is diagnosed with cancer, and the young Blaze makes a “deal” with Mephistopheles (Peter Fonda) to save him. Said deal ironically backfires, separating Balze from his girlfriend Roxanne in the process. Blaze hits the road, and we fast forward into present time. The eccentric Johnny Blaze (Nicholas Cage) is a major star on the cycling circuit. He “drinks” jelly beans out of a martini glass, and regards Karen Carpenter with reverence in a pre-show ritual. His assistant Mack (Donal Logue) worries about his increasingly dangerous jumps, and his obsession with the occult. Blaze often asks people “if they believe in second chances.” He runs into Roxanne (Eva Mendes), now a TV reporter, and gets her to agree to have dinner with him. But that night, Lucifer comes calling, Blaze turns into Ghost Rider “the devil’s bounty hunter” for the first time, and is contracted with capturing his son Blackheart (a truly awful Wes Bentley), and wackiness enuses.
For the most part, I enjoyed Ghost Rider. After Daredevil, I definitely wasn’t expecting Shakespeare from MSJ. The movie is well shot, and for the most part, fun to look at. There’s a fairly striking bullet-time shot about halfway in, and the production design is pretty competent. I was actually pleasantly surprised at the creepy ambiance that is present in a lot of the film…..this wasn’t something I thought MSJ would be able to pull off. For better or for worse, the movie is pretty faithful to the source material, which should please hardcore fans of the comic. I mentioned real-world details in the DD review, and one that is rendered nicely is the aftermath of Blaze’s first uncontrolled motorcycle ride through the city on Ghost Rider’s hell-cycle. What do you think a city street should look like after a supernaturally-powered motorcycle goes tearing through it at about 200 mph, on fire? Yeah, it looks a lot like that.
Nicholas Cage’s performance both helps and hurts this movie. Given the odd feel of the film and the source material, there are few actors with Cage’s grasp of the odd that could do justice to it. When Cage pulls this off, as he does in films like Wild at Heart, Leaving Las Vegas, and Dead Fall, the results are very satisfying. When he doesn’t pull it off in a film (Vampire’s Kiss comes to mind…..), he falls flat on his face. What he manages here is something between the two. The very attractive Eva Mendes turns in a workmanlike performance that is adequate. The same can be said for Donal Logue. Peter Fonda as Mephistopheles and Sam Elliot as the mysterious caretaker are really the only actors who understand the material, and act accordingly. Wes Bentley hands us a campy performance that should result in the revocation of his SAG card.
Ghost Rider shares faults with it’s source material: style over substance. The big problem I had with the film is a real lack of dramatic tension. You not only get the impression that Johnny Blaze was mostly tricked into making the deal, but that he never even made up his mind when his signature was “acquired.” This departure from the original origin takes credence away from the idea that he is seeking redemption. Another aspect that adds to this is how powerful Ghost Rider is……every time he fights one of Blackheart’s minions, they get a lump or two in before he completely kicks their asses in. The villains needed to be a much more prominent threat. And while the visual effects were competent, even good, the main character simply didn’t look quite real enough. I’m sure that a skull on fire isn’t easy to render, even with today’s technology, but GR needed to look every bit as good as Gollum, for example. That, and while a lot of the film was legitimately funny, the script needed a once-over to reduce the amount of cheese in the recipe.
All in all, I got what I expected from Ghost Rider: Two hours of simple, escapist entertainment. It is an improvement over Daredevil, but not by much. I give Ghost Rider a 5 out of 22 on the 22 scale, and fear for Garth Ennis’s beloved DC/Vertigo series Preacher, which will be coming to HBO courtesy of MSJ. Gulp.

For Your Consideration

I love Christopher Guest.

For those of you saying, "Who?": Please go rent This is Spinal Tap, Waiting for Guffman, Best in Show, and A Mighty Wind. In that order. Honestly, you won't be sorry.

For the rest, this review is for you.

You're wondering, how does this film stack up with the rest of Guest's work as a writer/director? (I include Tap, though Rob Reiner directed that.) Well, it's pretty darn good. Bearing in mind that this is my first viewing, and that Guest films get better with repeat viewings, I'd put Consideration ahead of A Mighty Wind and almost even with Best in Show, though still significantly behind Guffman and Tap.

Consideration is a significant departure for Guest, primarily because that it's not a mockumentary. It does still include plenty of interviews, but in this case the interviewers are characters in the film as well. The non-mockumentary style is a bit of a shock at first, but it doesn't take long to get used to.

In nearly all other ways, however, the film is vintage Guest. It's fueled by an enormous ensemble cast--larger than previous movies. So large, in fact, that even the core actors are on screen for no more than thirty minutes in total. And like all other Guest movies, it features mediocre people reaching for an elusive taste at greatness.

In the case of For Your Consideration, it's a group of people working on a low-budget, narrow-audience film called Home for Purim. The actors in the film are all either past their prime or never had a prime, and the crew are not without their own endearing quirks. But the best way to take this movie apart is by handing out...

Cast Report Cards
First, for the old guard (appeared in Guffman or Tap):
-Catherine O'Hara, as Marilyn Hack, is solid as the lead and mother figure of Home for Purim and the first to get Oscar buzz. She's brilliant at the beginning but gets a bit hammy toward the end. B+
-Harry Shearer doesn't particularly stand out as Victor Allan Miller, the father in Purim, but his quiet competence keeps the film nicely grounded. A-
-Parker Posey is stellar as usual, this time as Callie Webb, the daughter in Purim. She goes a bit over the top in one scene, but overall she does a wonderful job inviting the audience to share in her emotion. A-
-Christopher Guest, himself, puts in perhaps his worst performance to date as Jay Berman, the director. He's amusing in his brief screen time, but this is the least-believable Guest character I've seen. He gets a C.
-Eugene Levy brilliantly handles a role he's perfectly suited for, that of Victor Allan Miller's unscrupulous agent. Solid A.
-Bob Balaban and Michael McKean are decent in a smallish role as Purim's writers, Philip Koontz and Lane Iverson. The two are individually excellent, but don't have much chemistry together, so a B apiece here.
-Don Lake and Michael Hitchcock are sublime as Siskel/Ebert/Roper send-ups: Ben Lilly and David van Zyverden, two critics who can never agree. The scene where they weigh in on Purim made me laugh harder than any other scene in the movie. A+
-Fred Willard does his usual clueless ham schtick, here as Chuck Porter, co-host of a "Entertainment Tonight"-type show. He's good, but he doesn't steal the movie the way he did in Best in Show and A Mighty Wind. So, largely because of the high standards he's set, he only gets a B.

And the new guard (Best in Show and later):
-Willard's co-host Cindy Martin is played by Jane Lynch, who is excellent. It's hard to carve out space next to Willard, but Lynch does so beautifully and believably. So A-.
-Jennifer Coolidge is hilarious in every scene she's in as Whitney Taylor Brown, the producer. She's probably the one actor who consistently outfunnies everyone she acts with in this film: A+.
-Ed Begley Jr. is relatively unrecognizable as flamboyant make-up artist Sandy Lane. It's rather different sort of role for him, but he pulls it off with aplomb: A.
-Christopher Moynihan is perfectly average as Brian Chubb, the son in Purim. He does nothing to distinguish himself but also nothing to embarrass himself in one of the film's larger roles, so h gets a B.
-John Michael Higgins turns in a confident and comical performance as publicist Corey Taft: A-.
-Rachael Harris' performance is notably competent as Mary Pat Hooligan, Parker Posey's girlfriend in Purim: A-.

Some new folks--all of whom you might recognize from television--turn up as well.
Ricky Gervais (David Brendt in the British "The Office") rocks as studio exec Martin Gibb (A), completely outshining his co-exec, Guest regular Larry Miller (B-).
From the American version of "The Office," Jim (aka John Krasinski) pops up superbriefly as an actor in a competing film--too briefly to warrant a grade, in fact.
Other faces you might recognize include Sandra Oh (Dr. Cristina Yang in "Grey's Anatomy") and Richard Kind (Mark from "Mad About You"), who help out the film as a marketing team.

All together, it's a charming little comedy that merits at least one viewing, if not more. It's a solid B+, and on the 22 scale, it's a 10.

Heavyweights (a guest review by Number Three)

This review is dedicated with love to my number two, Particle Man, who insisted that I write a review for a movie I don’t like for once…actually, for twice (I also loathed The Departed). The fact is I rarely waste my time watching movies unless I’m pretty sure I’ll like them. There are a few exceptions. In the case of The Departed, it was purely for educational purposes. In the case of Heavyweights, it was because someone from the youth group we lead suggested we watch it with the group. Needless to say, I think we’ll skip it.

So, you already know I don’t like the movie. But just how bad did I think it was? Well, let’s just say it was Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story bad (without the constant, unfunny “sexual humor”). So, now you know whether or not you’ll like Heavyweights, because the same thing that made one movie bad was the same thing that made the other bad: Ben Stiller. Now, don’t get me wrong, I loved Meet the Parents. It was probably the funniest movie I saw the year that it came out. The problem, though, is that when Ben Stiller isn’t playing the loveable, slightly Magoo underdog, he’s playing a character so bizarre, absurd, stupid, gratingly annoying, unreal, mean, vitriolic, and loathsome, that there’s simply no way for me to get into the movie he disgraces his presence with. Examples of such roles are the aforementioned Dodgeball, along with the irritating rotgut that is Zoolander. And again his sour abrasion is on display in Heavyweights.

Now, technically this is not a Ben Stiller movie. He barely shows up in the credits, yet, whether intentional or not, he is a dominant role with quite a bit of screen time. The basic plot is this: Nicholas (David Goldman) is a chubby young boy and his parents send him to fat camp. He is reluctant at first, but realizes it will be fun, so off he goes. During the first general session at fat camp, the friendly, fun owners announce that someone else is taking over the camp. It turns out that that Tony Perkins (Ben Stiller) is the guy. Whereas the old owners didn’t really push the kiddies at all to lose weight, Perkins is basically a slave driver. He is obsessed and delusional, and in an effort to sell his own name and image, he intends to knock many a pound off the chubbies.

And thus the “comedy” begins. He pushes the kiddies to the point of child abuse (something I guess we’re supposed to laugh at). Once they’ve had enough, it becomes a battle for the camp as some of the old camp counselors work with the kiddies to try to take down Perkins and his crew of buffed-up Scandinavians. Nicholas, his band of veteran fat camp friends, and the seasoned counselors all work together to bring justice to the unjust. That’s pretty much the only admirable part of the movie. This mission encourages and justifies a vengeful retaliation from the kiddies that really doesn’t make them much better than Perkins. Let me qualify…it doesn’t make them morally better. Certainly every one of the child characters and the old counselors are vastly more watchable than Ben Stiller’s character. Oh, by the way, some kids from the cooler camps across the way also cause problems for the chubbies, and I guess we’re supposed to laugh at that too.

Sorry, Stiller. The way to comedy isn’t to create an unbelievable character that goes over the top with “funny ridiculousness.” Rather, the truly funny movies are successful because they involve real characters in funny situations. These situations can border on impossibility as long as they don’t cross over. For example, Meet the Parents is brilliantly funny. The situations are right on the edge of believable. You play a character that we can identify with and care about; not so in Heavyweights. You cross the line of a believable character. On top of that, you are gratingly mean. Thus, this movie is completely unfunny, and when it did manage to pull a laugh out of me, it was a guilty laugh. Try again, Stiller. Take a look at Adam Sandler for some education in comedy.

Number Three’s Score:
Mouthspeak (impact of dialog): -18
Watchfeel (impact of visuals): -12
Mouthfeel (overall watchability): -15

Number Three

TMBC's Oscar Predictions

The following are They Might Be Critics' predictions for who will win the 2006 Oscars in each of the following categories. Mind you, this isn't who we think should win, this is who we think will win. The critic who predicts the most categories correctly wins a cookie. And the eternal adulation of all the other critics. If you think you can beat us, submit your own predictions for a chance at eternal adulation and a free cookie (after $5.95 shipping and handling).

Best Supporting Actor
Dr. Worm's pick: Alan Arkin - Little Miss Sunshine
Particle Man's pick: Eddie Murphy - Dreamgirls
Stormy Pinkness' pick: Eddie Murphy - Dreamgirls
Wicked Little Critta's pick: Mark Wahlberg - The Departed
Your Racist Friend's pick: Alan Arkin - Little Miss Sunshine
Actual category winner: Alan Arkin - Little Miss Sunshine

Best Supporting Actress
Dr. Worm's pick: Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls
Particle Man's pick: Abigail Breslin - Little Miss Sunshine
Stormy Pinkness' pick: Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls
Wicked Little Critta's pick: Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls
Your Racist Friend's pick: Abigail Breslin - Little Miss Sunshine
Actual category winner: Jennifer Hudson - Dreamgirls

Best Actor
Dr. Worm's pick: Forest Whitaker - The Last King of Scotland
Particle Man's pick: Forest Whitaker - The Last King of Scotland
Stormy Pinkness' pick: Forest Whitaker - The Last King of Scotland
Wicked Little Critta's pick: Will Smith - The Pursuit of Happyness
Your Racist Friend's pick: Forest Whitaker - The Last King of Scotland
Actual category winner: Forest Whitaker - The Last King of Scotland

Best Actress
Dr. Worm's pick: Helen Mirren - The Queen
Particle Man's pick: Helen Mirren - The Queen
Stormy Pinkness' pick: Helen Mirren - The Queen
Wicked Little Critta's pick: Helen Mirren - The Queen
Your Racist Friend's pick: Helen Mirren - The Queen
Actual category winner: Helen Mirren - The Queen

Best Documentary Feature
Dr. Worm's pick: An Inconvenient Truth
Particle Man's pick: An Inconvenient Truth
Stormy Pinkness' pick: An Inconvenient Truth
Wicked Little Critta's pick: An Inconvenient Truth
Your Racist Friend's pick: An Inconvenient Truth
Actual category winner: An Inconvenient Truth

Best Animated Film
Dr. Worm's pick: Cars
Particle Man's pick: Cars
Stormy Pinkness' pick: Cars
Wicked Little Critta's pick: Cars
Your Racist Friend's pick: Happy Feet
Actual category winner: Happy Feet

Best Adapted Screenplay
Dr. Worm's pick: The Departed
Particle Man's pick: The Departed
Stormy Pinkness' pick: Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
Wicked Little Critta's pick: The Departed
Your Racist Friend's pick: The Departed
Actual category winner: The Departed

Best Original Screenplay
Dr. Worm's pick: Little Miss Sunshine
Particle Man's pick: Letters from Iwo Jima
Stormy Pinkness' pick: Letters from Iwo Jima
Wicked Little Critta's pick: The Queen
Your Racist Friend's pick: Pan's Labyrinth
Actual category winner: Little Miss Sunshine

Best Directing
Dr. Worm's pick: Martin Scorsese - The Departed
Particle Man's pick: Martin Scorsese - The Departed
Stormy Pinkness' pick: Clint Eastwood - Letters from Iwo Jima
Wicked Little Critta's pick: Clint Eastwood - Letters from Iwo Jima
Your Racist Friend's pick: Martin Scorsese - The Departed
Actual category winner: Martin Scorsese - The Departed

Best Picture
Dr. Worm's pick: The Departed
Particle Man's pick: The Queen
Stormy Pinkness' pick: The Queen
Wicked Little Critta's pick: The Queen
Your Racist Friend's pick: The Departed
Actual category winner: The Departed

Categories predicted correctly:
Dr. Worm: 9
Your Racist Friend: 8
Particle Man: 5
Stormy Pinkness: 4
Wicked Little Critta: 4

Babel (Oscar Round-Up)

Some have compared Babel to last year's Oscar winner Crash, and that's not a bad place to start. Both films jump back and forth among a number of loosely connected story lines. Both films cover very different people coming from very different backgrounds. Both films make white people feel bad.

But while Crash packed a more severe emotional wallop, Babel is probably technically a bit better. The different story lines don't seem quite as forced together, the cinematography is a bit more daring, and Babel manages to be even more relevant than Crash.

I know that last claim will need some explaining, but let me first give you an overview of the plot, which contains four distinct but connected elements occurring on three different continents. The first centers around two sons in a Moroccan goatherding family who get in trouble for shooting at a tour bus (thinking that they were too far away to hit it). The second concerns Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett (the only really recognizable actors in the film); Blanchett is hit by the bullet fired by the Moroccan boys and Pitt must scramble to find her medical help in this third-world country. The third focuses on Pitt and Blanchett's two young children and their Mexican caretaker Amelia. Unable to find someone to watch the children for her on the day of her son's wedding, Amelia decides to bring the children to Mexico with her for the occasion and, predictably, trouble ensues. The fourth plot line is the most tenuously connected: It involves a deaf-mute Japanese girl named Chieko whose father sold a gun to a Moroccan who sold it to his friend who gave it to his son who shot Cate Blanchett with it.

If this is confusing, I apologize. I promise it's easier to follow when you're actually watching the movie.

Rather than confusing you further by trying to continue explaining the mildly convoluted plot, I'm going to attempt to substantiate the my claim: that Babel is more relevant than Crash. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that racism is irrelevant. I'm just saying that racism was also relevant ten years ago, and twenty years ago, and forty years ago. Babel, however, is a more perfect time capsule, brilliantly capturing what life was like in 2006.

So what's life like in 2006? Well, as Babel points out, different parts of the world live in very different ways. Without being too showy about it, Babel unmistakeably demonstrates how different Americans live--not just compared to poor, rural Moroccans, but even compared to our neighbors to the south. It's a totally different world, and, to be quite honest, you can't blame the rest of the world for resenting us for it. There's a great moment in Babel where a helicopter flies in to the dingy Moroccan village where Cate Blanchett is being cared for to airlift her to a hospital. The villagers, who have clearly never seen a helicopter, all come out of their homes to gawk at the scene unfolding before them. But behind the pure curiosity in each of their eyes, you can also feel a question burning: "Would you do this for me if I were dying?"

Now, you may rightly point out that Western entitlement isn't exactly much newer than racism, and you're right, but I'm not done yet. Another subtheme of this movie is the fear of terrorism. After Cate Blanchett gets shot, the news media back home gets all riled up, hesitating not at all to call her bullet wound an act of terrorism--even though, if you'll remember, it was just the product of the curiosity of a couple young Moroccan boys. But if you heard that an American tourist got shot while in a tour bus in some dusty Muslim country, you'd instantly assume terrorism as well. So you can understand the reaction of the authorities, even as the boot of justice comes down far too hard on those poor boys. That Babel manages to evoke all these feelings at once is one of its greatest strengths.

If I had to point out flaws: Well, the whole Chieko subplot. It's not a bad little story, it's just that it doesn't really fit with the rest of the film. Sure, if you believe the point of this movie is the difficulty in overcoming language barriers--as some critics (and the movie's title) might have you believe--then yes, it makes sense to include a subplot about a deaf-mute Japanese girl struggling to communicate. But that's really not the point of the movie. It's a bit of a recurring theme, sure, but it's not the point.

I might also point out that, with a bit more focused editing, it would be easy enough to trim 10-15 minutes off of this two-hour-and-twenty-two-minute film. But I don't want to come down too hard on it. The greater point is that this is a monumentally relevant, strikingly poignant, and even unabashedly uncomfortable movie that's well-worth a rental. Does it deserve a Best Picture award? That's borderline, but it's certainly no shame that it was nominated.

I managed to see all five Best Picture nominees this year, so I'm happy to unveil to you my 22-scale rankings for not only Babel, but the other four nominees as well. I'll award Babel a 14, which ties it with The Queen and puts it comfortably ahead of The Departed (11) and Little Miss Sunshine (10). But if I could cast a vote with the rest of the Academy, I'd have to cast my ballot for Letters from Iwo Jima, which just edges the rest of the competition with a 15.

Letters from Iwo Jima (Oscar Round-Up)

Bravo to Clint Eastwood for making this film. It is a powerful account of the battle at Iwo Jima, Japan in World War II. As a sister movie to his other World War II film, Flags of Our Fathers, Eastwood made Letters from Iwo Jima to give audiences a much more accurate and all-encompassing view of this time period than any one movie could do.

Eastwood took a unique approach to Letters from Iwo Jima. Most war films push a specific ideology that exists on one side, depicting those who represent the enemy as bad, evil, or wrong, while glorifying the actions and words of the "good guys." Eastwood stays away from these things, and in so doing creates a "big picture" movie that tells a tragic story beautifully while simultaneously exposing us to the ugliness of war.

The main character we follow is Saigo, played by Kazunari Ninomiya, a soldier at the bottom of the ladder who ends up in some very difficult situations, but bears it all in the hopes of seeing his family again. The movie begins with the Japanese forces getting ready for the impending battle, doing the backbreaking job of digging beach trenches--which one of them on a dry note refers to as "their own graves." Soon General Tadamichi Kuribayashi arrives, played by Ken Watanabe. Kuribayashi has been sent to command the forces at Iwo Jima, and as soon as he arrives he starts shaking things up. His approach to the battle is entirely different from those around him; for example, he stops the digging on the beaches and instead tells the soldiers to begin digging tunnels. Kuribayashi realized the number of lives that would be sacrificed in those trenches and knew that if they didn't fight more defensively, their slim odds would become even worse. He also strongly believed that his men should be treated humanely and kindly, a sentiment not shared by the leadership under his command.

The beginning of the film helps us to identify with the Japanese soldiers. As the title indicates, we become privy to a number of the letters that were written by the soldiers on this island before and during the battle. At different times and with different characters, we catch a glimpse into their lives, meet their loved ones, and hear their deepest desires and regrets. We hear their hopes, their despair, and the daily musings any other person would have called unimportant. Screenwriter Paul Haggis based these letters on authentic letters that were found on the island in 2005. These scenes add a beautiful, gentle side to an otherwise tragic and sobering film.

I remember distinctly the bitter moment when the battle begins and we see the Americans descending upon the beach. I felt a true conflict within me, seeing my own people arrive to kill and defeat the people I had been getting to know through the film. And as soldiers fell on both sides, I was reminded that for every man there is a mother, a father, a wife. There is an entire story. Through this, Eastwood does away with the "us and them" mentality: the "good guy versus bad guy" idea that is the norm with war movies, and movies in general.

Now, there is "good" and "bad" illustrated in Letters, but it is not limited to one side. There are very specific moments in the film where one sees ugliness as well as beauty from both Japanese and American soldiers. We are confronted with individuals, not faceless enemies or agendas, and we are given this look at the individuals through their letters.

Eastwood shows us not only the conflict that existed between America and Japan, but also that which existed within the Japanese forces, as a new ideology works against an old one. This old ideology fostered fear of the unknown, brainwashing, and suicide. This "battle within the ranks" tore the Japanses apart from the inside, and we are able to see the conflict at numerous levels of command.

I cannot pretend to know what working on this film must have been like for all involved. The direction and screenplay were incredible, and the acting was top-notch. Ken Watanabe is one of my personal favorites; he draws us in and keeps the strength and emotion of his character very well-balanced. Ninomiya effortlessly provides us with a main character who acts as a channel through which we can experience the movie. He mirrors our own reactions to the terror and tragedy of war from beginning to end, and empowers us to hope against the odds that all will be well.

Rating: 17

Letters from Iwo Jima is a story about the Japanese, their culture, the individuals who fought and lost their lives, and this bloody battle. As most people know, it is a very sad story, but we're provided with enough glimmers of hope to not feel completely destroyed at the end. It is a masterpiece which pays a wonderful tribute to both sides, while at the same time reminding us to remain humble.

The Queen (Oscar Round-Up)

When I was little, I, probably along with every other little girl in the world, dreamed of being royalty. Although my parents claimed that I acted like I was, that didn’t change the fact that I wasn’t royal. As I got older I felt a sense of envy for royalty; they had all that money and power just because they were born into it. They never worked hard for it. Now, however, while I still do feel somewhat envious, I’m also very relieved that I don’t have to live up to the expectations that blue bloods do. This feeling definitely hit home when I saw The Queen.

The Queen tells the story of the way the British Royal Family dealt with the death of Princess Diana. When the death of Diana is announced to the Royal Family, the Queen decides that they will mourn privately for their ex-daughter-in-law. However, this causes a great uproar among the British people, who, because of their love for Diana, believe the Royal Family should show some outward sign of mourning. In the middle of all this is Tony Blair, the newly elected prime minister, who must save the Queen from her own ways in order to preserve the monarchy in the public eye.

Although I love history, I didn't expect to enjoy this movie that much. It did get nominated for an Oscar, however, so I decided to go see it. From the moment the movie started I saw how wrong I was. I was completely drawn into this film. It didn't feel like I was just watching a story unfold, it felt like I was involved in the story (which, for a nonfiction movie, is a bit of a miracle).

The acting in this movie was near-perfect. While I was not very familiar with Helen Mirren before this movie, I was aware that she had recently completed a role as Elizabeth I and now was playing Elizabeth II. Most people thought that this was quite an accomplishment, but I decided to see if she could act before jumping on that bandwagon. Let me tell you, she can act. She looked like the Queen; she conveyed this reserved and powerful manner that made me believe she was Queen Elizabeth II; and she showed brilliantly how she was conflicted between being the sovereign of her country, a mother, and a grandmother to two boys who just lost their mother.

Another great performance in this film was turned in by Michael Sheen as Tony Blair. Not only did he look like the Prime Minister, but he lets us see the human side to these foreign political figures we all see on the news. Sheen did an excellent job of showing that the main conflict of the movie also existed within Tony Blair: he clearly understood the disappointment with the Royal Family's apparent lack of remorse as well as he understood the Queen's need to be private and reserved--and was frequently explaining one point of view to those who held the other. Such internal conflict requires excellent acting, and Sheen hit this dead on.

Sheen and Mirren were the standout performances of the film, but other actors pulled their weight as well. Alex Jennings did a good job of portraying Prince Charles, although I think everyone wishes Prince Charles looked more like Alex Jennings. One character that annoyed me, however, was Prince Phillip, the husband of Queen Elizabeth II, played by James Cromwell. He seemed to always want to run things, and there were several times where I wanted to point out to him that he had no power, his wife was in charge.

If you're wondering whether The Queen is worthy of the Best Picture Oscar, it is. It had wonderful acting. The story was unexpectedly compelling and drew you in. And there was a stroke of symbolism within the movie that enhanced the film with multiple interpretations. It is a great movie and has the whole package, which earns it a 16.

-Stormy Pinkness

Little Miss Sunshine (Oscar Round-Up)

Imagine, if you will, 6 people who are as different from each other as Pepsi is from ice cream, but have one thing in common: they are all related to one another. With some that connection is rather tenuous, either because of marriage or dislike, but the fact remains that they’re all family, and there is no getting around that, much as they sometimes wish. Little Miss Sunshine is a film about the unbreakable connection of family, and about the way that even though you may fight with them, scorn them, and do things simply to piss them off, you will always be there for them in their time of need, just as they would be for you.

Gone are the days of Ward and June Cleaver, and family dynamics are no longer simple. Actually, they were never simple; shows like Leave It to Beaver just desperately wanted you to think so. Now we have broken homes, homes with additional members, and even parental units that exist of two members of the same sex. Just as regular households have become rarer, functional families have become rarer, too (though the relation of the two is very debatable). Little Miss Sunshine demonstrates that, and also demonstrates that even though things are frustratingly complicated now, they don’t have to be bad.

Little Miss Sunshine deserves to be a Best Picture nominee for a number of reasons. First and foremost is the splendid way in which it shows the familial bond, its good and bad parts. It does this through caricature, and that fits in with the tone and plot of the film. It’s technically called a comedy, and it is ridiculously funny. But the contrivances and conventions of comedy are strangely missing, and even stranger, it’s not really a problem. There are plenty of laughs, but there are also moments of stark seriousness, and that mixture catches us off-guard. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

Second are the fantastic performances in it. Of the six main characters, only Toni Collette is just so-so, and the rest are amazing. Steve Carell plays against type with his depressed college professor, without a hint of hyperbole or heavy-handedness. He’s a quickly rising star, and I haven’t seen him in a bad role yet. Greg Kinnear elicits hatred and bile as the father of the family. I don’t feel even an ounce of sympathy for him as his plans come crashing down, but I don’t think I’m supposed to. I feel much more connected to Alan Arkin’s character, the smack-sniffing grandpa. He’s foul-mouthed, hedonistic, and doesn’t care what anyone else thinks, but he demonstrates first the “family is all you’ve got” theme. Paul Dano uses one of an actor’s greatest tools in the first half of the movie to fantastic effect. After all, “no voice” can be a voice.

That leaves Abigail Breslin, who is nominated on her own for Best Supporting Actress. She really earns her nod, as she plays her character as a brilliant bright spot amidst the grungy dirt of the rest of the family. She could have easily given in to the grimness of the rest of her family, but she instead has a sunny disposition even in the face of tragedy, and Breslin has us rooting for her at the very start of the film. Even though she’s obviously physically imperfect, she was the most “pretty” of all the beauty pageant contestants.

Sadly, I don’t really think this will win Best Picture. As good as this movie made me feel when it was over, it’s hurt by the fact that what it has to say is not all that important, at least compared to the other nominees. But it does have a positive message, and great performances to boot; a film worthy of the label “Best Picture nominee.”

Iconic lines:
“Welcome to hell.”
“I’m madly in love with you! And it’s not because of your brains or your personality.”
“Again with the f***in’ chicken!”

22 Rating: 15

Particle Man

The Departed (Oscar Round-Up)

Before I say anything else, I want it noted for the record that I think Goodfellas is the most overrated mob movie I've ever seen. And that Martin Scorsese is just as inconsistent as any classic filmmaker. Having said all of that, Scorsese turns in his most consistent work in years with The Departed. And while solid, The Departed doesn't quite ascend to sit aside other great Boston movies like Good Will Hunting or Mystic River, but it's sitting directly behind them.
Scorsese's latest police and thieves epic, a remake of the Hong Kong film Internal Affairs (and its sequels, in a way), tells the story of two young men in the state police, Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon). Billy grew up in a fractured family with mob connections, and Colin under the watchful eye of Whitey Bulger analogue Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson, in his finest performance since Batman). Colin works his way up the ranks of the state police, while using his position to keep Frank one step ahead of the police. Billy is persuaded to use his family history and violent background to infiltrate Frank's gang in an attempt to bring him down for once and for all. And from there, wackiness ensues.
Now let's stop and talk about the performances. Performace-wise, The Departed is the movie I've been waiting for all year, in that the performances don't simply serve the film. Based on his work here, I think I can finally consider DiCaprio a solid actor. He doesn't do anything flashy here, but he has done his homework. He gives us a Billy Costigan who has no problem beating the crap out of a couple of goombas from Providence with a comic book rack for shaking down a Pakistani store owner, but visibly flinches while Frank brandishes a severed hand and talks about John Lennon. Matt Damon turns in a solid performance as Colin Sullivan, who we see slightly recoiling from time to time, from the choices he's made, and the position he finds himself in. Jack Nicholson is one of those actors I watch all the time, and think "He could be doing better work," the other being Gene Hackman. But here he completely shines as the malevolent Frank Costello, stealing every scene he's in without even coming close to overacting (Paying attention, Al Pacino?). Vera Farmiga is serviceable as the psychologist who is caught between Colin's easy charm and Billy's raw nature. Martin Sheen turns in a subtle, unpretentious performance as Captain Queenan, one of two links to the outside world for Costigan. The other, Sergeant Dignam, is played by Mark Wahlberg, who is making himself more and more invaluable with each passing year. The foul-mouthed (slightly more so than he would be in reality, unlike practically all of the other characters in the film) Dignam serves as an unlikely voice of reason, and seems to have stolen Robert DeNiro's terrible haircut from Scorsese's earlier King Of Comedy. Ray Winstone shows up as Mr. French, Costello's right-hand man, unrecognizable under his skeezy beard. I must give special mention to Alec Baldwin, as SPI Captain Ellerby. Baldwin squeezes maximum impact out of the relatively few scenes he's in as the sweaty, boorish Ellerby. Baldwin is also the actor who has the most accurate Boston accent, save natives Damon and Wahlberg.
One department that helps the film a lot here is the music. Scorsese tones down the overall density of classic rock songs, and uses several effective selections, most of them from the Rolling Stones' seminal Exile on Main Street. The score was also very effective, sort of an urban version of spaghetti western guitars, performed by the prestigious likes of Sharon Isbin and G.E. Smith, under the masterful ear of Howard Shore, late of the LOTR trilogy, Dark City, Silence of the Lambs, and many other classic film scores in recent times. Scorsese reunites with Goodfellas/Last Temptation cinematographer Michael Ballhaus, who gives us an attractive yet realistic Boston, and gives the film a nice feel somewhere in between Altman and Anderson, which is right where Marty S is supposed to be. William Monahan is the film's secret weapon, giving us whip-smart, blink-and-you'll-miss-it dialogue, which contributes greatly to the film's excellent pacing. And I have to step in here and defend the film's language...like many Scorsese films, the "excessive" language is cited as a bone of contention for some. Yes, there is a lot of swearing in The Departed, but it is accurate. If you listen to 99% of Bostonians conversing outside of polite company, they talk pretty much EXACTLY like the characters in The Departed, Dignam excepted. People also talk about the violence, but I have three things to say about it: One, children and those who don't have the stomach for lots of gore shouldn't be watching films by Scorsese, Miike, Tarantino, or any other director who is somewhat infamous for violent content. That's like me saying that I went to see the Barney movie and was put off by excessive hugging. Two, in a movie about cops and the South Boston Irish mob, people are going to get shot in the face at point blank range. A lot. It's what's called content that is appropriate to the material. Thirdly, even aforementioned face-shootings in the movies don't seem like much when you've been exposed to real world violence. It's brutal, ugly, and virtually impossible to capture on celluloid...not that it should be. I don't want to make a reductionist statement to the effect that people who haven't seen stabbing and shooting victims, or have seen or been in serious (read: one person is trying to maim or kill the other person) fights aren't qualified to comment on violence, but I will say that a large section of the puzzle is missing for them.
The Departed suffers a bit from what I feel is excessive character death, and by missing plenty of opportunities to dig deeper into what makes the characters tick, adding more substance to the film. It is what separates The Departed from other great crime films like the first two Godfather films, Double Indemnity, and Se7en. Having said that, Scorsese has distinguished himself with a admirable showing that hasn't escaped notice. The Departed is currently number 74 in the IMDB Top 250 movies of all time, and holds a very impressive 93% on rottentomatoes.com. I give The Departed a rock-solid 13 out of 22 on the 22 scale.

24 Watch: James Badge Dale, who played Jack's Season 3 partner Chase Edmunds, turns up here as a state cop.

This review was fueled by Exile on Main Street by The Rolling Stones (duh).

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

What could be better than a rip-roaring, action-packed, good vs. evil adventure across three continents? One that includes Indiana Jones!

The third installment in the Indy trilogy is by far the best one, as it contains themes and conflicts the level of which are simply not found in the first two. Don’t get me wrong, the first two are great, especially Raiders of the Lost Ark. As great as they were, though, they’re really just fun action stories that appeal to the 8 year-old in all of us, instead of just blowing stuff up and wowing us with CGI like today’s action movies do. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is that as well, and so much more. The quest for the Holy Grail is a great starting point for so many engaging stories, this one being the chief of them (tied with Monty Python). The reason for that is that there can be any number of “holy grails.” Anything that a hero strives for, and that at times seems unattainable, is a holy grail. That can be anything from the tangible (like the Grail itself) to the intangible (like an actual relationship with one’s father).

The Last Crusade was released in 1989, a time when special effects were not the thing they are today. In modern times, digital photography and advanced post-production make virtually anything possible. Back in ’89, filmmakers had to use a little more ingenuity to make things happen. The Last Crusade had basically everything going for it, because it had a genius of a director in Spielberg, and a master of special effects (and nothing else…) in George Lucas. Besides having production values that gave it the space to stretch out, it was amazingly cast as well. Harrison Ford plays one of the only roles that fits him like a glove, as he had proven with the first two films. Trumping him is Sean Connery, who injects comedy and light-heartedness as well as a strong sense of dignity to his aging archeological professor.

Like I said, this movie has overarching themes that bring it out of the realm of simple good storytelling, the realm the previous two movies exist in. The father-son struggle is very strong throughout, but in typical Spielberg-ian style, it transforms from a struggle to an appreciation and admiration, and maybe even a love. But what really makes this movie great is the optimism of it, another element of it being a Spielberg film. The character of Indiana Jones is a real, genuine hero, stereotypical and iconic in the best way. When he beats the bad guys, you cheer. When he’s in danger, you flinch. When it looks like he’s about to fail, you get filled with a sense of dread. Those things are a part of good storytelling, and are the result of creating a character that the audience can believe in and root for 100%. In order to create that kind of character, the filmmakers have sacrificed some realism and believability, but I think it’s more than a fair trade. In a way, the ridiculousness and un-reality of some situations only make them more enjoyable. Of course Indy’s hat comes back to him after he almost falls off a cliff. Of course the tank veers to the right at the last second. Of course Indy and his dad don’t get killed or severely maimed when they crash the plane. It’s not a surprise, and it’s sort of expected. If it weren’t there, we’d be disappointed.

The original genesis of the Indiana Jones character was an idea in George Lucas’s head, one he generated around the same time he had created the Star Wars universe. It was based around 1930s serial adventure stories, ones where plucky heroes would find riches, glory, and pieces of tail on escapade after exotic escapade. Three films later, Indy has become one of the most enduring and immortal characters ever put on film, and a part of the childhood of many members of my generation. Whispers of a fourth film exist, but it’s been almost 20 years since The Last Crusade, and you now have an entirely new demographic to appeal to, and Indy isn’t quite as big a star to them. Never mind the fact that as the Indy trilogy is 20 years older, so is Harrison Ford. I don’t think the whip and fedora will fit him the same way anymore. We’ll see, though.

Iconic lines:
“X marks the spot!”
“He chose… poorly.”
“You call this archeology?”

22 Rating: 16

Particle Man

Classics Rocked: Life Is Beautiful

The reputation: Much-hyped-at-the-time 1998 film about a man who attempts to protect his son from the horrors of the death camp they are in.

Why it's not as good as you think: Uhhhhh, it's not good at all. I can see why some people thought this movie was touching and a good idea, but it was completely misguided. First of all, it's a "comedy" about the Holocaust. I don't think that this is an idea that is completely out of bounds if done properly, but I didn't laugh once during Life Is Beautiful. Strike One.
For those who haven't experienced the horror of this overpraised trainwreck, let me save you the trouble: Italian Jew Guido (Roberto Benigni) arrives in small village, and woos beautiful Dora by being somehow less of an @$$ than her fiance, and by using cheap parlor tricks to mesmerize her into ignoring his obvious looks, and lack of personality. Benigni's aggravating "love-child of Pee Wee Herman and a Marx Brother" persona is Strike Two. Benigni's wife Nicoletta Braschi's performance as Dora is the film's sole saving grace, and keeps it from being COMPLETELY toxic to children and other living things. Fast forward a few years later. The Holocaust is in "full effect," and Guido, Dora and young son Joshua are tossed in a concentration camp. In an effort to shield Joshua from the horror that surrounds them, Guido tells him that the camp is a "hiding game," and that the winner gets a tank. (Ok....I have to give credit where it's due, again. That concept is so sick, it's ****ing hilarious.) Despite the fact that THEY ARE IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP AND PEOPLE ARE CRYING AND BEING MISERABLE AND GETTING SHOT AND GASSED AND DYING all around them, Joshua buys it. This is where the film REALLY loses me.....I just can't but the fact that nobody around tries to offer the kid up to the guards in an attempt to save their own butt: human beings are far too selfish. I can believe a man can fly, and toss planets around, but this is beyond the wildest sci-fi. Strike Three, yerrrrrr out. Anyway, Guido is shot by guards, and Joshua is reunited with his mother as American forces arrive to save the day. How bittersweet. Eeeeeechchhhh.

I refuse to believe that this film won an Oscar. I think that there was a wormhole ala Donnie Darko, and our section of the Academy Award was switched with the corresponding part of the ceremony from Bizarro World, and none of our quantum scientists caught the gaffe. Arrrgh. Me love Life is Beautiful. Me say hello now!

Dr.Worm's Response: Really? The story of a man trying to protect his son from the horrors of the Holocaust--even losing his life in the process--doesn't do it for you? Not at all moved by the noble concept of self-sacrifice? Well, to each his own, I guess.
But was there a line in there about Guido having a "lack of personality"? I'm trying to wrap my mind around that one, and I'm having trouble. Guido oozed personality. His personality jumped off the screen. You might not have liked his personality--though I have no idea why, the Academy and I found him perfectly winsome--but there's no way you can say he lacks personality. It's like saying Shaquille O'Neal isn't tall.
And you didn't laugh once? Not even at lines like "I don't like Visigoths. Tomorrow, we'll get sign: 'No Spiders or Visigoths Allowed'"? And you found Guido annoying? Even as he's saying, "I want to make love to you--not just once, but over and over again! But I'll never tell you that. I'd have to be crazy to tell you. I'd even make love to you now." See, your strikes one and two were both home runs for me. I'll grant that it's a little tough to believe that Joshua never catches on about the game, but I think the film is self-aware enough to know that, too. So I'll call that a foul ball.
I find it difficult to believe that you were unmoved by such a charming, captivating, and good-hearted film. Perhaps, while you watched it, you were sitting on a tack, being pestered by mosquitoes, and battling a case of mumps. That's the only way this savaging makes any sense to me.