|
Enduring
Love opens today, in limited release.
In
terms of biopics, Ray
offers little that we haven’t seen in countless other films
about real people. Were
it not for the electrifying turn of Jamie Foxx and a soundtrack
full of songs that’ll make you want to jump up and dance, the
Taylor Hackford (Proof
of Life) flick is about as pedestrian and by-the-numbers
as you can get. But
did I mention that Foxx was electrifying as Ray Charles?
Also, he’s electrifying.
This might be the performance of the year – I haven’t
seen anything quite this mesmerizing since Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs
of New York.
But
then there’s the rest of Ray,
which clocks in with a massive running time of 152 minutes (for
those of you keeping track at home, you can watch Primer,
grab a burger, and watch Primer
again in the same amount of time).
The show begins in 1949, with the then Ray Robinson (Foxx,
Collateral) hopping on a bus from Tampa
to Seattle, where he quickly begins performing at black clubs on
the “chitlin circuit” – initially just copying the sounds
of other popular artists of the day, and then, after fusing the
gospel and rhythm-and-blues genres together, rocketing into the
upper echelon of recording stars.
Along
the way, Hackford hits us with a handful of flashbacks showing
Charles’s truly awful childhood, in which his strong,
no-nonsense mother saw him through the death of his younger
brother and, eventually, the loss of his sight.
On the plus side, Ray
pulls no punches in portraying Charles as a philandering junkie
who had babies with multiple mothers and was busted for
possession more than once. Kerry Washington (Against
the Ropes) contributes another strong supporting
performance, but this baby is all Foxx’s show.
He positively channels Charles, making you forget all
about career embarrassments like Booty
Call and horrible WB sitcoms.
You might say this was the role he was born to play, as
Foxx attended Julliard where he studied classical piano.
.
James Wan’s debut
proves that a film can be intellectually stimulating and
as freaky as your cat on acid.
In Saw, Wan throws two
unconscious strangers into a large, dimly-lit industrial
bathroom, chains their legs to separate pipes on either side of
the room, gives them hacksaws, and waits for the fun to start.
The fun, in this case, being a series of sadistic clues
which boil down to this: Snooty oncologist Lawrence Gordon (Cary
Elwes, The
Cat’s Meow) has until a given time to kill
“cellmate” Adam (co-writer Leigh Whannell).
If he fails the task, Gordon’s wife and daughter will
be executed. And
the only way he can get to Adam is if he saws his own foot off.
We see, through a series
of flashbacks, other bizarre and ultimately deadly situations
(think of an important “immunity challenge” created by a
criminally insane Jeff Probst) plotted and planned by somebody
the police call the Jigsaw Killer.
Old Jigsaw hasn’t actually killed anyone, though.
He’s clever enough to get his captives to take care of
that dirty little business on their own.
But is he clever enough to escape the pursuit of the
boringly relentless Detective Tapp (Danny “I Can’t Get a
Cab” Glover)? Probably,
but you’re going to have to find that out for yourself.
Saw’s
acting is atrocious, and its scenes involving the police
investigation border on being tedious and clichéd. But other than that, I liked Saw
a lot. It kept me
guessing, and more importantly, it kept me interested, which is
more than I can say about most films from this genre.
I’m always leery of people comparing films to Se7ven
(as they’re doing with Saw)
because they never
live up to that impressive yardstick.
I’m not saying Saw
does, but it comes damn close.
Also recommended for fans of Cube
and The Game (you sick little monkeys, you).
.
January is Frozen Food
Month and February is Black History Month.
But does anybody know what the heck October is?
Apparently, at least when it comes to cinema, it’s
Woman In Her Late 30s Dealing With What Might Be The
Reincarnation Of Her First And Best Lover Month. Dylan Kidd’s p.s.
first tackled the subject, and now Jonathan Glazer (Sexy Beast) takes the reigns with Nicole
Kidman (The Stepford Wives)
replacing Laura Linney in Birth, a film that reminded me both of a still, quiet Kubrick
chamber piece and Rosemary’s
Baby.
The Baby
reference is due more to Birth’s
setting and casting than content.
Kidman’s Anna, like Mia Farrow’s Rosemary, is
frighteningly thin, has a pixie haircut and a tiny, timid voice,
as well as a fancy Central Park apartment and a place in the
upper crust of Manhattan's social elite.
Anna’s husband, Sean, died ten years ago, but she’s
finally moved on enough to accept a marriage proposal from
Joseph (Danny Huston, Silver City).
Shortly after their lavish engagement party, Anna is
confronted by a 10-year-old kid named Sean (Cameron Bright, Godsend)
who claims to be her deceased husband.
Anna handles it like
you’d expect: At first she’s startled, then filled with
indifferent anger, and then she has a good laugh about it
because it’s so damn cute.
But as Little Sean begins to cough up important details
about their relationship, Anna – like Rosemary – becomes
more and more frazzled. This
sets off a domino effect of insanity, poisoning just about
everyone it touches. Anna
is well on her way to cuckoo, with fiancé Joseph, Sean’s
mother (Cara Seymour) and the wife of Sean and Anna’s best man
(Anne Heche) following quickly behind her.
Only Anna, however, is buying Little Sean’s story, and
that leads to a couple of scenes that will have Birth’s less sophisticated viewers squirming in agony (it’s acting,
you boobs).
Birth,
despite having a couple of fairly major flaws*, is still
riveting to watch, from its Six
Feet Under-ish opening (we know Big Sean is going to buy it,
but how will it happen?) to its slightly unsatisfying finale.
It’s definitely the kind of movie you’ll be talking
about the rest of the day. The acting is terrific across the board, and Kidman has much
more chemistry with Bright than she did with Anthony Hopkins in
last year’s The
Human Stain. Alexandre
Desplat (Girl With a Pearl Earring) contributes an
outstanding fairytale score (again, reminiscent of Baby),
and Glazer, along with Gus Van Sant’s regular photographer
Harris Savides, seems to have taken a huge leap from creating
stylish music video-type films to intensely thought-provoking
cinema.
*
- I can’t talk about ‘em because it might ruin/spoil your
fun
.
A rare example of
obvious Oscar bait that still manages to grab you and charm you
into a trance, Finding
Neverland tells the “inspired by actual events”
(code for “mostly made up”) story of writer J.M. Barrie
cooking up the idea for Peter
Pan. The
highlight in the Marc Forster (Monster’s
Ball) film is, of course, Johnny Depp, who fills the
role of Barrie with the fragile spirit of a man-child who
refuses to grow up and doesn’t look much older than when he
played Tom Hanson on 21
Jump Street.
Neverland
is set in 1903 London, where Barrie’s latest production goes
over like Surviving
Christmas. In
a gloomy, self-deprecating mood, Barrie takes his faithful
Newfoundland, Porthos, to the park, where he meets and
immediately falls for four children (names: Peter, Michael, John
and George) and their widowed mother, Sylvia (Kate Winslet, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). This doesn’t sit well with Barrie’s wife (Radha Mitchell,
Man
on Fire), or Sylvia’s mum (Julie Christie, Troy),
who are both afraid of the affect the unusual relationship might
have on their social standing.
Barrie forms the closest
bond with the initially standoff-ish Peter (Freddie Highmore),
who hasn’t been quite the same since his dad died.
But before long, Barrie has the boy playing cowboys and
Indians, and concocting intricate backyard productions involving
pirates. As Neverland
hurtles towards its finale, their relationship is strained by
both the persistent thwarting of Christie’s crusty character
and Sylvia’s persistent second act cough (those just never
go well).
While I enjoyed Neverland
and was completely choked up at the end, I still can’t help
but wonder who this film was made for.
It’s rated PG (so you don’t get to see Winslet’s
self-described “floppy dog ear breasts”), but I don’t
think Neverland is the
kind of picture you’re going to want to drag your kids to see.
They’ll be bored because the Pan
references are vague and/or fleeting.
And I think an unhealthy number of adults couldn’t care
less about how an alleged pedophile came up with the idea for
story about faeries and a one-armed man chasing little orphan
boys around. That
leaves a rather small viewership, and is probably one of the
reasons Neverland has been shelved for so long (it was shot in mid-2002, but
needed to distance itself from last year’s box office dud Peter Pan).
Too
bad for those who take a pass on Neverland. They’ll miss another he-makes-it-look-so-effortless
performance from Depp, who wields a very passable but not at all
over-the-top Scottish accent (in other words, not Shrek).
Highmore holds his own opposite Depp, which is probably
how he wound up cast as the new Charlie Bucket in the upcoming
Depp-led remake of Willy
Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
The biggest problem with
Stage Beauty is that it
plays like an extremely light version of the still
distributor-less but ridiculously entertaining Johnny Depp/Samantha
Morton/John Malkovich film The
Libertine. Both have the same setting, at least one common character,
and stories that focus on the production of important plays.
There are other problems, unfortunately.
Beauty is, at least for its first 90 minutes, a poorly-balanced train
wreck. It would
have us believe that 1661 London was populated by just a dozen
or so inhabitants, since that’s all we ever see regardless of
where we’re taken. And
those dozen or so people are, for the most part, a bunch of
swinging, switch-hitting, cross-dressing dandies, which makes Beauty a lot more like a John Waters film that you might expect from
its trailer and pedigree.
After suffering under
the puritanical reign of Oliver Cromwell, the free-thinking
Charles II (Rupert Everett, The
Importance of Being Earnest) lifts the ban on women
portraying women on the stage.
This doesn’t sit so well with Ned Kynaston (Billy
Crudup, Big Fish), who has built a successful
career playing the female lead in productions like Othello
and Romeo & Juliet.
To make matters worse, Ned’s dresser, Maria (Claire
Danes, T3),
becomes the first big actress
of the day, and he is forced to help her hone her talent.
If
you’re thinking about Shakespeare in Love right now, your
thoughts are way too ambitious because Beauty
ain’t even in the same neighborhood, quality-wise.
Richard Eyre (Iris)
jumbles genres like “comedy” and “drama” into a big pot
of unrecognizable goo as he hammers home the theme of sexual
politics with the subtlety of Tara Reid on her ninth drink.
Danes cries in nearly every scene she’s in, and Crudup,
though decent here, is tough to watch knowing he left a pregnant
Mary-Louise Parker to run off with his co-star.
That’s tough baggage to check at the door, so I thought
I’d be upfront and mention it.
Also, I’ve played Desdemona before, so I know it’s
not that difficult to play a bad actor in drag.
Bleak by even Mike Leigh
(All or Nothing) standards, Vera
Drake portrays the life of its titular protagonist in a
1950 London that still hasn’t fully recovered from the
Blitzkreig. Vera (Imelda
Staunton, Bright Young
Things) works hard for her money, whether its working as a
housekeeper to the city’s remaining wealthy, or performing
quickie abortions in which she attacks the womb with the same
fervor used to scrub a stain out of the carpet (“Just relax,
dear, and it will all come away”).
Even though England is a
decade-and-a-half away from legalizing abortion, Vera doesn’t
think she’s doing anything wrong.
In fact, she flinches when she hears the word
“abortion,” preferring to say she’s just “helping girls
out.” At the 60
minute mark, the law starts to catch up to Vera when one of her
charges ends up in the hospital (and, also, because abortion
films rarely end happily).
Since she’s been keeping the whole second job thing
from her family, it’s only a matter of time before they’re
given the shock of their lives when the police come-a-knockin’.
They look genuinely surprised, and given Leigh’s
penchant for improvisation, I wouldn’t be surprised if he kept
the actors in the dark about Vera’s line of work until this
moment.
Staunton is magnificent,
and seems destined for year-end accolades (but why is Drake
being released so early in the season?).
Her performance hit particularly close to home for me
because she looks, dresses and hums just like my grandmother.
And that meant I was easily able to identify with the
astonishment her family experienced when they learned of
Vera’s big secret. I wondered how I’d feel if I’d been told something
similar, and decided I wouldn’t have been more shocked if
somebody grabbed grandma’s head and tore off her rubber mask
to reveal her as David Hasselhoff.
Drake
a rare period film from Leigh, won the Golden Lion (Best Film)
and Volpi Cup (Best Actress) in Venice. The former seems like a desperate stretch (considering it was
in competition with pictures like Kim Ki-duk’s 3-Iron
and Wim Wenders’ Land
of Plenty), but the latter was well deserved.
Mean Creek, the debut from writer-director Jacob Aaron Estes,
pits irritating, overgrown George (Josh Peck) against scrawny,
intellectual Sam (Rory Culkin) in a brief battle in a suburban
Oregon high school. Sam
comes home with bruises, prompting older brother Rocky (Trevor
Morgan) and his pals to finally do something about the
legendarily obnoxious bully.
Pretending it’s Sam’s birthday, Rocky and friends
lure George to a rowboat party, where they plan to get into the
middle of the nowhere and leave him, naked, to get home on his
own.
The
plan, as you might imagine, doesn’t proceed without incident.
And until the incident happens, Creek
is a remarkably strong film with some surprising performances.
It falters a little in the third act, but for a debut,
it’s downright startling.
The award-winning
documentary from Jennifer Abbott and Mark Achbar could, at 145
minutes, be a bit more focused. I’d only recommend it to people who agree with the film’s
politics, and even they might find it rather heavy-handed.
I was lucky enough to watch The
Corporation in three installments, which made it much
more palatable. That
said, the reason I watched it in three installments is because I
kept falling asleep. Its
intent and message are dead on, but The
Corporation just doesn’t work that well as a film.
Packed with interviews
from economists, CEOs and familiar faces like Michael Moore and
Noam Chomsky, The
Corporation is assembled like a cumbersome classroom film
that explains the 14th amendment, in addition to
freeing the slaves, also gave birth to the notion that Big
Business could give itself the rights of a regular human being.
Flash forward fifty years, and watch IBM and Coca-Cola
make phat profits by cuddling up to Hitler.
Flash forward another fifty years and see the patent of
living organisms and the creation of dangerous drugs that
unnecessarily increase milk production in cows.
The
horrors, which take place in the United States and elsewhere
(most memorably in Bolivia, where rainwater has become
privatized), will minimally make you feel completely helpless
and sick to your stomach. And
there’s even an outside chance it may even make you want to
run off and live on an island with a blood-spattered volleyball.
Powerful stuff – I just wish it were presented in a
better format.
Remembering Saddam is the latest pre-election political
documentary to hit screens (there’s been at least one a week
for the last couple of months).
This time, though, we’re hit from the other side of the
aisle, which is something made fairly clear by the caliber of
folks trumpeting the film’s virtues. Fair and balanced people like Laura Ingraham and the Heritage
Foundation.
Saddam,
which was released on DVD last week, tells the tale of seven
Baghdad merchants who, during the years Saddam Hussein was in
power, were arrested and sent to the now-legendary Abu Gharib
prison, where their right hands were amputated for a fairly
minor offense. Horrifying?
Sure. Were
they glad to get out before America’s Finest took over and
started flogging and electrocuting everyone?
Probably. Saddam’s
creators go out of their way to remind us that “no network or
cable channel would carry the documentary,” but that has
nothing to do with controversy or political hullabaloo.
It’s because Saddam
just isn’t that good. And,
by the way, shouldn’t we be remembering Osama, instead?
.
Next
week: The
Incredibles, A
Very Long Engagement.
|