Sorry... These Are Both Good, Too

I know it probably isn't as interesting to read so many positive reviews (if reading ANY of these reviews can be called "interesting")... unfortunately, seeing fewer movies these days means taking care that the ones I do see are more likely to be ones I enjoy. That, added to the fact that I don't review movies I see at the second-run discount theatres (which is over half of what I see)... as a result, you get a higher level of recommendations. It just doesn't seem right, I know, that a movie reviewer writes so many positive comments. Well, at least I managed to do "P.S. I Love You" this week. Let's hope for some more turkeys soon. In the meantime, here are two more good ones. And the fact that they both have Minnesota connections has nothing to do with that. Really.

1. "No Country For Old Men". Even long-time Coen Brothers fans could be forgiven for beginning to doubt they still hadvewhat it takes after movies like "Intolerable Cruelty" and "The Ladykillers". But now we have evidence they haven't forgotten how to do it right.

Cormac McCarthy's novel about a man's discovery of a suitcase full of $2 million in cash next to a bloody shoot-out, and what happens when he makes off with it (hint: other men who were looking for it aren't happy and want to find him very badly) has the outlines of a conventional crime thriller, but its strange, poetic style would seem just about impossible to duplicate in a film... you could imagine an adaptation being done accurately and still being a very standard commercial picture. But the Coens have long been among the more literary film makers (and their screenplays READ better than just about anyone's). They actually manage the seemingly insurmountable task of turning McCarthy's twisty narrative into a proper film, while maintaining the unique approach and style that made it so distinctive as a novel.

It should perhaps be stated that this is NOT the Coen Brothers of "Big Lebowski" or "Raising Arizona". Anyone searching for their legendary arch comic outlook will be very surprised. Probably the closest comparison in the Coens' filmography would be "Blood Simple"... this is an uncomfortably close look at the dark, sinister side of life and human nature. Good guys don't always succeed, bad guys aren't always punished, and things don't always work out the way they're supposed to. But movies don't always have to be the equivalent of comfort food to be good, and in the tradition of classic film noir (and some of the darker 1970's dramas) the Coens have given us a fascinating examination of some of the less savory aspects of humanity.

The film makers are considerably aided by the work of a stellar cast, in particularly Javier Bardem as just about the ultimate personification of evil, and Tommy Lee Jones as a dedicated, upstanding sheriff trying desperately to make sense out of the evil and bloodshed he sees more and more of each day. "No Country For Old Men" may not be what most people have in mind when they think of "Holiday Movies", but a good movie is a good movie whatever time of the year it is. And, dark as it is, "No Country For Old Men" is most definitely a very good movie.

2. "Juno". Written by former Twin Cities resident Diablo Cody (whose byline appeared so many times in "City Pages"), "Juno" has been getting so many rave reviews virtually everywhere that I was fully expecting to dislike it... after all, nothing with that much hype could be as good as all that. Just goes to show that as Chuck Berry once said, "You never can tell." For once, all the hype is 100 percent correct.

Juno is a sarcastic, snarky 16-year-old who discovers after her very first sexual experience that she is pregnant, and decides that rather than getting an abortion she'll have the baby and give it up for adoption to a couple who can't can't have children but really want them. This leads to an extended series of comic complications that virtually never take the easy-to-figure-out route... when you think the movie is going to go one way, it turns around and heads off somewhere else. And just when you think you've at least figured out that the movie as all about snappy, quick-paced dialogue and "smart" remarks, it turns out to be ultimately sweetly sentimental... but an HONEST and not overly sappy sentimental.

Cody obviously likes all of her characters, and nobody comes off as the cardboard bad guy deliberately set up to be one because the movie requires it... even Juno's parents (the wonderful J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney) are kind and understanding. And Jennifer Garner & Jason Bateman as the baby's prospective adoptive parents turn out to be much more fully-rounded characters than most writers would feel the need to create. But it's Juno herself who is the most memorable character... even just on paper she's a terrific character, but Ellen Page's performance in the role lifts both it and the movie to another entire level.

It's understandable, after seeing so many huge popular favorites turn out to be favorites because they pander to the lowest common denominator, to assume that any film so almost universally well regarded has to be full of stereotyped characters, predictable plot developments, and a minimum of actual creativity. But "Juno" has enough creativity for several regular movies, and makes you all the more eager to see what Diablo Cody will come up with next. And after making his directorial debut with last year's terrific "Thank You For Smoking", director Jason Reitman looks to have an equally promising career ahead. More and more major studio comedies in recent years have become increasingly "by the books" productions, by film makers going through the motions. "Juno" gives us an idea of what genuine fun they can still be with a little originality and enthusiasm thrown into the mix. It's enough to give you hope for the future of Hollywood comedy.

From The Land Of Predictability

It seems that the overwhelming majority of American moviegoers have a deep, burning need to know exactly what is going to happen to every character far in advance, and a need to know exactly how each plot element is going to resolve itself within a few minutes of said element being introduced. I don't happen to be one of those people, which is probably why "P.S. I Love You" was a somewhat less than thrilling experience for me. The rest of you may very well love it.

In case you need to know: Hillary Swank plays a young widow whose late husband (Gerard Butler of "300", seen alive only in the opening scene but frequently in flashback thereafter) has just died of a brain tumor. But he thoughtfully realized how emotionally devastated she was likely to be, so he has written a series of letters and arranged to have them delivered (along with occasional gifts) over the course of the following year, the intention being to help her through her emotional ordeal and learn to enjoy life again. Armed only with this information... not even having seen any of the TV ads or theatrical trailers... my cousin successly summarized the entire plot in every major detail. Anyone who's seen more than two or three romantic comedies (or dramas) in their entire lives ought to be able to do the same.

Anyone reading this who can contradict this idea, feel free to write and do so... but I think it's pretty safe to say that romance in real life is NOT always sweet and predictable and comforting and all of the rest of that warm and fuzzy stuff. But this is the land of MOVIE romance, which is another dimension entirely. The acting of the two leads doesn't exactly help: Hillary Swank has tended to burn hot and cold in her performances, and this is definitely on the cold side. But at least she has a discernable personality, which is more than can be said for Butler. And not only is the script predictable in the extreme, but the dialogue is clumsy and corny beyond the tolerance of all but the staunchest lover of romantic cliches. This is especially surprising and disappointing coming from writer/director Richard Lavgravanese, who managed to take one of the worst-written romance novels of all time, "The Bridges Of Madison County", and turn it into a warm and sincere film. "P.S. I Love You" is also based on a novel (unread by me), but either Lagravanese has lost his touch, or the novel must have set a new world record for sappy, poorly constructed awfulness.

All of that said, there are at least occasional moments and stray elements that should hold viewers' interest enough to keep them from falling asleep. The ever reliable Lisa Kudrow contributes some snarky attitude that keeps the film from going overboard TOO often, and Harry Connick has a nice supporting role as the one and only character in the entire film whose story arch isn't completely easy to figure out within a minute of their first appearance. And for fans of "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" (such as, for instance, myself) it was very interesting to see James "Spike" Marsters in the role of Butler's best friend, a character about as far removed from Spike as you could hope to find.

Still, those are primarily compensations for those who happen to find themselves stuck with the prospect of sitting through the movie for two hours. I certainly wouldn't recommend you go to see it JUST for those moments. Unless, of course, you're one of those fans of the easily foreseen plot developments that I mentioned at the beginning of this review. Instead, if you get the opportunity, you might try to find "Things We Lost In The Fire" and check out how some of the same basic ingredients can be blended together into a powerful, emotionally effecting film that will stick with you for a long time. "P.S. I Love You", on the other hand, is a film that most people won't even remember for as long as it takes to... ahh... err... um, what was I talking about again?

Two Creepy Movies

Now, I happen to like creepy movies, so keep in mind that that is meant in the nicest way possible.

1. "The Orphanage". Guillermo Del Toro, as either director or producer (and sometimes both), has been responsible for some of the most creepy, shivery ghost and supernatural stories of the past decade or more... at least when he makes them in his native Spain and isn't influenced by the "requirements" of Hollywood schlock. Acting this time as producer, in (thankfully) another Spanish production, he has given us a movie that fans of the "Saw" and "Hostel" franchises will probably loath, but that those who savor a little elegance in suspense along with the scares ought to cherish.

It's the story of a young mother who moves, along with her husband and their adopted son, back into the building that, long ago, used to house the orphanage she grew up in as a young girl. She hopes to turn it into an orphanage once more and run it herself, but it seems that the ghosts of some of its former inhabitants are still hanging around. Furthermore, due to her adopted son's illness, he is able to communicate with those children (he apparently has Haley Joel Osment's disease, too... he sees dead people)).

There is precisely one and only one scene in the entire film with any amount of blood or gore, and it's over almost before you know it. What we have instead is a film packed to the brim with the kind of subtle, eerie atmosphere that hardly any American mainstream movies know how to do any more. Sure, you've probably seen horror movies where the entire audience mutters things like "gross!" and "ick!"... even sometimes laughing where they weren't meant to... but when was the last time you saw a supernatural drama where an entire theatre full of people were gasping in simultaneous shock and surprise every ten minutes or so? Or, for that matter, actually applauded at the end? That's exactly what happened when I saw a sneak preview of this film (scheduled to open at the Uptown Theater at the very end of December)at the Oak Street Cinema last week.

If you're a fan of horror movies but have grown weary of the same old tired Hollywood cliches, you couldn't do much better than "The Orphanage". Guillermo Del Toro has had a perfect batting average (yeah, I know that's a sports metaphor, but it's baseball, so that's okay), and with this new film he hits it out of the park again.

2. "Sweeney Todd". What a perfectly appropriate, sweet subject for a musical. A wrongly imprisoned man returns to his old life after 15 years to find his wife dead and his daughter become the ward of the same evil judge who put him away years ago. He restarts his old barber shop with the aid of new friend Mrs. Lovett (baker of "The worst pies in London") and with the aid of his razors, begins his quest for revenge (as the song puts it, "He shaved the faces of gentlemen who never thereafter were heard of again"). Sounds just like something you'd expect to see in a Disney cartoon, doesn't it?

Well, maybe not. But it does sound exactly like something you'd expect to see starring Johnny Depp and directed by Tim Burton (their sixth collaboration). Stephen Sondheim's very, VERY dark hit musical needs a director... and star... who are perfectly attuned to its sinister sensibilities in order for a film version to work. In the wrong hands, this material could be dreadful and campy. Fortunately, the combination of Burton and Depp are perfect, and they are ably aided by a cast featuring Helena Bonnom Carter, Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall ("Secrets And Lies") and Sacha Baron Cohen, A.K.A. Borat (doing an ITALIAN accent this time).

It should be noted that aside from being quite dark (which I don't think anyone familiar with or interested in "Sweeney Todd" would have any trouble with), it is also very explicitly bloody. On stage (as in the local production I saw over twenty years ago), you obviously don't see a lot of graphic blood and guts when Todd starts working the old razors, but Burton takes full advantage of this being a film and features blood spurting longer and further than is probably possible. He even goes a little further in that department than I personally think is really necessary, but by no means enough to ruin his otherwise impressive achievement.

None of the cast is exactly a veteran musical performer, but while they don't exactly give Pavarotti (or even the Beatles) a run for for their money, they do quite a respectable job vocally. Depp, in particular, manages to avoid the frequent musical trap in which the actor stops ACTING the role while they're singing a tune and just "performs"... he's acting in every scene. And maybe it's just me, but knowing his habit of often basing his ACTING performances on various actual people (like Keith Richards as the basis for Jack Sparrow), I couldn't help wondering whether it was a coincidence or not that at frequent moments in various songs he tends to sound a bit like David Bowie.

This is clearly not a musical meant for fans of "The Sound Of Music". But as gruesome as it can sometimes get (though what else could it be and remain true to the source material?), "Sweeney Todd" is a fascinating glimpse of a very different kind into the world of some fascinating characters and their dark world and lives (and the cast does indeed make each character very real). Burton "opens up" the stage play just enough (in some very creative ways), without going hog wild about it. If you have a taste for the dark and sinister... not to mention for some impressive film making and acting... "Sweeney Todd" could be just what you're looking for. It opens at Christmas.

There He Goes Again

1. "Music Within". This is definitely a movie whose heart is in the right place. It tells the story of the man who was responsible for the creation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and an inspiring story it is too: a Vietnam vet at the beginning of the 1970s who became virtually deaf (with a permanent ringing in his ears) when a shell landed right next to his tent, he struggled to be accepted in both work and school, and when he eventually started a company designed to find work for disabled people, and realized the barriers they faced, began dedicating himself to the cause of getting congress to pass this new act.

Great material there, and there is a lot to admire in this film. But great material and good intentions (not to mention great performances) aren't always enough when faced with a script that follows all the usual patterns of the "Inspirational TV movie of the week" sort. There are a lot of people who will love this movie, and there certainly are some who I would recommend it to. I was even very impressed by certain parts of it. But too often I felt like I had seen most of it before, done better... and with better, less cliched, dialogue and situations. It might not be exactly true to say "you've seen one true-life overcoming adversity story and you've seen them all", but this particular movie IS one that made me THINK OF that expression.

That said, it wouldn't be fair to not mention that several of the performances were among the best I've seen this year. Ron Livingston does a very good job in the lead role, and in particular Michael Sheen is truly outstanding as his best friend, an intellectual genius confined to a wheelchair by cerebral palsey and barely able to communicate coherently to anyone but Livingston. I was very impressed by Sheen early this year as Tony Blair in "The Queen", but until I saw his name in the credits I had no idea it was the same person. You do not see and actor playing a character here... Sheen completely BECOMES the character and obliterates an memories you may have had of him in any other role. THIS is great acting, when you get no sense that it IS acting. And the use of humor at just the right moments is quite effective, as well. "Music Within" is by no means a bad film, and it MIGHT be worth seeing just for Michael Sheen alone. But I do feel the material could have been done better, and I can't QUITE give it a thumbs up.

2. "Wristcutters: A Love Story". What could be a more natural subject for a romantic comedy than suicide, right? Well, okay, I suppose there might be one or two. But that is the subject we have with this particular one. A young man (Patrick Fugit of "Almost Famous") commits suicide after a disastrous romantic break-up, and is surprised to wake up in an afterlife specifically reserved for suicides that is much like the one he left, only more drab and dark. When he finds out that his ex girlfriend has also killed herself, he and a new friend (a Russian would-be rock star) go on an afterlife road trip to find her, picking up along the way a young woman hitch hiker (Shannon Sossamon of "40 Days and 40 Nights") who insists her death was accidental and therefore she doesn't belong here.

This low-budget indie picture takes a subject that most sane people would find absolutely nothing amusing about and twists it into a gently amusing and entertaining story. It never trivializes suicide, but actually gives us comparitively real characters with real problems and regrets... and who still manage to be funny. It's not one of those loud, obnoxious Hollywood comedies... I'm sure Adam Sandler was never considered for any of the major roles... and audiences who need a movie to be loud and hyper to laugh at it will not find "Wristcutters: A Love Story" to be their cup of tea. But those who appreciate a low-key, subtle and deadpan style of humor will appreciate this film like nothing else that's playing right now (or recently, for that matter). It's definitely the very definition of "quirky", but then again, I like quirky. And any movie that gives us Will Arnett ("Blades Of Glory") and Tom Waits as rival cult leaders has a lot going for it.

This movie is currently playing as a Twin Cities exclusive at the Lagoon Theatre. I know some of you in St. Paul will probably not want to travel into "foreign territory", but if you have a taste for quirky comedy that, ultimately, is also surprisingly sweet, trust me on this: it's worth the trip.

3. "Lions For Lambs". I wanted to review this one just so there could be one single review actually said what I felt about this movie, and so far I haven't seen one. So here goes.

I have been astonished at the plethora (I don't get to use that word often enough) of reviews this picture has gotten complaining about it beeing "talky" and insufficiently action-packed. "Show, don't tell" they keep saying, and even bring up such modern classics as "My Dinner With Andre" as other examples of movies that weren't "cinematic" enough. The consensus also seems to be that the movie is more like a lecture on contemporary political concerns than it is a story about them. I don't happen to agree with any of that.

The film gives us three parallel but intersecting stories: Robert Redford (who also directs) as a college professor trying to inspire a sense of involvement and political commitment in a promising young student, and using as examples two former students (Michael Pena of "World Trade Center" and Derek Luke of "Antwone Fisher") who are now fighting in Iraq (theirs is the second of the three stories), while slick Republican congressman Tom Cruise tries to persuade journalist Meryl Streep to help him sell the White House's new troop surge plans... which Pena and Luke are currently part of.

This is a film that argues very persuasively for an end, or at least drastic reduction, in U.S. Involvement in Iraq/Iran/wherever else we may be trying to take over by the time you read this, but it never once seemed like a "lecture" to me. What I got out of it was a group of genuine, real characters who were passionate about these issues... and naturally, as a result of being so passionate about them, they talk about them and try to persuade others. And stage plays often tend to be speach & dialogue heavy too, aren't they? (But then, I suppose there are those who'll call "Lions For Lambs" "Stagey" too. You just can't please some people.)

And while clearly from a liberal viewpoint (anyone who's read many of these reviews knows I have no problem with that), it certainly doesn't let the liberals off without criticism, either. For instance, Redford, for all his dedication to getting others involved, has used very little of his potential and taken very little direct action to change things, and as Streep comes to realize, as part of the so-called "liberal media" (now, THERE'S one of the great myths of all time) she has played just as much of a part as congressman Cruise has in selling the administration's war plans and policies to the public with its too-rarely-questioning acceptance of the "facts" and intelligence they've been given. There's enough blame to go around here.

Yes, "Lions For Lambs" is a "talky" film (even the Iraq combat scenes have a surprising amount of dialogue). But I happen to think it's a stronger one for all of that, because some stories need that approach and while "Show, don't tell" is frequently the best approach, it would have been mighty difficult to put forth the ideas this movie does by just showing them. When dialogue is as... alright, let's use that word again... passionate as it is here, and delivered by actors of this caliber (amazingly, even Cruise does a decent job), resulting in the level of both intellectual and emotional content this film has, then the film makers have taken exactly the right approach. And if that's not enough for some critics (you know, I'm actually beginning to understand why some people resent and dislike movie critics)... well, that's just too bad. For the critics, that is... their loss.

Rush Hour 3

The word on this second sequel to the Jackie Chan/Chris Tucker original is that it is one of the worst movies of the year, according to the the bulk of the nation's critics. Then there are those die-hards you can always rely on to provide positive reviews for the newspaper ads: according to them, "Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker have never been funnier!" Well, if they had never been funnier than they are in this movie, they wouldn't be as famous as they are today. But the film still isn't the complete turkey many would have you believe.

It starts out promisingly enough, with Tucker completely lost in the Prince song playing on his headphones, singing and dancing along... problem being, he's supposed to be directing traffic, and his dance routine is causing more than a few problems. (In "Rush Hour 2" Tucker was a bit too manic and over the top for my tastes, so the fact that I found several of his scenes here to be actually funny is a good sign. I also enjoyed his "Lou Costello" role in a kind of variation of "Who's On First?".) The presence of Max Von Sydow (significant supporting role) and Roman Polanski (two cameo scenes) give the film a little class (Von Sydow more than Polanski), and in spite of his being a bit past his physical prime, Jackie is still capable of doing some amazing stunts.

HOWEVER... the plot, such as it is, isn't much. If you've seen the original "Rush Hour", you've essentially seen this one (a lot of movies, like the Jason Bourne series, repeat elements from one film to the next, but many... including the Bourne films... manage to do so with more imagination and panache). And it's becoming increasingly obvious that Jackie is in it either just for the cash or because of some kind of contractual obligation. I've rarely seen any star of any film who so clearly has no enthusiasm for what he's doing, and the joy and enthusiasm Jackie brings to his best roles is one of his great appeals. Virtually the only time you see him smile is during the out takes over the closing credits. And after a first half that at least shows a certain minimal amount of creativity and sense of fun, the picture falls apart as it goes on and revives only briefly when Jackie does one of his best stunts (watch for the French flag in the Eifel Tower scene).

There are a lot of other movies you could see to get a better idea of what Jackie Chan at his best can do. Many of them are quite recent, too... but most of them are made in Hong Kong, not Hollywood. And Chris Tucker at his best? Check out the FIRST "Rush Hour", or Ice Cube's "Friday". If you're already a fan of this film's stars, it won't destroy your fondness for them and will even provide you with a few memorable moments to add to their "galleries" of highlights. But for those who aren't, this would definitely not be the best first Jackie Chan or Chris Tucker film to see... or the best first "Rush Hour" to see either, for that matter.

If A Reviewer Writes A Review, But No-one Is There To Read It, Does It Make Any Sense?

It's just like with characters like Jason, Freddy Krueger and "Halloween"'s Michael Meyers (and how often in life have I been compared to that crowd!)... every time you think you've finally got him and he's gone for good, he comes creeping back (usually to a smaller and smaller audience each time, too). Well, here's my equivalent of those cheesy pictures: Joe's Corner returns. There are a few movies I've seen in the past month and a half or so that are simply so good I had to recommend them, so here are some brief comments on five of them. Of course, there are also some turkeys I've seen during this same time, but those are beyond the scope of this current column, so you will find absolutely no reference whatsoever to movies like "Mr. Brooks", "Disturbia" or "Fantastic 4: Rise Of The Silver Surfer" here. Nope, sorry... you won't even see me mentioning their names. What? What do you mean, I already... ahh, forget it.

1. "Death At A Funeral". A British comedy (directed by American Frank Oz, maker of films like "Little Shop Of Horrors" & "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels") that raises the question "Why aren't more wacky comedies set at funerals"? After seeing this movie, I have to wonder myself. One of the classic disfunctional families of all time gathers together for the funeral of the family patriarch, hoping for a traditional, respectful service and nothing more. But when family jealousies intrude, when an American stranger (Peter Dinklage of "The Station Agent") shows up trying to blackmail the family with some secrets about dad, and when one of the family members unknowingly takes some home-made LSD thinking it to be a tranquilizer and goes more than a little crazy, things become quite a bit more undignified than a respectable British family would like. I honestly haven't laughed this hard at any comedy this year... it might beven be MORE than a year. I'm a bit of a sucker for British humor, of course, and this film is a prime example of it... the most outrageous, outlandish situations played with a totally straight face by people who have no idea that what they're doing is supposed to be funny, causing it to be all that much funnier as a result. I cringe at the thought of how utterly stupid this story could have been if Hollywood had gotten hold of it first and turned it into an Adam Sandler vehicle. See it now before that inevitably happens.

2. "The Bourne Ultimatum". People have sometimes accused me of being a film snob, only going for independent, art house or foreign language type films. Absolutely not true: I grew up (to the extent that I have, of course) on commercial Hollywood movies, and few things leave me feeling more satisfied than watching a really good Hollywood production that does the things commercial movies can do best as well as they can do them. It's simply that as time goes by, Hollywood seems to be doing that kind of thing less and less. With "The Bourne Ultimatum", we get a brief respite from that trend. In this third installment, amnesiac assassin Jason Bourne comes to the conclusion of his search for his true identity, and finds the men responsible for turning him into the killing machine he has become. He does this in a movie that gives us a perfect blueprint for what all action movies ought to be like, but very few are (and practically none that are made in America). Actual good acting, a solid, twisty script, a lead character who accomplishes as much with his brains as with his fists and guns (although he's good with those, too)... and perhaps most importantly, absolutely no computer generated special effects. If you see it on the screen, it's really happening, which helps enormously towards making the whole thing believable. And of course although the ending brings things to a nice conclusion, it does at least leave open the possibility of more Bourne adventures. Well, the Robert Ludlum estate has authorized Eric Van Lustbader to write more Bourne novels, and he's turned out a couple already, so who knows? If the film could be on the same level as the first three, I would welcome another go-round.

3. "Please Vote For Me". Watch for this one on cable, in the video stores, wherever you can find it. Screened a few times over two days recently at Minneapolis' best theatre, the Riverview, this documentary from China shows, in both amusing and somewhat scary ways, that many of the elements of modern American elections seem to be deeply ingrained even in children in other parts of the world. A group of Chinese school children are introduced for the first time to the concept of democracy and voting by being allowed to run for Class Monitor, a position that previously had been by appointment only. Before long, they're involved in "debates" consisting basically of each candidate saying nothing at all about why you should vote for them and just devoting the whole time to insulting their opponents and talking about why they're so evil (nothing like that could ever happen in American politics, right?). Then there's also the dirty tricks, the single issue campaigning, the nepotism... these kids have literally no idea what voting and campaigning is, but they take no time at all becoming miniature versions of Richard Nixon, Karl Rove and George W. Bush. I'm not sure whether this movie is ultimately scarier or funnier. It's probably so effective because it's so much of both. In any event, catch it if you possibly can. It will be a long time before you forget it.

4. "Hairspray". Another example of what Hollywood can do right, but often doesn't. I approached this movie with extremely mixed feelings, based on the experience of the highly disappointing film of the musical version of "The Producers"... and Mel Brooks actually wrote BOTH of them, including the songs in the musical! So how could the new "Hairspray", with absolutely no input from John Waters other than an opening scene cameo, possibly be good? Well, it's not good... it's extremely, delightfully good. Unlike "The Producers", the songs here actually relate to the story, and are terrific songs in their own right (I still get "You Can't Stop The Beat" stuck in my head several weeks after seeing the movie). The cast is absolutely sensational, including Christopher Walken (finally getting to show the song & dance stylings he mastered on Broadway), Amanda Bynes, newcomer Nikki Blonski, and, surprisingly, John Travolta in the Divine/Harvey Firestein role of Edna Turnblad (giving the role a surprising touching vulnerability)... and of course Michelle Pfeiffer (we all remember from "The Fabulous Baker Boys" that she can sing). It's been a long, long time since I've seen a musical film filled right from the opening scene (with Blonski's wonderful "Good Morning, Baltimore") to the final one ("You Can't Stop The Beat") with such a sense of absolute fun. This is why musicals were once so popular. If more films could equal this one, they could be again.

5. "Away From Her". Canadian actress Sarah Polley, who is only 29, makes her writing & directing debut adapting a short story by Susan Minot about an older married couple (played by Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsett) who face serious challenges to their 45-year relationship when the wife comes down with Alzheimer's disease. Can their relationship continue as it's been? Well, no... but what will it become? And can the husband manage to make some extreme personal sacrifices for his wife's sake, knowing that they will be traumatic for him? The ultimate, most important reason I go to the movies is to experience a story that draws me in so completely that I forget I'm watching a movie and feel like I'm experiencing someone else's real life. In a really good year, that might happen three, maybe four times. It happens with unusual power and strength in "Away From Her". At 29, first-time writer & director Polley has made an amazing film that makes real life seem like the most exciting and dramatic thing you could experience (it often is, but not enough film makers seem to realize that). A lot of people I try to talk to about this film say they think it sounds depressing. I suppose you could look at it that way, but it also says a lot about the power of love, and how even the most extreme circumstances can never really completely wipe it out. Does that sound depressing to you? Take the chance and see "Away From Her". It is SO satisfying to be able to say, on those all too rare occasions, "THIS is why I go to the movies".

Catching Up

Through the use of a Landmark Theatres gift pass, I finally caught up with the performance that should have won the Supporting Actor Oscar this year, Jackie Earle Haley in "Little Children". Haley reminded me a bit of Sean Penn in "Dead Man Walking"... another performance that should have won the Oscar but didn't. The similarities being that both actors took a thoroughly despicable character doing horrible things and never at any point made you LIKE him, or even try to do that... but nevertheless made you see life through his eyes and empathize with his plight. And any actor who can do that has accomplished something pretty amazing. The film as a whole is pretty good, but not as impressive as Haley. His performance, though... well, in a better, more just world, he would have been giving an acceptance speach last Sunday.

Also, I finally caught up with "Babel" on $1.00 Tuesday at a local second-run discount house last night. An absolutely amazing film. It reminded me of "Crash" (controversial as that film is among many, it was my favorite of 2005) in that it is also about the stupid, pointless things that needlessly divide us when we have so much more in common than we realize, and the way we too often feel no need to communicate and see common ground with anyone who's in any way different from us. Just imagine "Crash" taking place over several continents instead of only in L.A.
It also has much to say about how the pointless violence that adults start all too casually far too often catches innocent children in the crossfire. I realize that many people, including some of my best friends, look askance at stories that place children in danger. I totally respect their feelings about this, and in fact share them when this is done for exploitation's sake. But the world we live in often isn't kind to the young, and the young often get their minds poisoned by the thoughtless behaviour of their adult role models, with tragic results. It seems to me that this is the point of the children's roles in a film that, as far as I am concerned, should have won the Original Screenplay Oscar instead of "Little Miss Sunshine", and possibly even "Best Picture" as well instead of "The Departed" (much as I liked "The Departed" and as pleased as I was to see Scorsese get Best Director for that film). It was interesting to walk out of the film and overhear other moviegoers talk about how unimpressed they were, and mention other films they didn't really care for but thought were "at least better than BABEL". Most of them appeared to really have loved LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE. Guess that's one consequence of seeing movies like this in a regular commercial theater instead of the art houses they open up in. Well, what can you say? There are also people who voted for George W. Bush and thought they were doing the right thing...