Multiplex

This is a film dealing with an extremely sensitive subject: Bacon plays a
convicted child molester just out of prison and trying to make a new life for himself, but not entirely sure if he's purged himself of the urges that destroyed his life before. The film certainly doesn't try to evoke sympathy for him... the movie never lets you forget the horror of what he's done... but it also doesn't just shrug off his situation with a "he's evil, that's all you need to know". Like Sean Penn's character in "Dead Man Walking", this is a man whose behavior you loath at the same time as you realize the importance of trying to understand him.

That's where the problem comes in. The film would like to believe it's providing you with deep insights into Bacon's character, Walter, but in fact the movie is not much more than a series of set pieces: Walter gets a job, Walter gets a girlfriend (played by Bacon's wife, Kyra Sedgewick), Walter spars with a pesky police detective (rapper Mos Def). And there are a few too many coincidences: how likely is it that Walter would be assigned an apartment right across the street from a grade school? One which, furthermore, is being haunted by another molester whose crimes throw false suspicion on Walter?

But then again there's Bacon, in possibly the best performance of his career. A good deal of what the screenplay lacks in helping you know who Walter is, is provided by Bacon's stunning acting job. When he's trying to restrain himself you can't miss the turmoil just underneath the surface, and when he breaks down... well, you'll wonder why Bacon's name didn't turn up in any Golden Globe nominations, and hope the Oscars correct that error.

SO... is it a film worth seeing? Tough call. But probably at matinee prices, the way I saw it. It would be a shame to miss one of the outstanding performances of the year. Just don't think too much about what the film overall could have been.

2. "Hotel Rwanda". You might have heard "Shindler's List" comparisons regarding this movie. Forget them. You have a true story that happens to have some of the same features as "Shindler's List"... were the film-makers supposed to deliberately falsify the story so it wouldn't seem too similar? The fact is, the story (both the real one and this film) take the premise off in enough different directions it shouldn't be a problem for any but the very, very picky.

In 1994 in Rwanda, a hotel manager (Don Cheadle, who nearly stole "Devil In A Blue Dress" from Denzel Washington, in another terriffic performance) who is so busy enjoying the high life that he has no sense of the political strife going on around him, is thrown into the middle of a violent, bloody revolution between the ruling Hutus and the seemingly outmatched rebel Tutsuis. At first he's not concerned... he's Hutu, after all. But when his hotel, pretty much against his will at first, becomes a makeshift camp for refugee Tutsuis, he gradually comes to see the truth of the old saying that no man is an island. "We have to help each other... that is the only thing keeping us alive", he exclaims. At the risk of his own life, he has to do SOMETHING.

The film doesn't let anyone off the hook, including the western super powers (read: the U.S.), reminding you (or informing you, if you didn't know the story) of how the nations of the West knew what was going on, knew about the blood bath the Hutus were inflicting on the Tutsuis, but turned a blind eye. Sometimes, when no-one else seems to care, when you know you can't do nearly enough, you're faced with the decision of whether or not to do some small part at great cost. What do you do? "Hotel Rwanda" is a difficult movie to watch, but one which everyone ought to see. It's both harrowing and inspirational... but not to a typically hoky Hollywood degree. As the old Chinese proverb says, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. This is the story of a man who dared to take that step, and serve as a model of what a single individual can achieve. It may not be enough to change the world, but if only a small portion of people were to FOLLOW his example...

3. "In Good Company". Dennis Quaid stars as a 51-year-old advertising sales veteran who falls victim to the world of corporate mergers: another company buys the magazine he sells ad space for, and he's demoted to the position of assistant to the NEW head of ad sales: the inexperienced 26-year-old hot shot played by Topher Grace. The make matters worse, Grace begins dating Quaid's daughter (played by Scarlett Johansen).

The sitcom-like premise yields a feature film that will make you think you're sitting at home in front of the tube. No really deep insight into any of the characters... check... dialogue that seems to be made to have a laugh track inserted under it... check... so-called lessons in the viscious world of corporate life that you've learned many times already (the corporate world can be rough?... really, who would have guessed?)... check. Not to mention surface-level performances from actors who are capable of better (well, Quaid and Johansen are, anyhow), and a conclusion that wraps things up far too neatly and quickly.

If this is the sort of thing you really want to see, you can stay home and catch the same thing for free any night of the week. You'd probably be better off doing so.

4. "Elektra". We've had some very good Marvel comics-inspired movies the past few years, especially, of course, the two "Spider-Man" movies. On the other end of the spectrum, we also had "Daredevil". This more-or-less sort-of sequel to that film does us the favor of not bringing back Ben Affleck, but it also forgets to bring in a substantial plot, or characters, not to mention a lot of other things most people like to see in a movie.

"Elektra" has the feeling of what "Kill Bill" might have been like if it had been edited down to a single 90-minute film and made by someone with much less talent than Quentin Tarrantino. We start off halfway into the story (Elektra, brought back from the dead by a mysterious order of monks, is now a payed assassin, and finds she can't bring herself to carry out her latest assignment, so a group of super-powered replacement killers are brought in to finish off both her and the targets), and get the back story so sporadically and quickly that at the end of the film you STILL don't know a lot about what happened. The movie skips over huge chunks of story and apparently still expects the audience to understand the characters' motivations and why they behave the way they do. No such luck. Often times, an action movie that zips along at the speed of light can be an exhilerating joy ride... but it still helps to have genuine characters that all the action can happen to. "Elektra" never stays still long enough to provide you with any.

It also rips off other, better movies in greater number than you can keep track of, though some, like "The Replacement Killers", "The Matrix", and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", are obvious. And it has to be said that for the most part, the super-powered replacement killers are an extremely boring lot, with incredibly stupid powers, the sole exception being the fascinating "Tatoo" (no, not the one from Fantasy Island), who you'll wish you could see in a bigger role in a different, better movie. And oh, yeah... this is not exactly the character of Elektra as you saw her in the "Daredevil" movie, and nowhere NEAR the character from the original comics.

Are you a real comics devotee and in the mood for an outstanding example of how good a super hero movie can be when it's done right? That's easy enough... skip "Elektra" and watch "Spider-Man 2" again.