Movie Review: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

I have this best friend, see, and he's a writer to. Damn good one at that. I trust his prose and poetry more than my own. He's got a wry wit and his opinion I trust. A few years ago, we decided to do something stupidly fun. We both wrote down our top ten movies.That's like asking a parent to pick which child should live.We elected to go the other route-picking movies that we personally felt connected to, regardless of the quality. That way, we didn't have the usual textbook answers of Citizen Kane and Streetcar Name Desire ad nauseum. The list became more a inkblot, showing the person who did the viewing.I'm not going to go write that list down right now.For there's been a change.I think I have a new movie to add to my list.Sky Captain is our current decade's Indy movie. But without the purely for profit sequels. This is a what going to the big screen is all about. It is a tale that can only exist on a big screen. I mean, giant robots meancing New York City? No HDTV is going to get you with that. You need to see their size, their heat beam eyes as the height they were meant to shown at.In a movie theatre.In this movie, lovingly shot in experimental sephia tones, you have the usual intrepid reporter, seen a thousand times prior, doing the annoying usual storyline. She's investigating missing scientists--another standard--and then has to be rescued by the dashing hero, the mercernary Sky Captain. Seems there's Evil Afoot, trying to Take Over the World.Yes, we've heard it all before. Heck, we felt this way with Raiders et al.But I didn't mind this time. For some reason, it all made sense. It was as if the ultimate B movie was put up there on the screen. Worlds apart are only a short flight/drive away, clothing stays oddly unwrinkled after harrowing experiences.Yeap, only in the movies.I think the reason I don't mind is that it had all the usual greats tied up into a neat bundle. This was a freshman script, so I suppose my expectations couldn't have been that high. But the film collides with a bit of Tim Burton. In others, if it didn't look this good, you would have lost a large segment of the movie. The costumes are smooth; the photography is this side of having scratches movies. There are no sharp edges. All you needed was the occasionaly accidental string hanging from an airplane and you think you would have been in the 30's. I kept waiting for placard to announce "Tune in next week!"So much praise, I'll have to add it to my list. The drawback? The lead, I'm afraid to say. Luckily, hottie Jude Law is not required to do much. But he's too passive for an action hero. He's got the style and excellence of a Royal--and tends to come off as reflective because of it. Him in an action role? He's not angry enough; his decisions seems to be flown in from somewhere else because of it.But this gripe is small. I mean, it's JUDE LAW, for crissakes. He's like an Abercrombie ad envisioned in real time.The other problem? Why release this now, in the limbo prior to Christmas season and Oscar? Did they really not know how the public would react to such a stylish actioner? That's unfortunate, I really think this could have been a summer blockbuster. We had an excellent cinema summer. It could have been part. Still, it's a nice way to know that sometimes good movies come out in the fall.
A very, very well constructed piece of work. I feel back for the newbie creator. If you start at the top of the heap, where will you go next?
And as for my friend? I’m probably going to have see this movie again with him. I think he might have to revise a list or two himself.

Movie Review: Prick Up Your Ears

Oh gee, everyone, look another dead gay man movie. I am beginning to think that the only way gay men die is via violent reaction.

Oh wait, this is from the eighties. I suppose that has something to do with it. You would have thought better...I mean, look at the pedigree--Stephen Frears from Dangerous Laisons, Gary Oldman actually being nice and good-looking (I usually recall him from Dracula, back in 92, a personal fave) and our current Spiderman 2 villian, Doctor Octopus himself, Alfred Molina. You would think they could have ended the movie without violence.

Still, I had heard about the title from some friends and decided to take a look at it.

I have to say, as I watched this movie, even tho the gay guy bites it, I kept thinking--it's not out of spite. It's not because the society at large wants him to die--something modern Hollywood still attests to. In the end of this movie, it's because the act of murder was a natural outpouring of the conflict of the tale. You see, this was a true story of the very bizarre relationship between famed playwright Joe Morton and his frequent collaborator. I dare not say lover, even tho they were. Their relationship was as unique as this drama. They were together, yes, but it was different from monogomous, but apart from swingers. Their relationship was borderline a muse and his artist, but even that would put boundaries on something that defied description.

I began to become impressed with the title as the movie, like so many English flicks, played too long. The uniqueness of their relationship drew me in and kept me wondering what was exactly happening. I already knew one was going to die in the end..but who and why eluded me. Especially that why part.

I applaud the audacity of the movie-it is far from humourous and also distanced by the time period (the 80's) that is was released in. But still, I felt it was expertly constructed and the actor's didn't shy away from their flings and loves. Straight actors tend to come off as being straight playing gay. Here, it was not a factor.

Surely, above average and the reason I have netflix. To see movies with enough polish that they should not be forgotten.

Movie Review: Yossi and Jagger

I have come down on American remakes of overseas titles. They rarely get the images correct, choosing the fast route and quickest money moments to make the picture. Here? I find myself hoping some American takes up a remake for the first time of my life.

This is the love story to two men in the military. Plain and simple. They love and no one knows, for it would be frowned upon.

But there's the thing. THAT'S IT. I have no idea how they met or how they came together. There was no outward antigay sentiment, so where was the threat of being out?

Don't get me wrong, I did like this movie, but my partner hated it, and I could fully see why. There was no build up of their relationship, so when hardship befalls one of them, it's hard to guage the impact. It needed to be explored more in such a short movie.

Hence, could someone remake this? Make it a bit fuller? You might have something, then.

Movie Review: City of God

I heard about this title at the Oscars and watching a few second snippet there, I was hooked. If a picture is that visually tantalizing, I want to see the rest--besides, it's not everyday that a movie is merely nominated for direction. Something must have happened on that screen.

Since coming to Netflix so many months ago, I have been privledged to see movies from around the world. Many good, many bad, but it has opened my eyes to how different filmmakers and cultures view things. It's been fantastic.

Here is an example. This movie is South American, Brazilian. The storyline is pure American, in that it is non-linear, like Citizen Kane and Pulp Fiction. It bounces around, through flashbacks and reviews. It tells the tale about a young photographer growing up in a ghetto is Rio-the title's City of God. And through his history we meet various gang lords who rise and fall about as much as a Dallas family gathering.

It should be titled "Politics of the Gun," because guns proliferate here and there is much violence. But not that happy, action movie, bad guys die kinda way--as in someone has a gun, when is he going to use it--kinda way. It's riveting that something I've seen before being used creatively.

Yes, this movie is highly creative. I found myself at a loss at how it was going to come out, half expecting the protagonist to die several times (I learned from Sunset Blvd, many moons ago, protagonists can die and still narrate their story) and wondered where the story would take me next. The acting is a bit stilted, not creating much for compassion for any of the characters, but otherwise, this is a piece of filmmaking that should have found a much larger audience. It didn't play at any art house I knew of. It's a good movie.

Movie Review: To Kill A Mockingbird

I feel I can't write a review for this movie. I know I've seen it multiple times, and, as the cliche goes, it means something different each time. I feel not unlike a journalist trying to explain colors to a blind person. I have the skills, but not the point of reference.

The format of this story has been copied so many times. A young girl (a borderline proto-homo, I noticed this time) lives in the rural south during the depression. Her brother and her are given much of an education by the mere fact of exploration by their single father. They learn about racism and it's horrid impact and about the meaning of caring.

As for the movie, well, it is very, very good. What I have noticed when I watch classics like Gone with the Wind, Streetcar Named Desire and the like, is that time flies when you are watching them. Today's movies, made to keep the MTV generation filling their pockets, are edited to different camera angles every three seconds or so. Here, the camera picks a target and holds it until the words are spoken, the image is taken in. It knows we're smart and doesn't toy with song-and-dance.

The movie rolls along, probably moved faster by previous experience watching it during school and I also see Gregory Peck in the role that defined the rest of his career. I looked back at my review of Streetcar a few weeks ago and realized what these actors had that many today do not.

Confidence. Without the infrindgement of the press, these actors could do what they set out to do. Peck is relaxed on the screen, comfortable in this own skin. He isn't appearing to ACT. Tom in Collateral? He's practically screaming, "look at me, I'm doing something different then my last movie! Thank you, Academy!"

But Peck doesn't have that. And he becomes the moral compass, like a father should, both with his own kids and us in the audience. A very good movie from an excellent book. One of those books you really should read.

Movie Review: Hero

Ahh, to return to the world of vices. You should know by now my love for Asian movies-especially the ones with lots of fighting. Yes, I'm admitting bias. Of course, this vice really only nails me out of money--and even then, if I didn't see it, I wouldn't have a myocardic infarction.

Don't you just love that word? In-FARC-tion? It's so,I don't know, given to middle school giggles.

I say that, because, well, there were several giggles during this magnum opus, Hero, Jet Li's new flick. I even saw it on it's opening night, which says volumes. If I'm willing to forego my Friday night nap, well, there's something to be had, I tell you. I knew I wanted to see this movie when I read about it two years ago.

Yes, Miramax was sitting on this movie for two years. I'm sure they had no idea what to do with it--the audience was proof of that. It was filled with young men, filled with testosterone, from the nearby bases. They had no idea. Not one of them had read a word about it.

All they saw were the words, 'Jet Li' and thought this was the place to come.

This movie was not what they expected--hence the middle school giggles. And why Miramax wondered how to market it.

The story concerns a young man (Li) who comes to show the Emperor his loyality by bringing the swords of the 3 assissins who were bent on keeping him from power. Such was the threat that no one has ever come in 100 steps of the emperor--but this young man is invited to do so as he elaborates the tale.

The setup is much like many martial arts movies, with flashback after flashback. Only this time, the same story is elaborated, with different emphasis each time. It's wonderfully complex and visually adept. It's a true movie, a world that only exists on the screen.

And the fighting? Excellent, but that's where the giggles surmounted. You see, many people aren't used to the Hong Kong martial arts forms put onto the movies outside of Jackie Chan and Li. Here, the fights take on a form of higher art-giving the feeling of a ballet or dance ensemble. It asks for the audience to be sophistacted when they normally wouldn't be. There's one escapade, shot beautifully, in a forest during fall. One woman doesn't wish to kill the mistress of her ex, so she uses the falling leaves as cover.

It's an elaborate dance that is breathtakign on the big screen.

It's a giggle fest of screaming women and wind for small minds.

Hence, the giggles from the hundreds of young males.

And people worry about the future.

I, for one, liked the movie. I hate having to compare it to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,( or Rashomon, if you've heard of it) but it's the only film out there audiences might have experienced with the same ascetics. It's slightly less then that movie, going more for the intricaties of politics--always a mood killer. It's why you never see a baby boom in an election year.

So yes, I liked it, but I don't think anyone else will. Which is too bad, because it's a really good entry into Asian cinema as it stands right now.

Movie Review: Collateral

Feel free to continue to detest Tom Cruise and yet see this movie.

Ohmygod! I've admitted to hating one of the biggest stars this meager universe has set eyes on! He is, like TOM CRUISE! He's a marquee name!

Yeah, so's the word, 'Exit.'

I really did try to like Tom a long time ago. I saw an inkling of his abilities back in Born on the Fourth of the July and again in Magnolia. I even noticed a tad of ability in the over compensated Minority Report. I have to admit he is a good performer. And he has my respect in that department. I don't have to like him because of that.

But then reality takes over. Yes, he did follow Born with Days of Thunder (which was actually released prior) and Mission: Impossible. I mean, Mission: Impossible was a freegin ensamble television show, with like, twenty characters.

Then Tom moves in as producer. Ooops. Twenty gets reduced down to one.

See what I mean? He may play the press like a fiddle, but his ego is right there, right on his sleeve.

And yes, I admit, the whole thing about being called gay and suing people. Like being called gay is a bad thing. It could hurt him. Hello? Wolverine is playing a gay man on Broadway and doing part three and made Van Helsing.

And his problem is, um, where?

Well, nowhere, depending on this movie. This is an excellent movie. Here I am going on and on about why I hate Tom Cruise--but why I love this movie? That list is going to go far beyond that. Besides, hate takes so much energy.

Michael Mann. To me, he did justice to the book Red Dragon by the slightly superior Manhunter in the late 80's. His Last of the Mohicans was fantastic--a movie that follows the book. Heat? Very warm, thank you. I like the guy. His movies have a certain auteur quality you just don't see in summer blockbusters. The camera continues to move (but not the herky-jerky stuff you see in Baz Luhrmann) and makes something that could come off as a one act play--two men meeting a taxi--into something surprisingly engaging.

Yes, this is the tale of two men meeting in a taxi. It starts off without a rush, a surprisingly honest piece of written dialogue, with Jamie Foxx as a driver. He talks with his charge, the up-and-coming Jada Pinkett Smith (I'm sorry, but the Smith family is about to take over Hollywood, frankly. We might want to prepare by buying tickets NOW), and it's natural, almost improvisational. I had never seen Jamie Foxx in the movies before. All I know is that the entire cast of In Living Color probably should have been canonized--it seems each one of them is worthwhile. He, unlike his costar, is a true natural. He reminded me of Spencer Tracy, swept up in a world that he never wanted but is strong enough of handle. Tom wants the head shots, Jamie just wants to be in the picture.

Ebert mentioned his hesitancy of seeing Jamie do Ray Charles justice in his next bio pic, Ray. No worries. I'm thinking I need to get a ticket for that one too.

That was a tangent, wasn't it? Anyway, Max (Jamie's character) picks up his next customer and gets tucked into a murder spree, with Tom playing a contract killer. I don't want to elaborate, because the film is so unique, further explaination will kill the zing of the tale. But I found the writing to be crisp, and the placement of elements not forced or set up.

In other words, I was surprised, consistently. Several times. Not easy to do.

And I think you will be too.

Movie Review: De-Lovely

I want to thank Moulin Rouge, the post modern musical from four years ago. Or maybe I should blame it. For without it, wouldn't have seen the recent upsurge of Hollywood musicals. The problem? No one is taking the time to see what happened before--like watching a few New York stagefests to see exactly what a musical is made of.

Which brings us to this latest ditty. It was an interesting time to release this picture, amoung the hullaballoo of Spidermen and Aliens vs Predators. I'm thinking that they did it as counterprogramming, figuring not everyone goes to the big budget special effects fests the summer churns out.

So in that manner, it was a nice respite from getting my ears blown off from a loud sound system or being treated like an idiot with a plot that a nine-year-old can grasp. De-Lovely is borderline art house in that respect.

Now I have two reviews for this movie. Mine and the critical one. For myself, I liked this movie. I knew the words for a majority of the songs, having been brought up on the musical theatre and pop standards. This movie is a Cole Porter dream, telling his life story in the form of a Hollywood musical. At certain points throughout the movie, you can see current music talent warbling Mr. Porter's hits in the background (or foreground), adding the needed lift to scenes. I sang right along and went starry eyed at the cameos.

But now the critical stuff. Folks, this is a middle ground movie. It has too many good and bad parts that don't mix. I blame the writing. I always do. The storyline tries to bring a new twist to Cole Porter's life. The problem? Outside of being gay and married to a woman, there's not much interesting going on. He was boring. In today's day and age, being gay isn't nearly enough to be enthralled, or at least, it shouldn't be. His relationship with his wife, played excellently by Ashley Judd, is a very large part of the film and where it does hit it's few high notes. They have a very unique relationship, more like a best-friendship, that gives each strength in ways I did not predict. But it's not enough to stretch a movie over two hours.

Yes, two hours. I felt like I was watching a European movie--they have no concept of editing overseas, it appears. There were sequences that went way too long and some that were not even needed.

Musicals are surreal, plain and simple. They are usually self-effacing and celebratory. They even talk about it during the movie, where Cole, facing death, played by Johnthan Pryce, wonder if the opening number should be a ballad or not. So there is some knowledge there. But then they don't even listen to themselves. There's a huge dance number to end the picture on (yeah, my heart sang!) and then they cut to Cole at the piano with Linda Lee, his wife. How sweet but not needed at all.

What Hollywood needs to do is what they did when talkies were born. Los Angeles producers ran out to New York to grab all the playwrights they could find. Why? To write good dialogue. Boy, those days are gone. Seems like they are combing some elementary schools these days for words on paper. New York is experiencing a certian theatrical comeback since 9/11, trying to woo tourists back to their perspective houses. Why not mine these great showboats, Hollywood? It's an idea. This movie could have benefitted, that's for sure.

It's not to say this movie is so bad, you shouldn't go see it. Kevin Kline's respectful turn as Mr. Porter is Oscar caliber, really. You can see his theatre training in the ways he plays the room in scenes. And I've already mentioned Ashley Judd. It's nice to see her not play a cop in some bad mystery for once. Here's a niche for her, dramatic acting. She's got the skill for it.

This is surely a middle of the road pic. If you like Cole or theatre, go for it. But you aren't into dramatics, well, then maybe the Alien flick next door is the answer.

Movie Review: A Streetcar Named Desire

What can I say that's new and hasn't already been said about this movie? Not much. What I'm hoping to do is remind people that there are many good movies that are still out there, all one has to do is open their eyes.

I rented this title after I heard Marlon Brando died. I figured it was time to visit it again. I was glad I did.

My partner and I had a discussion during the movie that defined the concept of classic. As we watched Marlon Brandon, delts flaring on the steps outside of his apartment, screaming, "Stellllaaaa!" we wondered, if there was a remake, who could do it?

Now think about this, folks. A Streetcar Named Desire has been remade numerous times. Not on the big screen, but on stage. It was a play and it becomes very apparent. You can look away and the dialogue is so crisp and descriptive, it sounds like a radio show. There was a time when dialogue and acting was all that was needed to propel drama. But I digress from my point. My point is, everytime this play is performed, EVERYONE compares it to this movie. Heck, if you were forced to read this in a lit class, Marlon's shirtless black and white photo is plastered on the cover.

This defines a classic; its wholly it's own, there's no way you can repeat it. Star Wars first three movies are classic; its current add-ons are not. They don't have that spark. Yul Brenner is the only person you can identify as the King in the King and I.

We could not find a decent example of who could play that role other then Marlon Brando. Same goes for Kim Hunter and Vivien Leigh.

They define classic. An excellent movie. Yes, it's long and boring, but if you can appreciate art, you'll do fine.

Movie Review: I, Robot

Living here in the shadow of the once mighty "Silcon Mountain," it's easy to remember the birth of the techno age. Fourteen year olds purchasing Audis; old people learning a keyboard and a typewriter are the same thing. Clinton was still doing unmentionables in the White House (actually, there are still unmentionables going on, it's just less exotic these days). But as with all things--when we see the good, we have to see the bad. It was only a matter of time before we saw technology as villian. It only made sense as it took such a large role in our daily extravagances.

The Terminator had already been born and died in the late 80s, early 90s and besides, he had moved onto the governor's mansion. We saw a rash of really crappy titles hit the market trying to ride the wave. Hackers and the Net come to mind. But then the Matrix took evil technology where we wanted to go. We were hooked. We wanted to know the logical outcome to this success.

Robots. The Matrix said that technology's evils would come in the form of robots. From what I understand (from my copy of the hugely underwatched Animatrix, by far better then some of the work in the film's sequels), one robot killed it's master and the civil war between robots and humanity began.

Honestly, I have to thank Star Trek, before I go on. I wouldn't have understood any of this pursuit of humanity theming so imperative in this movie without the input of the character Data on Star Trek:TNG. Without him, I would not have appreciated the movie I, Robot.

You see I, Robot covers the same bases as Matrix and Star Trek. There's really not much new. In this plot, it appears that the creator of 2035's largest robot manufactures has been murdered. And since robots are programmed to not kill humans, this 'future noir' begins. Picture a 1940's gumshoe with huge issues with a given suspect (cliche then as it is now), his mole who is on the inside (cliche then as it is now), the usual suspects (cliche then as it is now) and you have a Dashiell Hamett tale.

And this movie as well. Folks, there's nothing new here. The movie tweaks that famous formula by having one of the robots possibly commiting the crime. Is the robot possibly overriding his programming, ya know, becoming more human?

See what I mean? Thanks Star Trek.

Are the robots actually planning some kind of take over? Thanks Matrix.

Now, here's the part you'll be shocked about.

I did like this movie.

The current edition of Entertainment Weekly talks about the current lack of 'stars' on the big screen. We just aren't seeing the Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks of the 90s being formed. Obviously, they've got their eyes shut, I believe. With Clint Eastwood either mayoring in Carmel or making sappy dreck and Arnold holing up in Sacramento, who's going to lead us in the action department? Tom Cruise is too heady. Have you seen the preview for Collateral? Will Smith. Let's say that again, shall we? Will Smith.

Where have you been all my life? Still buff from Ali and obviously edging up his acting quoteint from the same movie, he's my pick for today's action hero. The dude is funny, dynamic and puts what little dept there is available to him in an action film up there. He's buff and a good guy. I began to think of all the action films, good or bad, he's tried. He's working on it. I see that Entertainment Weekly might have found a new John Wayne, if they want him.

And his activity is so strong willed, I wanted to see what happened to him through the movie.

What also worked? This is a science fiction. And science fiction and movies have always had a very healthy relationship. You have to have a big screen to capture the scope. These kinds of stories need the room to have thousands of robots attacking; they need the budget to create these robots, so visually delicious. And I have to tell you, thank God this movie was made in terms of digital characterization. I thought their only input was going to be JarJar Binx and the Hulk, and that's pretty sorry. Wait until you see the machine known as Sonny in I, Robot. He has a flexible skin YOU CAN SEE THROUGH. It's the very definition of eye candy.

So if you like sci-fi, I'd recommend this movie. If you are a bit jaded by the summer runs of movies, maybe not. Hopefully, I've conveyed this is not a clear GOOD or BAD movie. It's one of those grays that snarls up all movie going traffic.

Movie Review: The Bourne Supremacy

It's always the question if art reflects life or if life reflects are. I'm not going to venture a guess, especially these days, where the conservative right loves to point out that all of life's screw up can be found somewhere in the media. I like to think it's more complex then that, that's for sure.

Such is the path that leads me to the Bourne Supremacy. With 9/11 hearings completed, we've seen that the screw-ups are really all over the map. But it's not just one screw up, but several working in tandem for a really big f--- up. I couldn't stop noticing the similarities here.

Here, we have an experimental spy that screwed up due to a faulty wiring and amensia (the Bourne Identity) and the various government agencies trying to act like it's not their fault. Of course, the theme is carried on, to a grander scale, in this very complete sequel, The Bourne Supremacy. Where again, the government is up to no good and not doing what they are supposed to do.

Hmmmm, sound familiar?

I mean, if everyone had done what they were supposed to do, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened as well, right?

Same here, a rogue agent becomes a liability. Not good.

Oh, the parallels between life and art don't end there. How about a large oil company using illegal funds?

Corporations doing bad things? Never heard of that happening.

All of this noticing, I'm not mentioning the good stuff. This is a good movie. It's just like reading a good book. There's plot twists, actions sequences and stellar acting. I supposed the most natural thing to do would be to compare it to Bond spy movies, but really can't. The villains in those movies come off as megalomaniac, not politicians. And the goons that killed in each? I have to credit to Bourne, these bad guys are Bad. Meaning, they don't drive up in hoards to massacred off by the hero. Instead, we have goons that are adept at killing and fight back, using intelligence and guile to attack Jason Bourne. It adds a dimension of fear into fight scenes.

And yes, Jason is a fine specimen, I have to admit. Matt plays him with a certain reflect, as if he doesn't want to be a killer. Fight scenes are fast and furious, but when they are completed, there's a look of regret on his face. He even walks slowly away after killing one henchmen, as if there's no joy in his job. Matt has made the right choice in maintaining this franchise. If the scripts continue to be as good as they appear here and in the original, I look forward to the next title, The Bourne Ultimatum.

Sequels, I'm learning can really be a treat, and I should not have complained about them earlier. I must remember, I love comic books, and what is that but one sequel after another? It's like coffee with old friends. You look forward to see who they are doing and what changes have been made, but the familiarity continues. Here is a good sequel. Right up there with Spiderman 2, the Godfathers, the early Star Wars and yes, Toy Story 2.

I really recommend this movie.