A 'Curious Case' of An Uneven Script

by Brett Parker

I can name you countless movies that start off strong then fall apart at the seams. I’m having a hard time, though, thinking of movies like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which starts off very shaky then builds momentum towards wonderful cinema. As I watched the film’s first half, I asked: why the hell is this being considered for the Best Picture Oscar? By the time the second half rolled around, I thought: oh, THAT’S why! Like Benjamin Button’s life, things grow way more interesting towards the end.

The film is an elaborate fantasy fable centered on the remarkable life of Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt), a man who is born with the body of an elderly man and appears to age younger all the way to infancy when he is supposed to be in his elderly years. Abandoned by his father at birth, Benjamin is raised in a nursing home where his adolescent years resemble that of a geriatric’s life. As his body grows younger, Benjamin decides to go off into the world and experience life. His adventures include working on a New Orleans tugboat, having an affair with a British man’s wife (Tilda Swinton), and fighting naval battles in World War II. As the years progress, Benjamin goes from looking like an 80-year-old to that of a 50-year-old.

The plot begins to grow heart-wrenching once Benjamin sets his affections on Daisy (Cate Blanchett), a beautiful ballet dancer. Daisy was a childhood friend of Benjamin’s and has grown into his object of desire. Yet while Daisy is an embodiment of youth and energy, Benjamin’s middle-aged body holds him back from being the kind of man Daisy wants. It’s only when they both hit 40 that they could somewhat resemble a normal couple. Benjamin and Daisy grow deeply in love but wonder if they could truly have a healthy relationship. If Daisy is aging towards an elderly woman while Benjamin is heading for a toddler’s body, could they really create a strong family?

The first half of the film seems focused on peculiar aspects of Benjamin’s life yet strangely isn’t as focused on the details of Benjamin’s condition. We learn the everyday aspects of Benjamin’s nursing home life and witness his adventures on a tugboat, all while feeling shortchanged on what it feels like to be such a person with such a condition. To be fair, the earlier sections of the film fit in nicely with the overall plot and help to build Benjamin’s personality and views on mortality. I just don’t think an affair with an English woman or life on a tugboat is the cleverest way to develop Benjamin’s personality. The film is based on the brilliant short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, who knew how to paint an observant picture of a backwards-aging man in everyday society. Fitzgerald had stronger and deeper ideas for episodes in Benjamin’s life, including Benjamin looking like the oldest student in college, harboring guilt over looking older than his father, and having Benjamin’s son being embarrassed by the fact that his father turns out to look younger than him. These low-key observations in the short story told us many things we wished to know about Benjamin while we feel the earlier passages in the film are evading bigger issues at hand.

The film clocks in at just about three hours, so we feel a lot of the earlier scenes can go right in the garbage. Especially since we realize the real magic lies in the second half of the film, right when the grown-up Daisy enters the picture. The film’s central romance brings the deeper complexities of Benjamin’s life into the forefront, especially his yearnings and sadness. There’s a great scene where Benjamin attends a party with Daisy and her Ballet friends. They are all in their twenties yet Benjamin’s body is in his fifties. Everyone at the party is drinking, dancing, and living it up, while Benjamin feels too much like an old man to join in. The wounded look in Benjamin’s eyes speaks oceans. Indeed, it’s through the film’s observations of Benjamin and Daisy’s relationship in which we get the emotional answers we’ve been seeking all along.

A character like Benjamin Button seems like the perfect opportunity for an actor to go over-the-top with eccentricities, yet Brad Pitt wisely keeps his portrayal subtle and withdrawn. Benjamin may not be the most colorful character, but it makes sense the more you think about it that someone like him would probably be shy, reserved, and not wanting to draw attention. Pitt skillfully brings Benjamin to convincing life and I was even amused by how his youthful looks embody vintage Americana ala the young Robert Redford. Of course Cate Blanchett is wonderful as usual, hitting all the emotional bases and cinematically aging with grace (although I couldn’t understand a word she was saying during her modern-day hospital scenes. I expected Benjamin and Daisy’s romance to somewhat resemble a typical fairy tale romance and I was delighted to find out how flawed and human the filmmakers allow it to be. Daisy is more feisty and frustrated than we expect and Benjamin isn’t exactly a smooth charmer.

If I say that Brad Pitt convincingly plays a man who ages from 80 to his teens, then credit must also be given to the dazzling special effects that help accomplish this feat. Wonderful CGI and make-up effects are used to convey Benjamin’s physical transformations throughout the ages and I can’t remember the last time big-screen special effects were so breathtaking. I was truly marveled by the image of an elderly-looking Benjamin trying desperately to peak out a window or when Benjamin’s body arrives in its late-teens. Come to think of it, the whole movie itself is filled with marvelous images. Director David Fincher (Fight Club, Zodiac) has always been an imaginative storyteller, but he has reached new and supreme heights of creativity. He has crafted a film overflowing with brilliant creative moments, such as a blind man creating a backwards-moving clock, Benjamin engaged in a battle with a Nazi U-Boat, and a meticulous explanation of all the little things that caused Daisy to be involved in a car accident. Visually, this is truly a triumph for Fincher.

By creating a character who defies the natural flow of human existence, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button becomes a meditation on existence and its relationship to time. No matter who we are or what we are capable of, we are all slaves to time and cannot escape its inevitable flow, even if we are experiencing it backwards. All we can do is try our very best to enjoy our period of existence and soak up all the experience we can get. Yet with Benjamin Button, we ponder a thought that F. Scott Fitzgerald attributed to Mark Twain: it’s funny how we experience the best part of life at the beginning and the worst part at the end. What if they were reversed? This film allows us to judge if that would be for better or for worse.

I’ve praised so much about this film that I almost make it sound like a great movie, and it almost is. It just seriously needs a stronger first half that holds up against the rest of the film. As good as it is, this film still could’ve been more imaginative, focused, and tighter. Fitzgerald’s source material is proof of that. The author himself once said “there are no second acts in American lives.” It’s ironical then that the second act of an American life he helped create outshines the other ones.

What Would You Do With 'Seven Pounds'?

by Brett Parker

I had a professor in college who loved thought-provoking films. He worshipped films that pose big questions to an audience, revolve around moral dilemmas, and evokes thoughtful discussions afterwards. I think of this professor as I watch Seven Pounds, a film I think he would enjoy. The film slowly unravels to reveal a very complicated moral situation that will undoubtedly challenge moviegoers’ thoughts. This isn’t an easy-breezy melodrama but a wounded and heartbreaking tale of redemption that allows the viewer to sort through its blurred moralities.

Will Smith stars as Ben Thomas, a withdrawn and enigmatic IRS agent who appears to be on a mission of redemption. For the film’s first hour, we see Ben observing and interacting with various people, trying to figure out if they are each decent and genuine people. One thing all of these people have in common is that they have a physical handicap or a personal struggle in their lives that hold them back from complete happiness. It grows obvious that Ben wants to improve their lives with what appears to be an elaborate plan he obsesses over. Only as the film progresses do we realize how all the pieces fit and the enormity of Ben’s plan is realized.

It’s also obvious that Ben is a broken man who is unable to forgive himself for some sort of tragedy in his past. His friend Dan (Barry Pepper) tearfully agrees to help Ben with his mission although it’s obvious he is anguished by it. Ben’s Brother (Michael Ealy) tries desperately to re-enter his life, but Ben keeps a considerable distance, as if to spare him from more heartache. Ben’s best relationship in the film is with Emily (Rosaria Dawson), a sweet woman who suffers from a failing heart. They slowly grow a real affection for each other and we briefly glimpse Ben rediscovering feelings of warmth and happiness. But alas, Ben sticks to his elaborate plan with haunting results.

I know I’ve been extremely vague about the details of Ben’s plan, but so is the film. Ben’s motives are kept under tight wraps until the film’s final 15 minutes, although observant moviegoers will probably be able to figure things out rather quickly (I know I did). Considering what we eventually learn about Ben’s plan, it was probably best to hold all the details until the very end. There are some viewers who will probably object to the film’s motives and to have revealed them at the forefront would probably cause those viewers to reject the film before it even gets going. By prolonging the explanation, we get to know Ben and the people surrounding his mission very intimately. We come to greatly understand their needs and feelings. Even if we don’t agree with Ben’s plan in the end, we at least understand his need to have one.

Paul Newman once said that it’s more fun as an actor to play characters that are the complete opposite of yourself. Indeed, it’s always interesting to watch movie stars create characters that contrast differently with their public personas. Will Smith the person seems like one of the nicest and happiest movie stars alive. He always seems extremely generous, charismatic, and outgoing in interviews and appearances. So it’s rather curious and fascinating that he’s attracted to withdrawn and conflicted characters. Notice the characters he’s played lately in I Am Legend, Hancock, and now Seven Pounds: these are hardened and disillusioned men concealing deep wounds in a protective shell. Seething anger and crippling sadness lurk ever so closely to their surfaces, almost causing their nerves to collapse. That Smith can play such dark notes to perfection is rather astonishing.

Smith’s appeal is important to this material, for it lures us into this emotional journey and towards its complex conclusion. There are those who accuse this movie of being manipulative. Perhaps it is, but the film’s articulate plotting and heartfelt performances make it a competent and compelling drama in its own right. Besides, I like the way it evokes strong moral questions about redemption and justifying good. If one carries out the ultimate good deed by committing the ultimate sin, can it still be considered a justified redemption? We’re always quick to applaud heroes who make huge sacrifices for the ones they love, well what about when they do so for complete strangers? Would you do what Ben does if you had been through what he’d been through?

I wish the film had tighter pacing and arrived at its point a tad quicker, but these are only minor complaints. I’m very thankful that Seven Pounds isn’t just a cookie cutter melodrama out to please mass audiences but actually gives viewers complex ideas to think about long after the movie is over. It’s such a pleasure to watch Will Smith avoid typical Hollywood vehicles and challenge himself with haunted and heartbreaking roles. The film was directed Gabrielle Muccino, who worked with Smith before on The Pursuit of Happyness. That film packed an emotional punch that honestly made me cry. It’s some kind of miracle that Smith and Muccino pull off that feat again.

That 'Slumdog' Stole My Heart!

by Brett Parker

When was the last time a cinematic romance touched you? I’m talking really got to you? Twilight sure as hell didn’t achieve that, although millions of teen girls claim it did. We live in cynical times where most big-screen romances are bogged down by commercial phoniness. It’s beginning to seem like an innocent movie romance that can produce genuine affection, heartache, and inspiration is damn near impossible to create.

Well not anymore. Behold Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire, a tale of longing and true love that will sneak up on you and have your heart beating again for silver screen love. This is a rich film that can be called many things: an energetic adventure, a unique exploration of the mystic Indian landscape, a colorful tale straight out of Dickens, an underdog story, yet when all is said and done, it is ultimately the story of a love that refuses to die and is worth fighting for. It’s certainly worth watching; this romance penetrates the grinchy walls over our souls and hits us straight in the heart. This one’s the real deal.

The opening scene shows the film’s hero, Jamal (Dev Patal) being beaten by a giant police officer. Jamal is a contestant on the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? and is performing surprisingly great. He has answered every question correctly and is one question away from winning the entire contest. This raises suspicion from forces behind-the-scenes of the show. Jamal is a life-long poor citizen who is currently holding down a job as a tea boy for a cell phone company. Almost anyone can tell that Jamal is not the best-educated of people. How can this unsophisticated “Slumdog” possibly know every single answer of this contest? Surely, he must be cheating!

As it turns out, the questions he is being asked on the show ironically correspond to significant moments in Jamal’s hard and adventurous life. Forced to explain how he knew the answers to a Police Sergeant (Saurabh Shukla), Jamal recalls the story of his poverty-ridden life, which includes witnessing the death of his mother, pan-handling for a sinister hustler, and pretending to be a tour guide for the Taj Mahal. Both Jamal and his brother, Salim (Madhur Mittal), had to beg, fight, and hustle their way through the slums of India in order to survive. In his younger years, Jamal met and fell in love with Latika (Freida Pinto), another poor orphan who became a prostitute in order to survive. Jamal has always been in love with her and dreams of one day whisking her away to a safe and better life, although the cynical Latika fails to see how their social situations could ever allow this to happen. Yet Jamal keeps hope alive and even thinks his game show stint could help matters to his advantage.

Critics have likened to Slumdog Millionaire to classic stories such as Oliver Twist and Huckleberry Finn, and it truly is easy to spot the adventurous energy and colorful character strokes of those earlier works. Like those stories, the film is a grand canvas tale filled with fascinating episodes that help sculpt an enormously appealing story. It also helps that the Indian landscape is seen with great vividness. Students of films like City of God will recognize this style of filmmaking, yet the story is filled with such energy and heart that the film’s visuals feel anything but routine. Much credit is due to directors Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan in finding the right visual scheme to make this likeable story feel less convenient and cute than it probably is.

Danny Boyle is a director who can take seemingly familiar stories and make them surprisingly effective. His zombie film 28 Days Later is probably the scariest film I’ve ever seen and even commercial fare like The Beach is more unique and thoughtful than we’re used to. I admit my wall of cynicism was thrown up as I went to take in this film, yet Boyle’s love story was able to genuinely pull on my heart strings like no other film has for a very long time. I was so surprised by how touched I was. This is probably due to the strong performances from both Patal and Pinto as the yearning lovers. Their eyes are filled with such anguish and longing that we buy every inch of their love. Listen to Jamal’s reason for going on the game show or watch what happens when the final game show question is revealed to him. Boyle and his actors know how to make this material spring from the heart and hit yours.

I know I sound like quite the softie right now, but that’s how powerful Slumdog Millionaire is. You can walk into the theatre with an ice-covered prune in your chest and walk out with an uplifted and inspired heart. Even the film’s final Bollywood dance number will have you pumped with excitement. This is one optimistic experience that will rejuvenate anyone’s affections for India, filmmaking, and old-fashioned romance.

'Four Christmases': Zero Fun

by Brett Parker

I was just watching Swingers the other day. What a great comedy. It still holds Vince Vaughn’s best performance, one in which he creates the silly-charmer persona we would come to love him for in later pictures. You know what made Swingers so great? It was honest. In telling the story of young actors who enjoy a fun California nightlife, men everywhere found a film they could strongly relate to. We know these characters. We have friends just like Vaughn and Jon Favreau. We hung out at bars just like theirs. We tried to pick up women the same way they did. In great comedy lies great truth.

Four Christmases, the latest comedy from Vince Vaughn, suffers from favoring the opposite idea. It takes a seemingly relatable scenario-visiting family on the holidays-and takes it to such manic and bizarre extremes that it becomes the furthest thing from any recognizable reality. This wouldn’t be a problem if laughs were delivered, but this is one of the most dead-in-the-water comedies in recent memory. The film wants to be a hilarious spin on real-life holiday anxieties, but we’re not laughing and we’re not convinced.

The film stars Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon as Brad and Kate, a happy and loving couple who reject the idea of marriage and family. Both are children of divorce with dysfunctional families and are fearful of repeating the mistakes of their parents. Their indifference over their families has also caused them to skip out on Christmas year after year. They feed their families lies about going on global peace missions while sneaking off to exotic locales for Christmas vacation. However, their current escape plan goes awry when all the flights at their airport are cancelled due to fog. A local news station ropes them into a live interview on TV about their travel plans, allowing their families to realize that they are in fact home for the holiday. Seeing no way out, Brad and Kate decide to visit all of their parents in the same holiday.

Brad and Kate’s divorced parents, and each of their respective families, are a crazed showcase of dysfunctional people. There’s Brad’s father, Howard (Robert Duvall), a macho meanie who raised Brad’s brothers (Jon Favreau and Tim McGraw) into UFC Cage Fighters. There’s Kate’s mother, Marilyn (Mary Steenburgen), a sweet cougar with an obsession over a new age Pastor (Dwight Yoakam). Brad’s mother, Paula (Sissy Spacek), is eerily dating Brad’s childhood friend (Patrick Van Horn) and Kate’s father, Creighton (Jon Voight) is…well…a surprisingly patient and gentle older man.

Spending time with family over the holidays is pretty much a subject we can all relate to. We all know what it’s like to be thrown together into the same room with our extended families and others, in a situation where we must display kindness even if we have serious reservations about certain family members. Instead of making honest and insightful observations about holiday bonding, Four Christmases favors zany sitcom situations that possess alarming hostility and awkwardness with very little humor. We can hardly relate to the family situations the characters face, therefore we find little reason to care. Does anyone really have overly-hostile brothers who viciously attack them every five minutes for no reason? Has anyone ever been plucked from a Church audience and thrown into a staged re-enactment of the Nativity story without direction? Has anyone ever had a Christmas where they’ve gone berserk on children from within a bouncy-bounce? If you’ve answered yes to any or all of these questions, my prayers go out to you.

Dysfunctional families thrown together for the holidays can be, and has been, the source of great comedy. You won’t find it here. I think I only laughed three times throughout the entire film. I’m not exaggerating, I literally counted: three times. Brad and Kate role-playing at a party, Brad performing in the Nativity scene, and a look through Kate’s childhood scrapbook provided the only laughs I had throughout the entire film. This is a comedy dead-zone of silence. I was also annoyed by how the film basically limps toward its ending. I should probably be grateful that the film doesn’t attempt to prolong the inevitable happy ending, but some kind of plot finesse or complication would’ve been nice.

Maybe I was too spoiled this year by My Best Friend’s Girl and Role Models, two comedies that put me in absolute stitches. I was hoping to keep the cinematic laugh train in full steam, but alas, it’s hit a brick wall. Those two earlier films showed talented people wonderfully pulling big, goofy laughs from everyday social situations, something Four Christmases strides for and fails at. The film’s director, Seth Gordon, pulled humor from real life in the documentary, The King of Kong, yet shows little grace with fictional comedy. Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon are enormously likeable and have nice chemistry together, yet the material doesn’t do their talents justice. They deserve better.

Vince Vaughn is a fine comic actor who has created a large comic fan base over the years. Many of his fans will be compelled to buy a ticket to his latest outing (I know I was) yet they will be supremely disappointed. They’re better off kicking back with Old School, Dodgeball, or one of my favorites, Starsky and Hutch. And by god, if you haven’t seen Swingers yet, do yourself a favor and rent it immediately. The struggling actors of that film would probably despise going to audition for Four Christmases.

'Twilight' Needs A Stake Through Its Heart

by Brett Parker

Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight novel is a book with millions of devoted fans, mostly teen girls and their mothers, who’ve camped out in all night lines to attend midnight showings of the highly anticipated film adaptation. I am the furthest thing from one of those fans. Truth be told, I didn’t even know the novel existed until the film adaptation’s teaser trailer hit the net and stirred up a fan frenzy. I walked into this film knowing very little about it (the ideal way to see a movie) and was very curious to see what all the hype was about. If you want an outsider’s opinion about this phenomenon, I’m your man!

So you already know that teen girls are drooling over this flick. So what does a grown man like myself think? Unfortunately, I was underwhelmed. Twilight takes on two romantic genres that are usually rather difficult to pull off well: the angst-ridden teen kind and the vampire kind. The film comes up short on both accounts. We get the sense that the film cares more about creating durable pop that plunging to the dramatic depths of the film’s imaginative ideas.

As the film opens, we meet Bella (Kristen Stewart), a teenage girl who is leaving behind her mother and step father in Arizona to go live with her father in Washington. Bella’s father (Billy Burke) is the Chief of Police in the small town of Forks, a cloudy country town overflowing with kooky, unsettling characters. Bella goes through the normal motions of being the new girl at school and even develops a crush on the local pretty boy, Edward (Robert Pattinson).

Edward is a strange fellow. He acts like he physically can’t be around Bella. His skin is bright-white pale and he never eats anything. One day, he saves Bella from a car accident with Superman-like speed and strength. What’s this guy’s deal? Why, he’s a vampire, of course! Forks is a town that’s so cloudy, sunlight is easy to avoid. So Edward and his family of Vampires live comfortably in town, feeding on the blood of animals in an attempt to be civilized vampires. Edward is wildly attracted to Bella yet has powerful urges to suck her blood. Bella is attracted to the unique, outsider quality Edward obviously exudes and she seems turned on by the idea of being devoured by the one you love. Ah, young romance!

I remember when John Travolta was on Inside the Actor’s Studio and he explained how he turned down a vampire movie, stating “I care as much about vampires as I do about redoing this carpet.” I think I’m kind of with him on that. I’ve always found werewolves and ghosts more interesting, I guess. Don’t get me wrong, there’s definitely been some fascinating works revolved around bloodsuckers. Bram Stoker’s Dracula is, of course, a masterwork. Interview with the Vampire was a thoughtful study of the species. Twilight does nothing to alter my mixed feelings about these creatures. If anything, the vampires presented here discard traditional, more logical rules about Vampires and embrace more absurd and pointless ones. Sunlight doesn’t kill them, they can see themselves in mirrors, and garlic and stakes never get any mention. But hey, these vampires have heightened agility, mental telepathy, and a love for baseball! Does that make them more interesting? Hardly.

Twilight is a story that seems built on romantic steam yet you won’t find much of it here. Camera angles are suggestive and the actors labor hard at penetrating stares yet seething sensuality and lustful tensions are lacking in power here. Entertainment Weekly just named Out of Sight the sexiest movie ever made. Now that movie knew how to highlight sexiness between two opposite forces. Kristen Stewart is an attractive and wholesome gem as Bella, yet Robert Pattinson fails miserably in the role of Edward. To watch his performance is to watch a chorus line of heartthrob acting clichés. It feels like Pattinson tries unconvincingly to evoke that James Dean-Lost Boy style of youthful anguish, fumbling with it constantly. He acts more constipated than conflicted. His look for the role is a miscalculation, resembling that of an Abercrombie model. It would make more sense for a teenage vampire to exude a Johnny Depp-style ruggedness.

Director Catherine Hardwicke is a filmmaker with a vivid eye for stories about young people, treating them with a rare grace and dignity. She’s most famous for her gritty and honest Thirteen, yet it’s her work on Lords of Dogtown that’s resembled here. That film also looked at a grand troupe of offbeat teenage characters in an unconventional plot. The characters in Lords of Dogtown were cool and relatable while the characters in Twilight are enigmatic and preposterous. Hardwicke labors away to make the film good-looking and heartfelt, but the plot at hand is to too bizarre for her to master. It’s hard to bring youthful honesty to a situation so absurdly supernatural. Perhaps an experienced sci-fi or horror director could’ve made us care more.

Of course Hardwicke brings a bottom-line efficiency to the material that I’m sure will please most fans. She treats the material as seriously as one could treat a teen romance and the film is spared from resembling a TV Family Channel drama. I haven’t heard any complaints from devoted female fans yet. It’s certainly a watchable movie, it’s just too coy about some of its bigger ideas. Would Vampires really look at us as both food and romantic objects? Could a teen girl really feel true love for a boy who watches her in her sleep and ponders the thought of killing her? Would teenage Vampires really subject themselves to high school classes for hundreds of years, forever and ever? You won’t find full closure on these questions here.

So if you want a romantic, observant, sexy, and funny tale of mythic creatures dealing with teenage angst, skip Twilight and rent Teen Wolf. I’m serious. Sure, it’s a silly 80s comedy, but it honestly achieves what Twilight sets out to do a hell of a lot better! Is that cool or sad?

A Small 'Quantum' of Bond Thrills

by Brett Parker

There’s a big problem I became all too aware of as I watched Quantum of Solace, the latest installment in the James Bond franchise: the film seems more interested in looking like a Bourne film than a Bond one. Of course, there’s plenty here you’d expect in a Bond film: action scenes, sexy women, Daniel Craig’s undeniable coolness. Yet it seems curiously devoid of the usual fun and excitement we feel towards the franchise. What we have here is a spy thriller built on darkness and realism when what we want is a Bond adventure built on exhilarating escapism.

The film picks up moments after the last installment, Casino Royale, ended, with Bond furious over the betrayal and death of his love, Vesper, and capturing the icy villain, Mr. White (Jesper Christensen). Bond and his agency interrogate Mr. White and discover the existence of a shadowy organization known as QUANTUM, a group with “people everywhere” bent on world domination. As he travels around the world to investigate this group, Bond uncovers a plot to control Bolivia’s water supply, led by the slithery Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric). With help from a vengeful beauty named Camille (Olga Kurylenko) and old ally Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright), Bond sets out to stop Greene and find some kind of closure with his feelings over Vesper.

Casino Royale was not only my choice for the best film of 2004 but was probably the greatest James Bond film I ever saw. Director Martin Campbell wonderfully crafted a film that not only honored and perfected the Bond conventions we’ve come to love, but also focused on human drama within the material we never truly sensed before. For the first time ever, Bond seemed like a real human being with feelings and demons. He wasn’t just an action figure, but a conflicted soul capable of deep rage and love. The presence of Daniel Craig as Bond proved to be electric. He embodied a sense of danger and sensuality not sensed in the role for years. He is the best Bond since Sean Connery and I think he comes within an inch of overthrowing the Scotsman to become the best Bond ever.

Marc Forster may have seemed like an unlikely choice to direct the latest Bond installment, but at the time it seemed like a promising decision. Forster has spent his career directing intimate character pieces (Monster’s Ball, Finding Neverland, The Kite Runner) that span different canvases and genres. Clearly, the producers wanted to expand on the dramatic complexities Royale presented and felt Foster could bring his intimate touch to 007 himself. So I’m in awe of what a misfire Quantum of Solace is, for it appears that Forster’s directing may be the source of the problem. Forster has stated in interviews that he was never really much of a Bond fan before taking on this project and it really shows. Most of the things we love about the Bond genre (the double entendres, the suavity, the colorful villains with buffoonish schemes, sexy time with suggestive Bond girls) have either been discarded or seriously dulled-down. Worse yet, the character depths of Bond have gone completely out the window.

Forster’s main concern seems to be merging Bond into a Jason Bourne picture. By that, I mean the film mainly focuses on the treacheries and complexities of a global organization as well as breakneck, high octane actions sequences. Forster stages these action scenes with the same herky-jerky visual style of the Bourne pictures yet they don’t feel as effective or as significant. Martin Campbell showed a stronger technical elegance with Royale, allowing the audience to observe the action from a considerable distance yet still being able to feel the intensity of it. I think it’s a mistake to smother a Bond film with relentless action. It’s considerably more fun to watch Bond seduce women and charm his way through exotic parlors than to crash cars and run from explosions.

What’s more disappointing is the fact that the wonderful Daniel Craig seems restrained by the banal script this time out. He is not allowed to explore the character or have fun with it the way he did last time. Craig can play Bond’s suavity and humor to absolute perfection, yet this time he’s forced to be an introverted action figure. There’s dramatic moments here and there, but nothing even touches the moment in Royale where Bond confronts himself in a bathroom mirror after killing two men. He does what he can with what he’s got and it’s a testament to his talents that he basically saves this film. Craig is too much of a high-wattage talent to numb down and he proves that he can stand strong in a mediocre and shaky Bond film. This man is a true movie star.

As for the rest of the cast, they’re effective yet pale in comparison to the memorable performances from Royale. Kurylenko is a true beauty, yet the mysterious sexiness and intelligence of Eva Green is sorely missed. Amalric reaches greatly to create a deliciously eccentric Bond villain, yet he lacks the compelling creepiness Mads Mikkelsen displayed so naturally as Le Chiffre. I realize it may seem a bit unfair to hold Quantum of Solace up to the greatness of Casino Royale, but Solace also feels less entertaining than the more disposable Bonds. Die Another Day, for example, may have been a shark-jumping video game, but at least Bond’s loveable charm and wit was in full volume.

Strangely enough, I find myself recommending the film. It does have its strong points. Despite the annoying need to copy the Bourne style, some action scenes do prove thrilling, such as the opening car chase and a struggle with a henchman on construction ropes. Gemma Arterton conveys a surprising cuteness and innocence as Bond girl Strawberry Fields (love that name), making you wish she had more screen time. The opening animated titles are some of the best the series’ ever had and even though I had my reservations at first about Jack White and Alicia Keys’ opening tune, “Another Way to Die,” the song has truly begun to grow on me. It feels like any Bond movie with Daniel Craig in the role can’t ever really be bad. I guess a mediocre Bond film is better than, say, a really good Resident Evil movie, if you feel where I’m coming from.

So we can chalk this up as one of the lesser Bond pictures, although I wouldn’t go so far as to call it one of the failures. I hope the next time Craig comes out the gate, the filmmakers allow Bond to be funnier, more suave, more willing to take girls to bed. There’s a reason moviegoers have cherished Bond for so long and the filmmakers shouldn’t shy away from the escapist flavoring the franchise was built on. As Martin Campbell demonstrated, the genre can have the best of both worlds. I found real hope with the film’s final shot though; perhaps the Bond we truly love will return to form soon enough.

Before I go, I want to bring attention to two things: (1) Quantum of Solace is NOT a bad title for a Bond film. Just because it’s not the easiest thing to roll off the tongue, we have to knock it? If it was good enough for Ian Fleming, it’s good enough for the Bond franchise. Deal with it. And (2) how come Bond doesn’t get to say his famous line, “Bond…James Bond?” It’s not uttered once, at all, throughout the film. How can you possibly make a James Bond picture without that line? What an outrage! Marc Foster should be fined for this!

Demme Gets Intimate With 'Rachel'

by Brett Parker

To watch Jonathan Demme’s Rachel Getting Married is to actively participate in one of the most colorful and interesting weddings you’ve ever seen. Some movies are so gritty and realistic, they can be called slices of life. If it wasn’t for the silver screen standing between us, we could literally be sitting at a table at Rachel’s wedding: listening to the speeches, observing the family drama, helping around the house, and watching some wonderful musical performances. Demme has crafted a film that allows us to feel exactly what it would be like to be a guest at a specific wedding, and we’re very glad we were invited!

As the film opens, we meet Kym (Anne Hathaway), a recovering drug addict who sits eagerly on a bench in front of her rehabilitation center. She has been given a weekend pass to attend the wedding of her older sister, Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt). After being picked up by her father, Paul (Bill Irwin), Kym, as well as the audience, gets whisked away to one of the most unconventional, open-minded, loving, dramatic, creative, and wouldn’t you know it, musical of all weddings. The guest list contains family members of different races, the ceremony is basked in Indian culture, and musicians roam around playing wonderful music. Rachel’s fiancé, Sidney (Tunde Adebimpe) is a musician and the wedding is surrounded by his musician friends who play all sorts of enjoyable sets for the guests. Like Once, this is a film surrounded with talented musicians who see their craft as a supreme form of expression and a language that’s more expressive than English. The music helps to express the positive atmosphere of love and celebration.

Yet not everything is bright and cheery at the wedding. The frantic and self-centered Kym harbors overwhelming guilt and pain over a horrible tragedy that affected the entire family. Deep down, Kym wants some kind of closure on things, and this causes tension with Rachel, who just wants to enjoy her wedding, and Kym’s birth mother, Abby (Debra Winger), who turns out to be the most resentful and least forgiving towards Kym’s tragic mistake.

Fans of indie movies can probably guess the film’s true path right from the opening scenes. On paper, Rachel Getting Married would appear to be your typical wedding drama, with all the family bonds, ceremonial formalities, and emotional revelations. Yet Jonathan Demme and his gifted cinematographer Declan Quinn (Leaving Las Vegas, Pride and Glory) have elevated the script by exploring a most unconventional wedding with a remarkable vividness and bohemian spirit. This movie is filled with inventive and refreshing moments that would appear risky and absurd in a lesser movie with a lesser filmmaker, yet here we are astonished at how easily we buy it.

The example I’m thinking of is the ceremony scene in which Rachel and Sidney exchange their own vows with each other. I’ve always found it ridiculous when men serenade women with their singing voice. Unless you’re Elvis Presley or Frank Sinatra, do these men honestly expect their voice alone to move a girl? Give me a break! So when Sidney begins singing a Neil Young song (of all damn things!) to express his love to Rachel in front of all the wedding guests, I began to get nervous. Yet as the singing went on, I truly felt the sincerity of it and it worked wonderfully within the musical context the film has established. Adebimpe is fully convincing in his efforts and the guests react the exact way we expect them to. In a more polished and shallow Hollywood effort, a moment like this could come across as manipulative and cringe-inducing. Not this time: Demme has let us into a world so intimate and real that we believe this character would really do sing at this exact moment and really mean it.

It’s rare to see a film where every member of the cast hits on all cylinders and are perfect in their performances. Rachel Getting Married is one of those films. I was going to use this space to single out the performances I thought we’re great, until I realized everyone in this movie is perfect and engaging. Demme and his Casting Directors, Tiffany Little Canfield and Bernard Telsey, have filled the screen with distinctive and engaging people who all embody their roles wonderfully and convince us that these are real people at a real wedding. Of course the performance everyone is talking about is Anne Hathaway’s performance as Kym. Playing a frantic, recovering addict can be risky for any actress, considering the grand opportunity to act over the top. Indeed, there are times when Kym isn’t necessarily likeable. Her vicious and selfish tendencies can be rather off-putting at times (especially during a speech she gives at the rehearsal dinner). Yet the radiant and beautiful Hathaway embodies Kym’s gritty spirit with the confidence and fearlessness of a great actress. It’s a testament to her that Kym goes from making us cringe to making us want to hug her. Does Hathaway deserve Oscar-worthy praise here? You bet!

In terms of content, it’s easy to recognize this as a Jonathan Demme picture. Demme has always been a director who focuses on the peculiarities of human behavior within recognizable Hollywood plotlines and we can easily spot how he puts his character finesse on a standard wedding plot. His attention to unlikely relationships, his affection for unique music, and his eye for unexpected human depths can easily be spotted here. Yet visually, the film bears little resemblance to the distinct visual style Demme has fashioned over his career. This time out, both Demme and Quinn favor that true indie style of using digital shaky cam techniques to give the audience the feeling of what it would be like to be standing and sitting right next to these characters. It has that quick and intimate low-budget indie feel, and it works. This is a style we’d expect from some young, art house director and not an Oscar winning Hollywood auteur. Indeed, Demme is a modern auteur whose garnered Hawksian praise for the unique visual style he brings to all of his films. Part of me wonders if this film would work just as well if Demme applied his usual slick and engaging Hollywood tactics as opposed to this quick, naturalistic style we’ve seen countless times before. I think it could and I’d be very interested to see that, but perhaps I’m wrong. Demme’s style works wonderfully, for he has appropriately and effectively found a way to shed the distancing that comes with specific Hollywood techniques and engage us on an intimate level, plucking us right into the middle of this wedding.

It was hard for me to watch this film without thinking of Margot at the Wedding, Noah Baumbach’s downer of an indie drama that also focused on a troubled woman attending the unique wedding of her sister. Both films had a naturalistic visual scheme and concerned themselves with the tensions and bonds of a dysfunctional family as they try and carry out an unconventional wedding. Both films favored a penetrating rawness in obtaining emotional truths not easily seen at a Friday-night multiplex. So here are two films that look extremely similar yet give the audience extremely different vibes. How come Margot at the Wedding felt like a complete waste of time while Rachel Getting Married is a true pleasure? It’s the fact that Demme does a better job of highlighting how families interact and treat each other during a wedding and he sets out to create a cinematic wedding that’s never been seen before. Baumbach’s film is cold and manic-depressive, something that, cinematically speaking, seems too easy to pull off in these times. I admire Demme for crafting a truly joyous and heart-warming wedding atmosphere, which is all the more admirable considering how he still brings all the appropriate weight to the more harrowing and tragic aspects of the story. Basically, Margot at the Wedding didn’t display a strong enough reason for its own existence while we can sense that Demme made Rachel Getting Married to express the fascinating ways a wedding can evoke creative forms of celebration and deep family revelations.

Of course Rachel Getting Married is only entertaining up to a point, since wedding moves in themselves are only entertaining up to a point. Dramatic and fascinating things can be expressed at a wedding, yet to me, the formalities of a wedding can limit stories in escalating towards great fiction. For being at a wedding isn’t exactly the most supreme form of entertainment, is it? Nonetheless, Rachel Getting Married has set a new standard for how pictures of this kind should be done. It plays traditional notes of the genre to absolute perfection while exuding fresh, creative flourishes we never really thought could work so convincingly. I never really got worked up over a wedding film before, yet if future films in the genre have even half the colorful touch of Demme’s film, I’ll be awaiting them in eager anticipation.

A Cop Flick With A Lot of 'Pride'

by Brett Parker

The interesting thing about Pride and Glory is the way it pretends that countless other police dramas about corruption have never existed before. The film may occupy familiar cinematic territory, yet it strangely doesn’t feel that way. Here is a situation where talented stars and filmmakers bring A-Game efforts in trying to make a routine story seem as realistic and relevant as humanly possible, effectively cloaking the age-old clichés staring us dead in the face.

The film opens in a brisk and cold Christmas time in New York City. Four cops are found brutally murdered in a drug bust gone horribly wrong. The four officers were under the command of Francis Tierney, JR. (Noah Emmerich) who is oblivious to how such a situation could turn so deadly. Seeking desperate answers to such an alarming situation, Francis Tierney, SR. (Jon Voight) recruits his other son, Ray Tierney (Edward Norton) to investigate. Ray is a skilled detective with a very troubling past that caused him to bow out of the force early in his career. After a wounded plea from his father, Ray agrees to take on the case. As Ray carries out the investigation, he soon uncovers a disturbing ring of police corruption, one of drug dealing and contract killings, with his brother-in-law, Jimmy Egan (Colin Farrell), as the ring leader. Tensions and violence flair as family loyalties clash with police ethics and confused moralities.

There’s really nothing that goes down in Pride and Glory that you haven’t seen done in a million other cop films. What’s surprising is the way we don’t really seem to notice. The film is a subtle and focused affair that relies on emotions more so than action and regards police corruption as social tragedy instead of just exploited entertainment. Director Gavin O’Connor’s last film, Miracle, also demonstrated a knack for telling an involving and compelling story in spite of the timeless formula it embodies. He certainly knows how to assemble the right talent for the job. Cinematographer Declan Quinn (Leaving Las Vegas, Rachel Getting Married) brings a real artistic grace to the film’s visual scheme; he makes us sense the bleak chill of the winter landscape and places us as a frantic bystander in the urban action as the camera creeps up staircases and down alleyways. The actor’s endless talents ease perfectly into their roles; Norton has that one-two punch of street smarts and everyman we’ve come to expect from him and Voight of course nails the wisdom and conflicts of an aging police patriarch.

The best reason to see the film is the vicious supporting turn from Colin Farrell as the corrupt cop. In his celebrity life, Farrell’s womanizing, partying, and foreign demeanor would make him seem like an Errol Flynn for our times, yet he attacks roles with the compelling charisma and intensity of Al Pacino (his co-star in The Recruit). This comparison probably comes from the fact that both actors have created a staple in playing cops in numerous films. After playing super-cool good cops in S.W.A.T. and Miami Vice, Farrell astonishes us with his horrifying villainy this time out. A scene where he tough-talks a street hood who confronts him at his home makes us feel as if we’re staring down a scary pit-bull and our blood is truly chilled in a scene where Farrell punches a criminal’s wife and threatens to burn his infant child’s face if he doesn’t receive information. Farrell is always a convincing actor and it’s so impressive this time considering the vile nature of his character.

Compared with other cop movies, Pride and Glory isn’t exactly a masterwork. It never achieves the pot boiling tension of Serpico nor does it possess the cool fascination of Miami Vice. One thing it did do, however, was to restore more faith in me towards the Police as an institution. The last cop film I saw, Street Kings, had literally all but one of its characters favor corrupt values all the way up until the very end. This time around, it was nice to see cops discuss the moral values of what they’re doing and make certain decisions in trying to make things right. Not every cop is corrupt to the core, and the film’s realism only strengthens my faith in that ideal.

McFly vs. Bueller: Who's the Coolest?

by Brett Parker

When I was in college, our student newspaper once conducted a reader poll as to who was cooler: Marty McFly from Back to the Future or Ferris Bueller from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. What an awesome debate, I thought, for these two were undoubtedly the coolest teenage characters to ever grace the silver screen, but who would come out on top in a showdown? They certainly make for worthy adversaries: both are confident and charming young men who seek adventure and have a gift for twisting situations towards their favor. They obtain admiration and popularity from the environments they occupy and they know how to outsmart the negative forces out to destroy them. They both have an exceptionally wise and thoughtful outlook on life and, probably most admirable of all, they possess a fierce loyalty towards their girlfriends and best buds. Both are embodiments of a definitive teenage cool that has transcended the 80s and appears to be timelessly celebrated by moviegoers of all generations.

I smiled over the debate as I read about it in the paper, yet I never officially cast a vote for anyone (I was busy tending to my studies, parties, and women). As time went on, I found myself mentioning this debate whenever the subject of movies was brought up and found that’s its one of those debates that really knows how to stir people’s opinions. People not only enthusiastically smile at the idea of such a clever debate but they passionately defend their choices with the intellectual zest of a film scholar. One could say it has become the Obama-McCain debate of the cinephile world. It’s also one of the most polarizing of movie debates: these are two of the most beloved movie characters from two of the most beloved movies from the 80s, how can you possibly choose one over the other?

I recently stumbled upon my definitive choice after a peculiar moment on a Sunday afternoon. I was having a picnic in a local park with a friend and we began having a random conversation about random movies. Out of nowhere, my friend sprung a wallop of a question, “who do you think is the coolest movie character ever?” What a question to spring on a cinephile! There’s no way one could come to a thoughtful, educated answer without doing a ton of research beforehand! Think of all the Steve McQueen or Frank Sinatra movies they’d have to review! Plus, you’d really have to define what type of cool is being discussed. Are we talking the dapper and debonair cool of Cary Grant or the youthful and rebellious cool of James Dean? How about the knowing slickness of George Clooney or the rugged roguishness of Johnny Depp? An entire book can be devoted to such a question! As a true lover of film, I despise leaving such questions unanswered. You have to give them something other than “I don’t know.” So in the moment I found that my generic, off-the-top-of-my-head answer was, simply, “Marty McFly.”

It’s really not hard to see how I could arrive at such a choice. Who wouldn’t want to be a skateboarding, guitar-playing, gun-slinging time traveler? To a kid, McFly’s appeal lies in his adventurous lifestyle, for he could pop up in any time period and still figure out how to come out on top. As a grown-up, one realizes that McFly exudes ideas of confidence and optimism that can be useful to abide by. He has a breezy charm and ironic wit he displays as he marches forward in hectic situations. One could argue that Ferris Bueller possesses the same qualities, and he does (save for the whole time traveling thing). But I would have to give Marty McFly the edge in this battle for the coolest: McFly simply has more adventures, more talents, a bigger heart, and even though this might sound harsh and irrelevant, Michael J. Fox is way cooler than Matthew Broderick in general.

Both McFly and Bueller appear to be masters of their grand environments. Bueller was able to charm and scheme his way around the great city of Chicago and do things that most tourists can only dream about. It’s not every teenager who can skip school to steal a Ferrari (technically), worm into a high-class restaurant, catch a homerun at Wrigley Field, and crash a giant parade float while lip-synching to The Beatles, without getting caught! While Chicago is definitely a grand environment for a teen icon to prove himself, McFly undoubtedly had grander environments to work with. Throughout the entire Back to the Future trilogy, McFly found himself in Hill Valley, California throughout several time periods. Whether it was the sock-hoppin’ 1950s, his home era of the 80s, the ironically weird 2015, or even the Wild West, Marty McFly was easily the man of his domain, charming the locals and defeating the haters. Despite strange culture shocks, McFly always gained his footing and carried on with confidence. Granted, McFly had sequels to further establish his coolness, yet his mastery of both the 80s and the 50s in the first film is enough to outshine Bueller in this aspect.

Bueller undoubtedly is a teen filled with peculiar talents. In attempting to achieve the perfect day off, he shows off skills in computer hacking, role playing, disguises, performing for crowds, and long-distance running. Impressive, yet not as impressive as Marty McFly’s skills Before the age of 18, McFly appears to be an expert at skateboarding, playing the guitar, shooting a gun, riding a horse, spying, escaping gangs and terrorists, and matchmaking. Plus, any teen who could time travel really has it over all other teens really. But what if the roles were reversed? McFly could most definitely work his way around downtown Chicago, but could Ferris Bueller have handled himself in the Wild West and 2015? I have my doubts.

A character’s likeability oftentimes depends on the likeability of the actor playing them. Perhaps McFly has the edge in my mind because I find Michael J. Fox to be a cooler actor than Matthew Broderick. Broderick was pitch perfect as Ferris Bueller and to this day it’s his best performance. Yet since that role, Broderick appears to have fashioned himself on playing geeky cornballs. He’s never really had a role as smooth or as stylish as Bueller since then. Fox, meanwhile, continued on the path of witty charmer throughout his career and could still probably play a character as cool as McFly. Judging by their careers and acting choices, Bueller was probably a carefully-constructed performance from Broderick while McFly seems to have sprung from Fox’s already appealing charisma.

Don’t think for one second that I have some kind of disdain for Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. I find the film one of the best teen movies ever made and John Hughes’ best film, hands down. The film is a cheerful, feel-good experience that exudes wonderful lessons about enjoying life. Critic Richard Roeper has casually referred to the film as the anti-suicide movie, an honor I find very appropriate. Ferris Bueller himself is a character of enormous style and appeal whose wisdom and humor is of infinite value to moviegoers like me. His ideals on living life to the fullest and treating yourself right were a grand inspiration to me as a child and I have always carried them around with me in the back of my mind. “Life moves pretty fast, “he tells the audience, “if you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it!” That’s practically my motto.

Bueller is aces all around, but unfortunately, he’s #2 to Marty McFly, the undisputed king of teenage movie cool (sorry James Dean, you didn’t have a hover board or a life preserver). McFly has taught countless moviegoers how to stand up to haters, fight for your friends and family, and always consider the future of your actions. It’s such a close debate for me, but I know in my heart that McFly is my ambassador of cool. Now, is he the coolest movie character ever? That’s a question for another article I’d seriously have to research. I’d have to give serious consideration to cats like Danny Ocean, Roger Thornhill, James Bond, and Captain Jack Sparrow before I gave McFly the prize. If nothing else though, I’ll tell you this: if you live to be even half the cool cats McFly and Bueller were, then you my friend were on a really dope path!

New to DVD: 'Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'

by Brett Parker

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull opens with the legendary archeologist being pulled from the trunk of a car, fedora and all, and thrown to the ground by evil Russians, forcing him into yet another dangerous adventure. It’s a fitting opening when you think about it, for it also represents a screen hero being plucked from an earlier era and being forced to do his thing in a new cinematic age. Whether he likes it or not, or whether we like it or not, the man in the hat is back in action. And I am incredibly happy to report that he’s as good as he ever was. It’s been 19 years since there’s been an Indiana Jones film (1989’s The Last Crusade); Harrison Ford has grown older and Steven Spielberg more sophisticated. What is so special about this sequel is that after all these years, both of them still has what it takes to pull of a fun Indy flick.

The year is 1957 and an aging Indiana Jones (Ford) finds there is just as much excitement and danger in his world as there’s been in past years. There’s an army of evil Russians, led by the villainous Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), who need Indy’s expertise in unearthing the secret to mind control. There’s a spunky young greaser named Mutt (Shia LeBeouf) who needs Indy’s help to free a kidnapped professor (John Hurt) by finding an ancient artifact known as the Crystal Skull. These two plot threads not only tie together but lead Indy and his companions to Nevada, Peru, and the Amazon where they face such dangerous hazards as quicksand, man-eating ants, nuclear explosions, tribal warriors, booby traps, other-worldly beings, and even relationship drama as its revealed that old girlfriend Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) is Mutt’s mother.

Did the world exactly need another Indiana Jones film? I’m not entirely sure, but I do know that it’s great seeing the character again in a film that can honestly stand with the sequels. After years of imitators and wannabes, it’s almost a miracle that the filmmakers manage to keep things feeling fresh and exciting. It tries new things, yet it doesn’t betray the Indy formula we’ve come to love. It keeps things familiar, yet it steers clear of being redundant. One of the things I love is the updating to the 1950s. Since an older Indiana Jones would have to exist in a 1950s setting, the filmmakers have decided to keep things fun by making throwbacks to B-Movies of the 50s (like how the earlier Indy’s were throwbacks to the 30s and 40s). Many things you would expect to find in a 50s flick (aliens, anti-communist ideals, mind controlling, nuclear anxieties, sock-hop teenagers) show up in the plot and its great fun watching Indy wrestle with the Baby Boomer age.

Harrison Ford may be 65, but he can still crack that whip and jump those cars as if he were a thirty-year-old. He still has the smarts, the wit, and the presence to resurrect the Indy we all remember and love. If anything, Ford’s age makes the character appear more human than he has before (especially in a scene where a Russian soldier pounds on him). I was also impressed by how well Steven Spielberg has slipped back into the action-adventure mold that put him on the map in the first place. He may have shown growth and maturity with Schindler’s List and Munich, yet the child within the legendary filmmaker is back in full swing as he creates some of the most inventive and exciting adventure scenes in recent memory. Indy’s escape from both a government warehouse and a nuclear explosion are wonderfully reckless, a café brawl and a car chase through a jungle prove to be clever fun, an ocean of man-eating ants prove to be the ultimate creepy crawlers of the whole series, and I have to admit that the film’s climax contains the Indiana Jones visual to end all Indiana Jones visuals. Shia LeBeouf also adds to the fun by making Mutt Williams a cooler-than-cool life force who’s surprisingly just as appealing as Jones himself. My fedora is also off to George Lucas as well. I questioned his imagination after watching his interviews on the Indiana Jones DVDs and I even questioned his sanity after he made the Star Wars prequels, yet it must be said that he has appropriately used his clout to find the right ideas for a new Indy movie.

The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull doesn’t exactly come out flawless; it shows a few scratches in its humor and pacing. The one-liners and sight gags aren’t as sharp as they used to be and the film slows down to explain its plot way more than it should, yet these are only minor complaints. It’s the B-Movie escapist fun you’ve been waiting for and it doesn’t disappoint. Critics have been knocking the film for being nothing more than a silly effects romp. People forget that before Raiders of the Lost Ark was regarded as a film classic, Spielberg and Lucas had set out to make exactly that! Growing up, I’ve heard moviegoers of the 80s tell me how exciting it was to see an Indiana Jones film on the big screen, and I’ve finally gotten to experience that for myself. The original posters for Raiders of the Lost Ark proclaimed the film as the return of the great adventure! I can’t think of a better way to describe this film!

Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will be released on DVD October 14th.

Dane Cook is My New 'Best Friend'

by Brett Parker

This past summer movie season rolled out an avalanche of promising comedy vehicles from hot and popular comedians whose talents have been praised to the high heavens. Talents ranging from Steve Carrell to the Judd Apatow Gang served up promising comedies that looked hilarious in their trailers and hype. In the weeks leading up to the release of these individual comedies, I read countless articles praising the comic genius of the rising talents behind these films (even Mike Myers received honorable write-ups leading up to the release of The Love Guru, the entirety of that fiasco not being fully eclipsed yet). Apparently, America loves these comedians and believes were in the midst of some sort of comedy renaissance for the YouTube era.

As I went about my religious summer movie going this year, I made sure I took in all of these potential laugh fests. These titles include Get Smart, Pineapple Express, and Tropic Thunder. I enjoyed these films; they were likeable in their cheerful goofiness. My award for the best comedy of the summer goes to Tropic Thunder, mainly for its intelligent and observant satire of Hollywood business and Robert Downey, JR’s brilliant performance as an Australian actor playing a black Vietnam soldier. Yet I noticed a certain disappointment in these comedies I saw, even in Tropic Thunder. I didn’t laugh that hard. Sure, I smiled and chuckled consistently, yet big bellowing laughs were absent from my viewings. Cinematically speaking, these films were competently made with exceptional production values and had a knowing comic intelligence about them. But unlike comedy classics like Animal House and Slap Shot, there weren’t consistently big laughs throughout the films. I realized it had been a very long time since I lost my mind with laughter while seeing a movie. When I go to see a comedy, I want to laugh so hard that it hurts. Nowadays, that seems like a grandiose demand. America is in love with our current slew of comedians, throwing around the word “genius” like candy, but how come I’m not laughing?

If there’s one comedian who isn’t being branded a genius, it’s Dane Cook. Cook is a zany comedian who is beloved by the current generation of college kids (especially the female ones) yet on countless occasions, I’ve heard extensive arguments about how Cook is “not funny.” Indeed, it seems to be a popular debate within the comic community as to whether or not Cook has true comic talent or not. His film career thus far has done little to elevate Cook’s status. Despite a worthy dramatic turn in Mr. Brooks, Employee of the Month and Good Luck Chuck proved to be lackluster efforts that are even elusive of beloved cult status. I’ve always found Cook to be a talented stand-up comedian, but the question always remained about whether or not Cook had a future in feature films.

That question was put to rest recently after a trip to the movies with my Uncle. As a cinephile who would sit through anything, I left the choice of film up to my Uncle. He decided upon My Best Friend’s Girl, a romantic comedy that Cook stars in with Jason Biggs and Kate Hudson. I figured, sure, let’s see what the kid can do this time. What proceeded turned out to be the best laughing fit I’ve had in the past year. The movie was hilarious. My Uncle and I were laughing so hard we were dropping things. The audience chuckled, but we were roaring. People kept staring at us as if two escaped hyenas had roamed into the theatre. Here it was, a comedy that finally made me laugh till it hurt, and it’s one of the worst-reviewed comedies of the year staring a comedian whose been a whipping boy in most entertainment circles.

Of course I can understand why the film isn’t getting any love. If someone told me a romantic comedy with Jason Biggs and Kate Hudson was side-splittingly hilarious, I’d think they were a dimwit whose only seen five movie their whole life. On the surface, My Best Friend’s Girl has the bone structure of a cutesy romantic comedy: A nerdy office worker named Dustin (Biggs) recruits his best friend Tank (Cook) to help him win back a beautiful girl he blew it with (Hudson). The film’s devilish twist comes in Tank’s method for helping Dustin: Tank has a side business in which men pay him to take their ex-girlfriends on the worst date of their life. So obnoxious is Tank’s efforts and so horrifying is the date’s awfulness that his dates always run back into the safe, familiar arms of their former boyfriends. Tank’s repulsive methods include vulgarity, strippers, making the woman pay for everything, and performing oral sex on a burrito. This guy is Hitch from hell.

Most critics have condemned the film for its relentless raunchiness and Cook’s manic efforts to obtain a laugh, two things I think rescue the film from mushy irrelevance. The current dating world can be an awkward and cynical place, so I don’t feel the film’s raunchiness is entirely indifferent to the material. It spits in the face of the polished, routine humor of most romantic comedies and makes no apologies or deceptions about its intentions. I’m all for mixing up the rom-com formula. Plus at a time when most of these flicks have zero brains, this one at least has half a brain. The film takes on a sort of thoughtful discussion about what women are attracted to. Dustin thinks being nice and supportive will get you girls while Tank thinks being a Grade-A Jerk is the most efficient way. That Tank’s philosophy appears to be the winner of that debate isn’t entirely far-fetched and does reveal some sad truths about contemporary dating.

As a comedian and movie star, Dane Cook appears to be that polarizing performer you either love or hate. He’s like a hipster Jim Carrey on speed who shows no mercy in getting laughs. While a comedian relentlessly combing for laughs can be a scary thing, I think Cook is hilarious in his efforts. His audacity and randomness is not wasted and his very goofiness is too outsized not to be affected by it. I think one of the reasons Cook works better here than in most of his films is because of the seasoned eye of Director Howard Deutch. Deutch is best known for directing the teenage classic Pretty in Pink yet I most admired his work on the hilarious fare of The Great Outdoors and The Replacements (yes, I found The Replacements hilarious! Any movie where a grown football team does the electric slide to “I Will Survive” is funny in my book!). Deutch has the experience to know how to manage a comic life force such as Cook as opposed to some first-time former commercial director. There’s a certain cinematic grace to the material and Cook feels like part of the film as opposed to the film being built around his manic humor.

Of course this film is far from perfect. There are too many musical montages and a few clunky developments. I didn’t fully believe Tank’s sudden decision to ruin a specific character’s wedding, yet I forgave it for being such a hilarious scene that even throws in a great Johnny Cash musical moment. And the film’s ending is hard to buy, relying on the cliché of the woman forgiving the romantic hero for all his wrongdoings and living happily ever after with him. There’s no way Tank can be forgiven for the stunts he pulls in this film (if there’s an actual woman out there who would forgive a guy for doing what Tank does, she should write me!) Plus, Kate Hudson and Jason Biggs seriously lack the likeable quality Cook exudes here (which is curious, considering his character’s repulsive nature). Hudson never really mastered the charming quirkiness her mother, Goldie Hawn, displayed so well. Biggs’ usual shtick of the loser who’s clueless about women is wearing seriously thin. I don’t blame Biggs, I’m sure he’d love to do something else with his career besides being a lovelorn geek, but the beast of typecasting is beating his image down into redundancy. Yet Cook isn’t alone in grabbing serious laughs. Alec Baldwin shows up in the howlingly funny role of Tank’s Dad. In a scene where Baldwin talks about sleeping with a female assistant, he unleashes the single funniest thing he’s ever said on the big screen. It made me want to start watching 30 Rock.

What can I say? I thought this movie was so damn funny. Funny enough to make me want to write a review about it two weeks after its release, probably before it’s on its way out of theatres. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and I felt obligated as a critic to report that Cook’s lightweight romantic comedy runs laughing circles around the much-hyped comedies of summer’s past. In the debate of whether or not Cook is funny, I know where I stand. This film seriously got me thinking about how to properly judge a comedy. My Best Friend’s Girl isn’t as thoughtful, slick, or as well-acted as Tropic Thunder, yet it scores way bigger laughs in my book. If a comedy is supposed to make you laugh, is the film more exceptional for greatly achieving that? Is the film’s laugh factor enough to hold it in high regard? My Best Friend’s Girl may never be regarded as a comedy classic, yet for $10 and 90 minutes of my life, it achieved something so-called “comic geniuses” haven’t been able to achieve for me in a long while.

Paul Newman: Highlights From A Legendary Career

by Brett Parker

When I think of the word charisma, Paul Newman automatically comes to mind. I can think of no other actor, or human being for that matter, who possessed it more and exuded it better. You hear of specific actors being referred to as “naturals.” Newman was the ultimate one. He could slip his charm and grace into any cinematic situation and completely command the screen. It’s a testament to his talents that he could play anything from handsome heroes to cold outsiders to hopeless losers and still draw our attention and sympathy. Nowadays, performers seem to fall under one of two categories: movie star or character actor. Newman was that rare star who was both of those at the same time and pitch perfect on both accounts.

It’s always hard to believe it when one of your favorite actors passes away, so it’s extremely hard for me to believe that the Academy Award Winning Paul Newman passed away on September 26th, 2008 after a battle with cancer. Newman was an actor who possessed an easy self-confidence and charm that any young man like myself would kill to possess. Watching Newman on film was truly an inspiration, for no matter what role he undertook, he always seemed to be the guy who shakes up his surroundings and marches to the beat of his own tune. While his characters weren’t always admirable people, they always stood up for what they believed in and stayed true to themselves right to the very end. It’s quite amazing how seamlessly Newman’s personality could slip into such a varied gallery of characters. His death is truly the end of an era. There will never be another Paul Newman.

Newman’s film career began in 1954 with The Silver Chalice and appeared to finish up in 2006 in Pixar’s animated Cars. To fire off the names of all his films would be to name some of the most significant classics of the past century. Below is a list of essential Newman classics that wonderfully display his talents and helped to solidify him as a Hollywood legend. They’re the ones we remember him for, whether he was charming us or surprising us. If for some unfortunate reason you haven’t been lucky enough to see the following films, then you must shoot them to the top of your Netflix list immediately:

The Hustler (1960)
They called him Fast Eddie, and he went on to become the essential Hustler character in all of Hollywood history. As a talented pool hustler with a reckless ego, Newman wonderfully displayed traits in his Oscar-nominated performance that would become a staple with most of his later work. Eddie makes us smile with his schoolboy goofiness and cocky swagger, yet it’s his hidden vulnerabilities and gloves-off confrontation with his demons that truly wins our hearts. To this day, it is still the deepest and most thoughtful portrayal of the Hustler persona Hollywood would recycle time and time again. The main characters in films like White Men Can’t Jump, Rounders, and Lucky You all owe something to Fast Eddie.

Harper (1966)
Not one of the more well-known Newman films, but it’s interesting in its light-hearted and quirky take on the hard-boiled private eye flick. As Lew Harper, a private detective on a kidnapping case in Los Angeles, Newman turned our every idea about private eyes upside down an successfully reinvented it. He was handsome, didn’t drink, and always had an amused smile on his face. The heart throb Newman is the last person you’d expect to play a cynical detective, and that’s why it worked so well.

Cool Hand Luke (1967)
If Paul Newman is an actor who bursts with charisma and color in his speech, than the surprising thing about his Cool Hand Luke performance is how subtle he is. Newman stars as a disillusioned chain-gang prisoner in the south who becomes a reluctant Christ figure to the dim-witted prisoners that surround him. Newman kept most of the performance internal, relying on minimal dialogue and his expressive face to convey Luke’s internal pain. The interesting thing is how Newman’s trademark smile and prescience helped to make Luke instantly compelling, making his enigmatic nature more fascinating to watch. It’s one of Newman’s very best performances.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
A unique tale of friendship, this is one of my ten favorite movies of all time, making it my favorite Paul Newman film. In telling the story of western outlaws on the run in the West then South America, George Roy Hill crafted a quirky and thoughtful meditation on western legends and both Paul Newman and Robert Redford set the standard for buddy movie chemistry. Newman gave one of his funniest performances as the cheerful Butch Cassidy and fit perfectly with Redford’s straight-arrowed Sundance. It was a legendary pairing that demonstrated what movie star chemistry can achieve when it hits on all cylinders.

The Sting (1973)
Newman and Redford teamed up with director George Roy Hill once again for some Hollywood fun in this con artist caper. It only made sense that Newman played the seasoned veteran who knows all the tricks that teaches his trade to a young hot shot on the rise. What’s interesting about this film is how easily the “con” game can resemble the “acting” game, allowing the dynamic duo of Newman and Redford to show audiences the zest and skill they put into crafting unforgettable performances.

Slap Shot (1977)
This vulgar and hostile sports comedy is one of the funniest movies ever made. Newman teamed up for a third time with director George Roy Hill to create a look at Hockey that was not only raw and accurate, but also crazy and hilarious. It’s great fun watching Newman revel in the role of Reggie Dunlop, an immature man-child who completely surrenders to his masculine impulses. Audiences had never seen such a raunchy and buffoonish side of Newman before and his conviction in the role is one of the movie’s greatest treats.

The Verdict (1982)
In Sidney Lumet’s superb courtroom drama, audiences got to see Newman at his most desperate and conflicted. As an alcoholic lawyer taking on a giant medical malpractice case, Newman made no apologies as he slipped into the role of a reckless lowlife trying to redeem himself. Gone was his usual self-confidence and endless charms as Newman went to the depths of his soul to express his characters needs and pains. Ben Kingsley may have taken the Best Actor Oscar that year for Gandhi, but there are still those who think Newman deserved the prize for his heartbreaking performance.

The Color of Money (1986)
After winning an honorary Oscar for his unforgettable career, Newman went on to win his first Best Actor Oscar by returning to the role that made him a legend in the first place, Fast Eddie Felson. In Martin Scorsese’s sequel to The Hustler, an elder Fast Eddie decides to show the hustling ropes to an upcoming pool whiz named Vincent (Tom Cruise, who at the time was favored to become the next Newman, although many now would differ with that). It was fascinating to see the cocky and conflicted Fast Eddie all grown up as a wise and smooth expert. Newman had an undeniable coolness in the role, seasoned with street-smarts the younger Eddie may not have possessed in the first film. You get chills watching Eddie stepping out from the role of “mentor” and slipping so seamlessly back into the role of the “cool hustler.” As he goes from being Vincent’s mentor to his toughest competition, Newman’s performance taught us a very important lesson: it’s never too late in life to stand up and take back what’s yours.

Like his film career, Newman devoted himself to perfection in all aspects of his life. He was a devoted race car driver who could drive with the best. He was an astonishing humanitarian who devoted himself to many charities, including the Hole-in-the-Wall Camp, a summer camp for sick children. And the fact that he stayed married to his actress wife Joanne Woodward for 50 years up until his death suggests that the guy figured out the key to marriage as well. Whether in life or in movies, you could learn a lot from observing Paul Newman. He was an American icon who stood for what he believed in and could always be called a class act. His characters used all their charms and confidence to get a hold on their inner character and stand by their ideas of right and wrong. Newman himself once said, “A man can only be judged by his actions, and not by his good intentions and beliefs.” If that is the case, than Newman’s actions make him a remarkable and unforgettable man whose craft and generosity will be celebrated and discussed for generations to come.

'Mother of Tears' Completes a Long-Awaited Horror Trilogy

by Andrew Jupin

There I was, DVD remote in hand, sitting in my living room glaring at the DVD menu on my screen. I wasn't sure if what I had just watched was something I liked, disliked, or flat-out hated. This was my initial confusion after watching Dario Argento's latest, Mother of Tears. On the one hand, the man is far and away the most prolific horror filmmaker of his time. His films are known to horror fans and non-fans alike. He is the kind of filmmaker where the viewer can either get on board and get involved in the story and zaniness of it, or they get left behind and will not have a good time watching.

Mother of Tears is Argento's third film in a trilogy based on powerful witches known as the Three Mothers. The first film being his horror masterpiece, Suspiria, and the second being the flat-but-fine film, Inferno. With Mother of Tears Argento revists his family of witches almost thirty years later which is long enough for most audiences (even fans) remember the corralation between these films. This time, an ancient urn has been discovered in an old cemetery on the outskirts of Rome. When an art student, Sarah (Asia Argento), opens up the urn, the Mother of Tears is released to the world and her effect is felt immediately throughout Rome. People start randomly beating each other, mothers kill their children, demented people eat their victims and so on and so on. As it of course would, this epidemic all comes down to Sarah--who is a descendent of a powerful witch--who needs to harness the powers she was born with to defeat the Mother of Tears and stop the insanity that continues to plague the city.

I can't say in good conscience that you should watch this movie. Hardcore Argento fans will be pleased and those getting into the film for the gore will be more than pleased. The casual viewer on the other hand will be absolutely disgusted and mortified. This is a tough film to watch at parts however most of the violence is done very well. Do keep in mind that the gore is incredibly over-the-top and a few choice scenes had me left with my jaw hanging low. That said, for all the violence, gore, and predictable story turns, I find myself looking back on the film with fondness. I have huge problems with the movie, don't get me wrong. For example, with all the focus on Sarah needing to harness her powers and make her witch mother proud and she's such a great witch if only she could learn how to control her gifts and so on, the climax of the film shows Sarah defeating the Mother of Tears with very physical, non-magical behavior. I guess I had been hankering for some new horror to come my way and Mother of Tears filled the gap nicely. It's not a perfect film, but fun enough to get together with some friends on a Saturday night and enjoy.


Mother of Tears is out on DVD today from Dimension Extreme and Genius Products.

The Peculiar Case of the Unofficial Remake

by Brett Parker

The more you watch movies, the more you realize that everything is almost always a form of something else. Specific themes, formulas, plots, and character types recycle themselves repeatedly throughout the always-evolving cinema and true moviegoers can easily spot these familiarities the second they arrive on screen. I remember I used to think Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs was a highly original crime caper until a film professor of mine screened Stanley Kubrick’s The Killing and highlighted strong connections, both visual and narrative, between the two. However, this doesn’t take away from the skill and impact of Tarantino’s film; one of the great pleasures of cinema is watching how different directors and performers create their own variations on cinematic formulas we’ve come to know and love.

But can that line be crossed? Can a movie borrow so heavily from another film that it diminishes credibility? Where is the line drawn between harmless homage and offensive plagiarism? Of course, I am not necessarily speaking about similar concepts. There are several movies that mirror the ideas of others yet show little resemblance in content. Look at the connections between Deep Impact and Armageddon, American Psycho and Mr. Brooks, Dante’s Peak and Volcano. It’s not uncommon, or wrong, for two films to have identical premises yet different approaches. I’m speaking specifically about films that practically lift plot structures, character traits, emotional developments, and overall ideals from a specific earlier film without citing the proper on-screen credit. The strange thing is, some moviegoers are more forgiving to some “unofficial remakes” than others. What makes an unofficial remake tolerable? Why were moviegoers so accepting of one such as Disturbia yet harsh towards The Girl Next Door?

The main key to not insulting the moviegoing audience is to bring something new to the table. If you’re recycling an earlier film, you not only have to do it well, but add something to the film’s membrane that was missing from the earlier film and makes the current update feel relevant. D.J. Caruso’s Disturbia is a film that was obviously inspired by Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window. Both films involved a voyeur who is confined to his home and believes his neighbor is a murderer. Both voyeurs use special lenses and photographic equipment to spy on their neighbor, hoping to catch him in the act, also while enlisting a female companion to aide in their quest for justice. Anyone with half a film intellect could detect the Rear Window lift right from the trailer, yet Disturbia found itself well-received in both the critical world and the American box office. Not only was Disturbia skillfully made with some very fine acting from youthful performers (especially from Shia LeBeouf in the lead role), but the film brought new ideals to the film that highlighted a relevance with today’s culture. Rear Window is a technical masterpiece that served as a unique meditation on the ideas and rituals of actively viewing film. Disturbia serves more as an ironical view of how easily a serial killer could conduct a life for himself in the suburbs and how average teenagers can use today’s technology to seriously play detective. It’s this present-day take that made Disturbia look everything and nothing like Rear Window at the same time.

If the only thing truly going for an unofficial remake is the borrowed inspiration itself, then it will be extremely difficult to stay afloat. Just look at the disastrous case of The Girl Next Door. The film is an obvious rip-off of Risky Business, the wonderful comic-of-age dramedy starring Tom Cruise. Both films involve a straight-laced teenager who gets involved with a female sex worker and uses this relationship to try and make some good money on the side. While this might sound like a sleazy concept on paper, Risky Business had an artistic depth and maturity that not only explored the human comedy but the serious emotions involved with the concept. It was less interested in being a teen sex comedy and cared more about exploring a teenager’s sexual awakening and ride on the wild side, one desperately needed. The Girl Next Door is pretty much a showcase of every way Risky Business could’ve gone wrong. It lacks precisely the depth and maturity the earlier film demonstrated so well. The Girl Next Door marches through just about every plot development Risky Business displayed and fumbles at every turn. Luke Greenfield is nowhere near the same filmmaker Paul Brickman was on his 1983 film, and it shows terribly: the gags are painfully unfunny, the characters come across like bizarre caricatures rather than actual people, and the film’s use of pop music is horrible as it tries to fit hit songs in scenes where they don’t belong (the film even uses Muddy Waters’ “Mannish Boy” at precisely the same moment in the plot Risky Business did). This disposable comedy could’ve been the perfect opportunity to explore the current sexual cravings of YouTube-Era teenagers or the current boom in porn culture, yet the film doesn’t have the brains or the courage to move beyond “knock-off” status.

If ever there was a film that dances delicately on the thin line between harmless and offensive remakes, it would have to be Sydney Pollack’s 1990 drama, Havana. Here’s a Hollywood film that not only has the courage to lift from an earlier film, but one of the greatest Hollywood films of all time: Casablanca. Casablanca followed cynical outsider Humphrey Bogart as he occupies a politically-divided Casablanca. He harbors strong feelings for a beautiful woman who’s married to a resistance fighter who could do great things for the conflict that grips Casablanca. Instead of proclaiming his love for the woman, Bogart arranges for her to leave Casablanca with her husband to do the right thing and fight for their cause. Now replace Humphrey Bogart with Robert Redford and Casablanca with Havana, Cuba and you basically have the same plot and same developments as Havana. The audacity, right?

The strange thing is, director Sydney Pollack and star Robert Redford put their own distinct stamp on the material and this retread becomes an entertaining showcase of these two men’s talents. Pollack brings a visual zest to the material, attacking this Hollywood product with the eye and energy of a true visual artist. Pollack goes to great lengths to capture the great beauty and tension of Havana’s landscape, allowing the viewer to get a gritty feel for every bar, gambling joint, and restaurant the characters occupy. While Casablanca was confined to studio sets, Havana takes its cameras out into the streets, creating a grander landscape. Robert Redford also takes us to grand depths as well. Redford is one of my favorite actors, mostly due to his reserved coolness and relaxed charm. As Jack Wyle, an aimless gambler, Redford’s movie star talents hit on all cylinders and the performance becomes a nice showcase of everything we’ve come to love about the actor. He does true justice to Bogart’s image, compelling us through the film with an outsider’s appeal and subtle intelligence. I love so much about this film that the only thing holding me back from calling it an exceptional film is the obvious Casablanca connections. It’s not hard to imagine the suits at Universal cooking this project up to rekindle some of that classical Hollywood magic. It’s not the most dishonorable thing, yet it may not have been approached in the wisest manner. I can’t deny the knock-off factor of the film, yet I wouldn’t discourage you one minute from placing this on your Netflix list.

Most of the time, if a film is entertaining and executed with considerable skill, that could be enough for us. Good unofficial remakes can be forgiven if they offer up their own distinct values that separate themselves from earlier films. Plus, today’s moviegoers are so knowledgeable about film that it could be potentially dangerous to try and serve them with more-of-the-same and nothing more. Legally, I’m sure Hollywood works very hard from keeping true offenders of cinematic plagiarism from reaching the silver screen (rumors are circulating now that the copyright holders of the original Rear Window short story wish to sue DreamWorks Pictures for Disturbia). Hopefully, filmmakers are learning that movies need a reason to exist other than exploiting an already used idea.