Top Ten Films of 2007

by Brett Parker
While 2007 was a great year for films, it was also a rather gloomy one. As I look over the films that have made my top ten list, I realize that they are skilled and wonderful films that showcase rather dark and bleak aspects of humanity and society. Even Hot Fuzz, probably the cheeriest film on my list, is a blood-soaked comedy that shows a hilariously frightening side of a controlling society. I realize that since the dawn of the medium, great films have always had heartbreak, death, and despair as its staples. Yet this year, I strongly felt those traits above all others as I marched through the cinema. It seemed mostly cloudy with very little sunshine.

Perhaps this gloomy film season is a reflection of the gloominess of 2007 itself. I’ve heard very few people talk about what a positive year this has been. There was a lot to frown about. The economy was rather chaotic, celebrity culture became suffocating, and the horrors of the Iraq Rolling Stone even published a very witty essay on why this year specifically sucked. If the content of films is indeed a reflection of the society they were produced in, then it only makes sense that these darker times produced darker films. Nonetheless, there were still cinematic wonders to behold and unforgettable performances that will stand the test of time. So let’s celebrate the best of the year and hope that 2008 is a bit sunnier: war continue on.

1) I’m Not There

You’ll be hard-pressed to find a more inventive, defiant, or original film that was released this year. Todd Haynes has made a surreal Bob Dylan biopic that challenges not only the ever-changing images of Dylan himself but also the very idea of the musical biopic. Haynes used six different actors (Marcus Carl Franklin, Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Cate Blanchett, Richard Gere, and Ben Whinshaw) to portray Dylan at various stages in his life and each actor nails their challenging mission to convey Dylan’s unique essence. Blanchett, giving the year’s best female performance, is especially impressive with her dead-on portrayal of the public Dylan we remember the strongest. I myself was not that much of a Dylan fan walking into the theatre, but I found myself in utter fascination with this film from start to finish. It breaks all the rules of the biopic while reinventing them at the same time. Not since The Doors has a musical biopic been so refreshingly trippy and not since Donnie Darko has a cinematic enigma been so much fun to analyze.

2) American Gangster

Ridley Scott brings his distinct eye for grand canvases to the age-old conventions of the gangster picture and creates one of the rawest and most dramatic examples of the genre ever to emerge out of Hollywood. Denzel Washington is absolute dynamite as Frank Lucas, the Harlem crime lord who took the New York drug trade by storm with his Vietnamese Heroin, Blue Magic. Russell Crowe, wonderful as always, is Richie Roberts, the unbending cop who relentlessly tries to take down Lucas’ inner-city empire. Certain aspects of this film may feel familiar to students of Scarface, New Jack City, and King of New York, but make no mistake about it: American Gangster is the smartest and best-looking crime-lord film to ever grace the screen. Scott brilliantly depicts the rise and fall of a modern gangster while pounding home hard-hitting ideas on capitalism, character, and crime.

3) 3:10 to Yuma

Christian Bale and Russell Crowe are two of the most exciting actors working in film today. Having these two read the phone book on-screen would be entertaining. Having them face-off with each other in an action-packed and thoughtful western is fascinating beyond belief. Crowe is a viscous outlaw captured by the law and Bale is an honest rancher hired to escort the villainous cowboy to a prison train at gunpoint. What ensues is a battle of wills and a growing connection between the two that makes for the most dramatic screen team of the year. It says something that their scenes of dialogue are just as exciting as the shootout sequences, which are crafted to perfection. The best westerns have always been layered with underlying meanings and 3:10 to Yuma is rich with compelling ideas scratching beneath the surface. The Freudian homoeroticism is interesting, not only between Crowe and Bale but also Crowe and Ben Foster, who plays the overly-devoted sidekick to Crowe’s outlaw. And the ending says more about Bush America than most people realize.

4) No Country For Old Men

At first glance, No Country for Old Men is so defiant of conventions that it throws you. It veers down a specific path until it casts off on its own and creates its own new direction. On repeat viewings, you realize the brilliance of it all and how this film cuts deeper than most thrillers dare. What starts off as a compelling chase thriller transcends into a deep meditation on the cruel randomness of death and the blind justice of fate. As Anton Chigurh, the sadistic bounty hunter trailing a suitcase of stolen drug money through the Texas landscape, Javier Bardhem creates not only one of the best performances of the year, but one of the great monsters of modern cinema. It’s one of the very best films ever made by the Coen Brothers.

5) There Will Be Blood

We all know Paul Thomas Anderson can be the most inventive of directors and that Daniel Day-Lewis the most forceful of actors, so it almost goes without saying that putting these two together for There Will Be Blood is a cinematic force to reckon with. In telling the story of Daniel Plainview, a cold-hearted oil tycoon drilling for California oil at the dawn of the 20^th century, the film says so much about greed, faith, and corruption of the soul that film analysts can write whole books about it for years to come. While the film evokes memories of Citizen Kane, Giant, and McCabe & Mrs. Miller, There Will be Blood has a sublime quality to it that makes it feel unique. Indeed, Anderson is a filmmaker who seems effortless in making projects feel refreshingly original. And what a performance by Day-Lewis! He isn’t just a great actor here, he is a force of nature that will rock you to your very core! We should just give him the Oscar right now!

6) Beowulf

Using the motion-capture animation effects that was popularized in The Polar Express, Robert Zemeckis unleashes Beowulf, the eye-popping visual effects popcorn ride of the year. Yet the real treat is the care and attention given to the drama and emotions of the story. In telling the ancient tale of the brave warrior who slayed three mystical monsters, the film goes the extra mile to express the psychology, the weaknesses, and the egotistical flaws of its main hero. Much credit is due to the wonderful Ray Winstone, cast as the heroic Beowulf. CGI effects may have been used to give the heavyset Winstone a chiseled exterior, but it’s his hellfire voice and spirit that breathes thrills and chills into his character and the film itself. His Beowulf not only joins Achilles and Maximus among the great movie warriors, but also Marty McFly and Forrest Gump among the great Zemeckis protagonists.

7) We Own the Night

Does We Own the Night play on age-old cop movie formulas? Sure. Is it over-the-top and a tad melodramatic for its own good? Probably. Is it ridiculously exciting in its acting and staging? You bet! We Own the Night is like watching an old school drama filled with a gritty-indie sensibility. The action scenes are fresh and inventive while the performances are focused and intense. Joaquin Phoenix and Mark Wahlberg are electrifying as two brothers on opposite sides of the law in 1980s New York. It may not be groundbreaking cinema, but this film is like an adrenaline shot of excitement that reminds us why we go to the movies in the first place.

8) Talk to Me

In telling the story of Petey Greene, the groundbreaking radio talk show host who was a major voice of Black change in the late 60s, Talk to Me covers several different layers of Petey’s life and hits on countless emotional bases with an effortless, heartwarming charm. The film doesn’t just tell Petey’s story, it explores the responsibilities of social change, the nature of selling out in show business, and how a black man should conduct himself in an ever-changing society. It’s funny, cool, heartbreaking, feel-good, sad, and touching all at once. Great credit is due to Don Cheadle and Chiwetel Ejiofor, who create an on-screen friendship that is both thoughtful and touching. Their final scene together in a pool hall will unexpectedly tug at your heartstrings.

9) The Darjeeling Limited

Wes Anderson has created his most puzzling yet most meditative work to date with The Darjeeling Limited, the story of three estranged brothers on a spiritual journey in India What makes the film so special is how Anderson has big things to say about family and spirituality yet allows the audience to find those messages on its own. This is not an easy film that spells-things-out, but it compels its audience to dig in and unearth its deep thoughts. If nothing else, the film further builds Anderson’s already solid reputation as a brilliant auteur. following the death of their father.

10) Hot Fuzz

The Judd Apatow gang scored big laughs this year with Knocked Up and Superbad, but the honor of funniest comedy of the year goes to Hot Fuzz, the hilarious cop spoof from the crew that brought you Shaun of the Dead. Not only does the film brilliantly send up cop-film clichés, but it also pokes fun at the quick-cutting grandeur of the Michael Bay The laughs just don’t stop coming in this comic thrill ride, especially if you’re an action movie junkie. And this isn’t just a talking heads comedy that sacrifices technical skills for laughs. Director Edgar Wright crafts the film with great cinematic precision and helps create characters and a plot we actually care about outside of the laughs. Simon Pegg is solid as tough super cop Nick Angel, but the real laugh riot here is Nick Frost as the bumbling Danny Butterman. Forget Seth Rogen, the real comedic treasure of the year is Frost, a goofy and sincere oaf who’ll have you in stitches almost every time he’s on camera. Whether he’s plowing through fences, chasing swans, or giving himself massive ice cream headaches, Frost effortlessly creates the best comedic performance of the year. action style.

HONORABLE MENTIONS

-Atonement

-Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead

-Eastern Promises

-Michael Clayton

-Once

-Superbad

OTHER THINGS I REALLY LOVED AT THE MOVIES THIS YEAR

-Johnny Depp channeling David Bowie in Sweeney Todd.

-The Beatles sequence in Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story.

-“Pop Goes My Heart” from Music and Lyrics (Oscar, take notice for Best Song).

-The fact that Justin Timberlake is a talented actor and isn’t just filler in Alpha Dog.

-Jay-Z reinventing the power of the “inspired” soundtrack with his American Gangster album.

-The relaxed final moments of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End.

-I…drink…your…MILKSHAKE!!!!

Reiner's 'Bucket List' is Terminally Ill Emotionally

by Brett Parker

Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman have never acted together in a feature film and now they find themselves starring together in the Rob Reiner comedy, The Bucket List. This film provides the stars with the rather difficult task of distracting an audience from a film that lacks considerable realism, wit, logic, and good special effects. It’s a testament to both actors’ talents, I think, that in spite of the films many flaws, The Bucket List still comes across as entertaining and amusing.

Nicholson and Freeman both star as terminal cancer patients with only months to live. Nicholson is Edward Cole, a medical billionaire who owns the very hospital he is being cared for in, while Freeman is Carter Chambers, a mechanic with a loving extended family who wishes him well everyday at the hospital. Both Edward and Carter share a hospital room and despite their differences, they develop a friendship based mostly on their empathy for each other’s illness. One day, Edward notices Carter scribbling away at notepad and discovers he is making a “bucket list,” a list of all the things Carter wants to do with his life before he “kicks the bucket.”Being a billionaire with no close relatives, Edward realizes he can finance Carter’s bucket list dreams with money that will just go to waste anyways. Cringing at the thought of spending their remaining days in a hospital, Edward and Carter decide to up and travel around the world, fulfilling their wishes on the list. These wishes include skydiving, dining in France, seeing the Pyramids, etc. Edward and Carter have an exhilarating time and really grow close with each other. However, when Carter’s family begs him to come home and secrets are revealed about Edward’s own family history, the two realize that staring down death is more complicated than they thought.

The Bucket List is like eating a really tasty candy bar that you know is really bad for you health-wise. At face value, it’s an enjoyable film. Entertainment-wise, you can do a whole lot worse than watching Nicholson and Freeman living it up all over the world. Yet when you apply logical thought to the finer points of the script, you realize there is a whole lot wrong with this picture. If two men were really dying of cancer, would they really have enough energy to go running around the globe and jump out of airplanes like they do? Would Carter’s wife (Beverly Todd) really be as patient as she is about her husband wanting to spend his remaining days with a wild billionaire instead of with his own family? And this may be a small detail, but would a lifelong mechanic work on a car’s engine while smoking a cigarette? If that thing drops, it could send the fuel line up in flames!

One can usually be forgiving of a flawed screenplay if other parts of the film are of better quality, but The Bucket List shows weakness elsewhere outside of the script. Throughout the film, Edward and Carter visit exotic locations around the globe such as the Taj Mahal, Africa, and Hong Kong. Instead of filming Nicholson and Freeman in these actual locations, the scenes instead take place on unconvincing made-up sets filled in with clunky CGI effects. So obvious are the effects here that you can almost swear to seeing the blue screen placed behind the actors. At first, I thought maybe the filmmakers were trying to brighten the locations up to make them look more sublime, kind of like the dream-like New York City from Vanilla Sky, but who am I kidding? This was obviously done because the producers didn’t want to shell out the dough to send Nicholson and Freeman all over the world.

Also lacking is funny dialogue. You’d think Nicholson and Freeman talking about death and traveling would have you in stitches, but I found myself barely even chuckling throughout the viewing. I don’t know if the stars improvised at all, but they should’ve been given a lot more room for it than they were obviously given here.

Yet it is Nicholson and Freeman themselves who help to redeem this movie for its flaws. They allow certain complexities and details into their characters that give them more depth than is usually allowed in sappy dramadies. I mentioned Carter’s wife earlier. At first you ask yourself how a dying man could abandon his wife to go run off with a complete stranger. Carter tells us why, eventually, stating how his marriage wasn’t as fulfilling as he’d hoped it be. Some may find this to be a cruel and out-of-character, but it actually reveals a human honesty within the character that is a surprise to us. It is also revealed that Edward does not get along with his adult daughter. Instead of the usual father-daughter complications to explain the rift, we discover that his daughter had an abusive husband and Edward called a guy who “takes care of things” to take the husband out of the picture. The husband wasn’t killed, but he never came back. You have to admit this is dark stuff for this kind of entertainment, but that’s probably why it is so welcomed here. Nicholson and Freeman sell this as where lesser actors would fail miserably.

So what we have here is an amusing tearjerker filled with serious logical problems. But with Rob Reiner at the helm, how could we not see this coming? Reiner is a director who’s turned sacrificing logic in favor of sentiment into something of a director’s trademark. He’s had his hits (Stand by Me, A Few Good Men), he’s had his misses (The Story of Us, North) but for the most part, he’s dealt in emotionally-charged Hollywood fare that poses serious questions in terms of plot. I’m reminded of the time I saw Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds with a friend of mine. Most of the audience was furious with the bleak thriller’s rather happy ending. When I asked my friend about the ending, he stated “of course it was a happy ending. I knew that walking in. It’s Spielberg at the helm. Sometimes you have to know who you’re watching.”

That appears to be true of Reiner. If you pay to see one of his films and complain about too much sappiness and a lack of realism, perhaps it’s your own fault. If you want a realistic and deep film about living and dying, look elsewhere. If you want to watch two legendary actors dance their way through a sea of Hollywood sentiment, this is the flick for you.

Joe Wright's Atonement: Good 'til the Last Emotionally Draining Drop

by Brett Parker

Atonement is a film that starts off overflowing with smoldering sensuality then spirals into grim devastation. The fact that I am saying this about a World War II British melodrama suggests how special and unique the film really is. The previews make it look like another stuffy and stiff British romance, but director Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice) springs too many visual and narrative surprises on us to allow that to happen.

The film opens on a luxurious British estate in 1935. We meet Briony (Saoirse Ronan), a spunky, creative little girl who announces she has just written a new play. Briony is the youngest child in the wealthy Tallis family, which also includes her older sister, Cecilia (Keira Knightley). Cecilia is a rebellious woman of privilege who is as attractive as she is stuck-up. Also on the estate grounds is Robbie Turner (James McAvoy), the son of the housekeeper who was educated at Oxford with financial help from Cecilia’s father. Both Cecilia and Robbie were classmates at Oxford yet steered clear of each other. Cecilia’s brother (Patrick Kennedy) thinks this was due to class differences, but we suspect it may be because of the strong, sexual tension between them.

These three serve as the principal characters in this story and their situation begins to unravel during one hot summer day on the estate. Briony unwittingly witnesses a series of sexual episodes between Cecilia and Robbie. These episodes include a wet meeting at a fountain, an explicit love note, and a sexual rendezvous on a bookcase. To Briony, these situations make Robbie come across as a sexual predator. To Cecilia and Robbie, they realize they are just young people who can’t control their passions. Briony is conflicted by her feelings towards Robbie and the raw sexuality that is hitting her like a ton of bricks. Later that evening, Briony comes across her cousin Lola (Juno Temple) being involved in what appears to be a sexual attack. Although her memory of what happened is vague, Briony accuses Robbie of attacking Lola and he is quickly hauled off to jail.

This opens up the film’s darker and tragic chapters, in which Robbie evades prison by joining the British army, Cecilia joins the war effort, and Briony becomes a war nurse in an effort to redeem herself for the emotional damage she has caused others as well as herself. I will not reveal what happens to these characters, only to say that we witness the overwhelming emotional damage they’ve experienced as a result of that fateful day until a surprise in the end is revealed and we realize not only the true nature of events, but that Briony may have experienced the worst internal grief of all.

Atonement is a film that is able to penetrate the formalities of British melodrama and exposes raw emotions and sexuality we may not have noticed before. Indeed, the sexuality in the film’s beginning almost scorches the screen. Cecilia and Robbie’s sexual encounter in the mansion library, shot without a score and in close-ups, is probably the best sex scene of the year. It is when the film descends into its tragic second half that the actors are able to run wild with raw, intense emotions that are scarcely fleshed out in this genre.

And what actors Wright has assembled for this piece! Keira Knightley reaches new heights of sensuality and grace in her portrayal of Cecilia while James McAvoy proves he is getting better and better with each film he does. McAvoy is a force to be reckoned with, painting Robbie’s passions and anger with the skill of a seasoned veteran. The scene in which Robbie finally and angrily confronts a grown-up Briony (Romola Garai) is acted to perfection. And what a find 13-year-old Saoirse Ronan is! Her portrayal of Briony is a sensational showcase of internalized characterizations and conflicts. I’m not one of those critics who go nuts over child actors, but Ronan is the real deal. She’s mastered emotions in this film that most actresses in their twenties still wrestle with. I hope the academy takes notice.

Joe Wright also deserves serious Oscar consideration. He breaks away from several genre conventions and breathes fresh and inventive visualizations throughout the film. The way in which the opening scenes’ point of view shifts between Briony and Robbie is skillfully handled. The film’s much talked-about one take shot, in which Robbie walks through the devastating aftermath of a war battle, is a rich and wonderful shot that deserves its acclaim. The film’s production design and costumes all look great and Wright presents it with an exciting vision not typical of this kind of filmmaking.

The film’s epilogue even adds to the richness of the narrative by revealing a twist that redefines most of what we’ve witnessed in this film. It reveals the nature of an unreliable narrator as well as the painful contrast between what happens in our memory versus what happens in reality. At first, I though this ending was a bit of a cheat, but considering Briony’s literary and imaginative nature as well as the typewriter sound interwoven throughout the film, I realized the twist only enriches the film’s complex ideas on the nature of atonement.

My only complaint about the film is that I wish it completely broke free of its genre formalities and tried for something entirely original. There are still passages in this film that walk and talk like typical wartime romances, with their sappy music and breathless declarations of love. Perhaps the film should’ve made like Marie Antionette and completely shattered convention with wild creativity. Not with punk music or American slang of course, but with more of Wright’s effective eye for filmmaking.

Yet this is only a minor complaint. I could just be being a spoiled movie brat. Atonement is one of the best acted, best looking, and most thoughtful examples of a genre I’ve never been really passionate about. Just to find one that is watchable would be enough, but to find one that plays on your emotions and has you thinking about it days after you’ve seen it, now there’s something I don’t find everyday!

I Am Legend: Not Exactly Leaping off the Page

by Brett Parker


Richard Matheson’s "I Am Legend" is one of the all-time great horror novels as well as one of my personal favorites. The story imagines a post-apocalyptic world in which an ordinary man named Robert Neville is the only survivor after mankind was struck by a deadly virus. This virus turned the rest of mankind into blood-thirsty vampires, making Neville the only source of fresh blood left on the planet. The novel shows how Neville gathers tools and weapons by day and fights off countless vampires at night, who all know where he lives. In order to survive, Neville has to reexamine everything humans have ever known about vampires, including their vulnerabilities to garlic, mirrors, and Catholicism. So the novel was not only an exciting survivor tale but also a clever study of the vampire mythology. It all leads to a chilling climax in which we painfully discover how the book got its title.

I understand that when novels are adapted to big screen Hollywood fare, elements of the novel suffer or disappear in the translation. However, I find it supremely disappointing that Francis Lawrence’s take on I Am Legend has elbowed the vampires right out of the film. Instead, we see Neville battling light-sensitive Zombies spawned from a biochemical accident. Nothing against Zombies, but they’ve been done to death in today’s Hollywood. They’ve been done to terrifying perfection in 28 Days Later and delicious camp in Planet Terror. While they will never be accused of being boring, they hardly feel as original nowadays as vampires could be. The novel had such a fresh and fascinating view of vampires, so why discard them for the big screen? Why throw out such an original idea for a concept that’s been done to death before? It also doesn’t help that the Zombie effects are probably the cheesiest CGI work of this year.

It’s a testament to Lawrence’s filmmaking, as well as star Will Smith’s talents, that in spite of its significant flaws, I Am Legend is still an exceptional popcorn film. While the novel explored major ideas of vampires, it also held great focus on the idea of a man living in isolation and dealing with his overwhelming feelings of loss and dread. So its kind of a miracle that this Hollywood film tailored for mass audiences spends more time on those human elements of the story as opposed to the sci-fi ones.

The film stars Will Smith in the role of Neville. Neville is a biochemical engineer who tried helplessly to discover a cure for a super virus that was quickly wiping out the human race. Three years pass and that virus has wiped out all of humanity except for Neville himself, who had discovered that for some reason he was immune. Neville spends his days living in a deserted New York City doing things any one of us would do: drive a sports car, rent movies, play golf on the deck of the Intrepid. He is accompanied by his dog Sam, who is his sole companion in this post-apocalyptic world. At night, Neville must hide himself from countless infected Zombies. They were once humans, but the viral infections have mutated them into hostile, nocturnal creatures that are like a cross between the monsters from The Descent and Crash Test Dummies. The film follows Neville as he tries to find a cure that could maybe reverse the effects of the Zombies and make them humans once again.
So of course the bad news of the film is the Zombies themselves. They are not explained very well nor do they look very convincing. In the novel, Matheson explained the Vampires down to the tiniest detail. In the film, we’re left with big questions about these strange creatures. Why are they light sensitive? Do they hunger for humans or just want to hurt them on principle? How smart are they? If the virus caused their bodies to decay, how come their agility is enhanced? It doesn’t help matters that the Zombies embody some of the worst special effects work in recent years. The Zombies are like CGI-Animated video game targets that make the ridiculous robots of I, Robot look like Johnny Five. For beings that used to be human, I don’t buy that a super virus can give them the texture of Shrek. It’s funny how some CGI work can be so convincing (as in, for example, The Aviator) while work like this makes it seem damaging to a film. I guess it truly is an art form, with some works of art better than others.

It is ultimately the focus on Will Smith’s portrayal of Neville that saves the film. Like Tom Hanks in Cast Away, Smith holds our attention even though there are long, silent passages where it is solely him on screen. It says something that his human moments upstage the big special effect sequences. Whether he’s talking about Bob Marley, going berserk on a mannequin, or talking to a dog, Smith helps to keep things as interesting as they should be. I especially liked a heartbreaking moment where Smith begs a female mannequin to “please say hello to me.”

Perhaps I shouldn’t have whipped the film so badly for not being as good as the novel. Fans of literature always have their personal issues with the film adaptations of their favorite books. Perhaps my issues with I Am Legend are very well my own. On its own, I Am Legend is a very gripping and interesting flick with big moments of excitement you are not soon to forget. These moments include the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge, a hunt for deer through Times Square, and a white-knuckled scene in a dark warehouse. And while the ending is not as bleak or as terrifying as in the novel, it must be said that it’s less confusing and more hopeful. The film is definitely worth seeing, but considering the source material, it could’ve been legendary.

New to DVD: The Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer

by Brett Parker

If I were eight-years-old, I’d probably be thrilled out of my mind with the Fantastic Four movies. As a grown man, I find them to be cheap and underwhelming. This is a deep disappointment, seeing as how I always enjoyed the comics and that the films have the right idea about the material. Yet it’s hard watching good ideas coming up short on depth, resonance, and great opportunities for observational humor.

The sequel continues in the celebrity and supernatural adventures of the Fantastic Four, a group of scientists who were transformed into superheroes thanks to the powers of a cosmic storm. There’s Reed Richards/”Mr. Fantastic” (Ioan Gruffudd), who can stretch his rubber body to infinity, Sue Storm/”Invisible Woman” (Jessica Alba), who can turn herself invisible and protect herself with a powerful force-field, Johnny Storm/”The Human Torch” (Chris Evans), Sue’s brother who can turn his entire body into a flying ball of fire, and Ben Grimm/”The Thing” (Michael Chiklis), whose body is encrusted in an oversized rock shell. Since the events of the last film, the group has become overnight celebrities in the media while Reed and Sue got engaged. The first half of the film follows the Four as they embrace their new-found fame all while preparing for Reed and Sue’s big wedding, which gets about as much press as a Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie wedding would. The second half of the film turns more adventurous as the four encounter the Silver Surfer (a CGI creation voiced by Laurence Fishburne), an alien being who is sent to Earth by galactic forces to prepare for its destruction. The four struggle to stop the Silver Surfer and get to the bottom of his agenda. Things grow even more complicated when old nemesis Dr. Doom (Julian McMahon) resurfaces to wreak havoc.

To be sure, Rise of the Silver Surfer is a sequel that improves on the original. It’s funnier, more exciting, and has better special-effects sequences. For me, the best part of this material has always been the celebrity-worship of the Fantastic Four. Not only are these characters brave superheroes, but also media superstars who share the tabloids with Paris and Lindsay. Both films show the group dealing with paparazzi, product placement, and their own celebrity images. This film plays as a better example of these ideals, even if its fullest potential isn’t realized. The funniest scene comes when Johnny and Ben take Reed clubbing on the New York It plays like a goofy shotgun marriage between Marvel Comics and Entourage. The sequel also displays more thrilling action sequences supported by impressive visuals. The big “teaser trailer” scene in which Johnny chases the Silver Surfer through the air is a roller-coaster of fun and the introduction of the famous “Fantasticar” is put to great use in an exciting climax. In terms of special effects, the Silver Surfer himself proves to be a fascinating creation. He has the look of a silver academy award brought to life. He has the same compelling CGI aura of Gollum or King Kong. It’s also a nice stroke to have Laurence Fishburne’s smooth vocals breathe life into this famed character, as he dispenses corny yet fun fortune cookie wisdom. There’s always a choice, he teaches us. Wow, deep stuff. The Surfer should write a book with Phil Jackson.

Rise of the Silver Surfer is competent, harmless entertainment with a breezy comic book sensibility young fans will eat up, but I essentially have the same problems I had with the first film: it’s too much of a one-dimensional, juvenile enterprise that doesn’t dig deep into the wonderful ideas lurking within the material. We’ve reached a point in cinema where Superhero films are no longer disposable pop ventures but serious, powerhouse entertainments of the highest caliber. When it comes to this genre, Batman Begins and Superman Returns write the book. Batman Begins asked hard questions about its hero’s mythology and realized its full dramatic weight, making for a character study of endless fascination. Superman Returns may have been more of a traditional superhero adventure, but it used wonderful minimalist drama to flesh out the peculiar, melancholy emotions hidden within the material, making for something really unique. The popular Spider-Man series may have been rooted more in a quirky, comic universe but it snuck in moments of adult drama that could truly level you.

At a time when movies are digging deep and getting creative with its superheroes, Fantastic Four is keeping things boringly simple with cheap comic book sensibilities. Batman Begins helmer Christopher Nolan once explained that superhero movies truly work when it is realized that what works great in comic books does not necessarily work on the big screen. Fantastic Four appears to be unaware of this ideal, for the film plays like something that would work great in the comics but looks goofy and flat on screen.

To hear the scrapped pre-production ideas for Fantastic Four is to hear the exact direction the series should’ve taken. Both Steven Soderbergh and Peyton Reed were considered to direct. George Clooney was considered to play Rex Reed. John C. Reiley was considered to play the Thing. The original script read as an observational mockumentary of the Four’s fame, ala A Hard Day’s Night. What fun that all would’ve been. Sigh. Perhaps these bigger names could’ve rescued Fantastic Four from its second-rate fate. Tim Story is a director who had a modest success with Barbershop, yet I don’t think he’s suited for a superhero canvas. When you’re prepping a multi-million dollar franchise, hiring the director of Taxi might not be the wisest choice. This guy makes Brett Ratner look like Martin Scorsese. The performances are also flat and don’t make the characters as interesting as they should be. Only Chris Evans and Jessica Alba really have the big screen presence and charisma superhero characters demand.

I hope Hollywood wakes up and realizes the potential of the Fantastic Four franchise. There’s great humor and adventure to be had with these folks. I think some new screenwriters and a new director would be good for the series. Unless, by some miracle, Tim Story wakes up and realizes that films can be very special and deep works of art instead of just cheap Hollywood The Fantastic Four are characters of wonderful color and excitement, yet HollywoodHoward the Duck. products. treats it like its

The most interesting extra on the DVD is the behind-the-scenes production diary which shows stitched-together footage of the filming. What makes it interesting is not the crafting of the film, but the peculiar nature of Tim Story’s presence. He is seen in the footage as being extremely quiet and passive. Everyone else, from the production designers to the cinematographer, appear to be doing all the work while Story just nods approvingly. It made me think of Christopher Nolan when he made Batman Begins. There were stories of the great passion he put into the script and how he went beyond the call of duty in overseeing every day of production on the set. By comparison, Story appears more as a clueless bystander on his film set and that probably helps to explain the problems with the film I wrote about above.

As for the rest of the extras, there’s mini production features that overlook individual aspects of the film and a director’s commentary that will be as interesting as the viewer found the film to be. I was surprisingly impressed with the film’s deleted scenes, which are brief but would’ve added nice touches to the final cut. They include Johnny worrying about his action figure sales, Ben and Johnny running errands for Reed and Sue’s wedding, and Dr. Doom revealing the cold metal beneath his face. Overall, this appears to be the case of a DVD double-disc, special edition package whose special features are not enough to support the sinking film it is being featured with.

Cronenberg: Subtle, Sophisticated & Brutally Deep

by Brett Parker

Eastern Promises is a gangster picture that features throat slashings, blood splattering, raw sex, and vicious stabbings. Yet the most surprising thing about the film is how subtle it all is. Most crime pictures are made up of grand atmospheres that shove their intensity and violence right in your face. Here’s one that simply invites us into the characters lives and we find that what is brewing in their minds and souls is more gripping and exciting than any act of violence. Instead of being at the mercy of plot mechanics, the characters let their own motivations and ideals dictate the events of the story. The end result is a fascinating lived-in reality that doesn’t have to be showy to attract a film audience. This world will shake you all the same.

As the film opens, we see a midwife named Anna (Naomi Watts) deliver the baby of a young woman who doesn’t survive the birth. The baby is born alive and healthy, but the mystery of who the mother was hangs over Anna’s thoughts. Looking over her personal belongings, Anna discovers a diary written entirely in Russian. The diary carries the calling card of a nearby London restaurant and Anna goes to investigate. It is there in which Anna discovers a business that is the spring-board for Russian mafia in London. She meets Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl), the patriarch of a Russian mob family, Kirill (Vincent Cassel), Semyon’s reckless son, and Nikolai (Viggo Mortenson), Kirill’s mysterious valet and right-hand man. It becomes very clear to Anna that these people deal in shady affairs, but Anna’s bruised feelings over a miscarriage she had motivates her to fight for the baby without a mother and get to the bottom of the diary. The more she discovers within the diary, the more Semyon’s clan begins to unravel. The diary reveals painful secrets revolving around Semyon, Kirill’s flaws are brought to the forefront, and we slowly begin to realize why Nikolai is more knowledgeable and compassionate than most men in his position are.

What is first and foremost impressive about Eastern Promises is how perfectly this unlikely material fits in with director David Cronenberg’s auteur themes. His love of the flesh is strongly felt in the film’s use of tattoos. It is said that the tattoos of Russian gangsters are used to tell their personal histories and serves as a kind of criminal résumé. Cronenberg makes good use of the character’s tattooed flesh to give a feel of their experiences and myths. Of course the strongest example of the flesh is found in the film’s much talked about bath house sequence, in which a naked Nikolai fights off two fully-clothed and fully-armed assassins. Cronenberg displays the characters nakedness to convey both the vulnerability and stripped-down skill within Nikolai at that moment. The scene deserves its accolades, it is a great showcase of a great director’s skill.

Another theme of Cronenberg’s is the inner-workings of monstrous characters. Here, Cronenberg uses villainous Russian gangsters as a springboard to show how criminality can deeply affect a person’s mentality. At first, Kirill appears to be a typical spoiled gangster, with the usual need for violence and excess. Yet Cronenberg digs deep into the character to show the vulnerable child hidden within, who might even have some homoerotic tendencies about him. The most fascinating character is found in Nikolai, who at first appears to be the most sinister and hardened of these criminals. Pretty soon, his character is unraveled towards a surprise revelation that hits you like a ton of bricks. I will not reveal the intimate details of the surprise, but only to say that it brings an unexpected depth to the already strongly rooted idea of how criminality can corrupt the soul. In a time when twist endings have grown seemingly cheap and unremarkable, Cronenberg’s twist brings about a brilliant depth to an already efficient film.

Aside from Cronenberg’s directing, the film’s performances are just as focused and brilliant. Mueller-Stahl and Cassel are both award-worthy in their detailed and creepy character studies. Yet this is Mortensen’s show. He gives the best performance of his career so far by handling the complex nuances of the role with profound conviction and fascination. The performance, like the film, will knock you on your ass. It doesn’t do this with excessive action or intensified emotions, but with the internal intrigue of its characters. I loved how the film’s climax is not dependent on complicated plot action but by the characters simply realizing the underlying sadness of their personalities. It doesn’t tie up all the film’s loose ends, but its drama of the highest caliber is sure to impress. Eastern Promises is as rich and complex as any of Cronenberg’s best and it will stay with you long after you’ve seen it and will leave you with much to think about. Especially about what Nikolai really had to go through to get all of those tattoos.

Sidney Lumet: A Return to Form

by Andrew Jupin

So far this year’s film output has been more or less mediocre. However there have been a few exceptions thanks to the likes of Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Ultimatum), David Cronenberg (Eastern Promises) and yes, even Judd Apatow (Knocked Up). But between the usual weak period of January through April and then the nothing-but-dreadful summer season—thanks for absolutely nothing Sam Raimi—there wasn’t really a film to come along and pelt me over the face with any sort of bravado or cinematic dexterity. I will say that David Cronenberg came real close. Close enough that this article could also easily be about him. However I sat down early last week to view what will quite possibly become the best film of 2007: Sidney Lumet’s, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead.

Two sons (Ethan Hawke and Phillip Seymour Hoffman) plot the robbery of their parents’ (Albert Finney and Rosemary Harris) jewelry store. Their plan goes wrong and takes the family into a tailspin towards a horrific and maddening conclusion. On the outside, this film is a simple heist movie: a robbery is planned; the robbery is executed; something goes wrong; there are serious repercussions that follow; punishment ensues, etc. This is something we have seen dozens of times in dozens of films—Lumet himself showed us this same formula in his 1975 robbery film, Dog Day Afternoon. But Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead is so much more than a simple heist film. As a matter of fact nothing is simple about it. The layers of this film are endless with the double crossing, the familial issues, the infidelities, the violence, the hatred, the desperation, they are all here and they are all pushed to extremes. This film has everything and it is all executed to perfection by a master director. The acting is stupendous across the board. Hoffman excels once again as Andy, the older, more desperate of the two brothers. He is conniving, ruthless and dastardly in every sense of every one of those words. Ethan Hawke shines as Hank, the down-on-his-luck, divorced father of one with unending child support payments and a nowhere job. And Albert Finney is stunning as Charles, the boys' victimized father who can't help but favor one son over the other.

Lumet is a wizard technically and always evokes the best from his actors. This film is of course no exception. The camera works in wondrous ways here. At the right instances, it sits back and just captures moments. It sits quietly in the back of the room and watches and listens, gathering important information for the audience. But when it needs to, when it is obligated, the camera scrutinizes the actors; getting right in their faces, moving in closer, judging with every frame.

Lumet’s New York in the year 2007 is a very personal place. It is still very much real and still unidentifiable to outside viewers. Lumet has never been keen on showing typical ‘movie’ New York, but rather, the real streets, the real neighborhoods, the real stretches of city where people walk and talk and work. There are no landmarks or famous venues; just streets, buildings and people compose his frame. Lumet’s New York is a dangerous place where the lower classes live in darkened apartments with bad lighting and few pieces of furniture while the rich live in sterile, straight-out-of-the-catalogue apartments that are just as dark; not in the physical sense, but in the emotional, spiritual sense.

The narrative structure is broken up into several different segments allowing the audience to interact with different characters at similar times. This allows the viewer to get everyone’s side of the story. This helps because a simple, straightforward narrative this film is not. They at first can appear distracting, especially with subtitles telling us whose side of the story we are watching and when it is taking place. But this device is not just inserted to make the film look flashy. No, it instead helps us to get a better understanding of where each character is coming from. It helps to understand why they are doing what they are doing and what—or who—is making them do it.

Lumet has once again produced a stunning masterwork; one that I hope garners him the critical claim he most certainly deserves. There has yet to be a better film this year. I can only wish that the film is able to reach a wide enough audience. Lumet, who garnered criticism in 2001 for refusing to stop the filming of a television show during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has been in dire need of a hit film. For a man whose debut feature gave us 12 Angry Men, expectations are always high. Last year’s Find Me Guilty was more or less lauded by critics and he hasn’t been able to find praise in at least ten years since the release of 1997’s Night Falls on Manhattan. I sincerely encourage everyone to see this film, especially those curious as to how you make an excellent, compelling, well-crafted piece of cinema in today’s Spiderman 3 film culture.

The Brave One Hits High Notes (Mostly)

by Brett Parker

I don’t exactly know why Hollywood is returning once again to the Death Wish well, but I must admit I’m very entertained by what it’s pulling up. A couple of weeks ago we saw Death Sentence, which starred Kevin Bacon as a loving family man who loses his son at the hands of a vicious gang. To avenge his son’s death, he goes after the hoodlums with a whole lot of fire power. This week, the Death Wish formula strikes again with The Brave One, in which a woman loses a loved one and goes after lowlife thugs with a lot of bullets and a lot of anger. While Death Sentence was a grotesque nightmare that treaded on slasher film territory, The Brave One is a psychological drama that brings full dramatic weight to what it feels like to be a vigilante.

Jodie Foster stars as Erica Bain, the host of a talk radio show that celebrates the romanticism of living in New York City. Indeed, Erica appears to be living the New York dream: great job, great apartment, and a successful fiancé named David (Naveen Andrews). One night, Erica and David walk their dog through central park and encounter a group of sinister thugs. The thugs brutally attack them, leaving Erica in a coma and David murdered. After awakening from her coma and realizing what has happened, Erica grows paralyzed with fear of the city she once loved. She is afraid of another attack at the hands of the city’s worst. This leads her to illegally buy a hand gun for protection. One night at a convenience store, Erica witnesses a madman shoot the clerk and steal money. In defense, she shoots the gunman dead. Instead of being traumatized by this event, Erica feels liberated from her fears. She feels true justice is being done and her courage is being reclaimed. This leads her on a spree of vigilante killings, in which everyone from criminal lowlifes to corporate slime are blown away at the hands of Erica’s vengeful rage. Pretty soon, homicide detective Mercer (Terrance Howard) is on to her, but sympathizes with her victimized soul. Erica takes a liking to him because he seems to be one of the few New York cops who actually cares about true justice. They form an unlikely friendship that grows more tense once the evidence from the murders begin to pile up. Things grow even more complicated when Mercer supplies her with clues to the identity of David’s killers.

What makes The Brave One special is not just that it shows a woman executing vigilante murders, but that it asks why and how a woman would do this. The film asks hard questions about vigilante ideals and explores the psychological workings of an innocent person who slowly becomes a justified murderer. Director Neil Jordan (The Crying Game, Interview With the Vampire) is skilled at crafting moody atmospheres of loss and dread. Here that atmosphere helps to give the audience the sense of the intense feeling that is haunting Erica to the core. A simple scene in which Erica is terrified to walk out her front door is made to be truly scary thanks to Jordan’s considerable skill. He picks some very interesting angles on this material. It is interesting how Erica becomes more comfortable, even addicted, to her newfound murderous ways (“Why don’t my hands shake?” she asks after shooting two men).
What’s even more fascinating is the friendship that develops between Erica and Mercer. In most revenge films, the vigilante has an intelligent cop snapping at their heels. Mercer represents that aspect of the formula. But while most cases show the vigilante at odds with the cop, The Brave One shows the two grow a strong affection and understanding for each other. They both share a sadness for victims and a need for true justice. It is through this common bond in which they find a comfort they cannot find anywhere else in the world. There’s a great scene in which Mercer takes Erica to a diner and drops obvious hints that he knows what she’s done. He doesn’t do this as a threat, but as a subtle warning and an offer of true help (“What would David think?” he asks her).

This all eventually leads to an ending that is meant to be satisfying but only raises peculiar questions about the film’s message. I won’t give much of it away, just to say that it says a lot for vigilante revenge and not a whole lot for our justice system in general. What exactly is the ending saying? Is street justice the only true justice left in the world? Can only wild animals take care of the other wild animals? Like A History of Violence, the ending deals with violence we’re willing to accept in order to sleep better at night.

Jodie Foster has become one of those rare actresses who can play whatever role she wants whenever she wants to. She gets the kind of material most actresses would kill for. Indeed, a victimized woman who takes control of her fear and fights back would be a great role for any starlet. It almost goes without saying that the always wonderful Foster delivers the goods perfectly in her performance. She strips the character raw and shows the audience what makes her tic at her emotional core. We can almost picture a lesser actress going over the top with this type of role, but Foster is fully convincing in her acting skills. Also great is the role of Mercer that is brought to life by the wonderful Terrance Howard. The thankless role of the suspecting police detective is given an unexpected depth by the screenplay and Howard’s charisma and focus help it to fully surpass our expectations. What a great actor. Foster and Howard seem like an unlikely duo, but these skilled pros have a wonderful chemistry. Their on-screen friendship is the best part of this film. Like Russell Crowe and Christian Bale in 3:10 to Yuma, they’re fascinating as two people on opposite sides of the law who find a peculiar connection beneath their differences.

So as of right now, you have a choice between two vigilante stories at your multiplex: Death Sentence or The Brave One. Which one is the better film? That’s a rather tough call. Despite their similarities in structure, the two films are very different from each other. Death Sentence is an exaggerated and violent vision of a suburban nightmare while The Brave One is probably the most intelligent drama one could gather from the vigilante formula. Death Sentence is strong on its violence yet weak on its drama, while The Brave One is vice versa. Death Sentence is gripping and terrifying, but it’s not as thoughtful or patient as The Brave One. I could compare these films all day. Let’s just say they cancel each other out and that’s that. I’ll say one thing though: these vigilante films really pack a punch. They stir me up during the viewing then make me leave the theatre feeling emotionally drained. That’s probably one of the highest compliments one could give to a Hollywood thriller.

Shoot 'Em Up May Be Silly, But it Sure is Fun

by Brett Parker

Shoot ‘Em Up is exactly what the title promises it to be. Most action movies are accused of favoring style over substance. Here’s one that throws substance completely in the fire and runs amok with its style. The film is wall-to-wall action sequences that go so over the top, it breaks the Earth’s atmosphere. The film is completely absurd, but at no point is it unaware of this. If you’re willing to be a good sport and have an open, action-junkie mind, then you’ll be delighted with this self-reflexive fun.

Clive Owen stars as Mr. Smith, who appears to be -- for all intents and purposes -- a carrot-eating drifter. One night while sitting at a bus stop, he watches a helpless pregnant woman try to outrun a bad guy with a gun. Mr. Smith decides to help the poor woman and follows them into the warehouse, where he disposes of the bad guy and delivers the baby. The fact that Mr. Smith kills the bad guy with a carrot and shoots off the baby’s umbilical cord with a gun pretty much announces that this movie is not to be taken seriously. That point is only confirmed when countless bad guys show up to find the baby and Mr. Smith opens fire on them with the skills of a John Woo protagonist. The bad guys are led by a criminal mastermind named Hertz (Pail Giamatti) who wants the newborn baby dead, for reasons later revealed (and revealed to be Bonkers!). Ever the moralist, Mr. Smith escapes with the baby and spends the rest of the film trying to protect it with the help of his hooker friend, Donna (Monica Bellucci). Yet Hertz is hot on their trail with a whole lot of guns and a whole lot of fury. This leads to a series of laughable adventures that involve bone marrow, politicians, breast milk, punk rock, and death by carrots.

This is one of those action movies that has to be seen to be believed. This is not because of big-production technical skills, but because the plot and the action are so preposterous that it is downright laughable. I mean that as a compliment. Like Hot Fuzz, the film is an hilarious celebration of mindless action grandeur. It’s clearly a parody, only a couple of degrees away from being a Naked Gun movie. A lot of action movies have an absurdity to them yet they masquerade as serious pictures. Shoot ‘Em Up announces itself as preposterous from jump-street and disregards any sense of seriousness you’d expect it to have. This frees itself to have loads of fun with the material and you will too. Through the course of the action, we see a man flying through one car windshield into another to open fire on its passengers, a man using his broken hand as a gun (literally), a shoot-out on a children’s playground, and a shoot-out that takes place during a freefall from an airplane thousands of feet in the air (take that Point Break and Eraser). Of course some viewers may be turned off by this insane suspension of disbelief, but action sequences, like most movie scenes, work well as long as they’re well done and absorbing enough.

The main cast also helps with the film’s fun. The film displays highly likeable stars playing fun riffs on their personas. Clive Owen, who is arguably the coolest man alive, uses his trademark edge and wit to perfection as Smith, who is not only a wizard with a gun but spits one-liners that would make James Bond red in the face. Paul Giamatti rediscovers some of that old Pig Vomit intensity to make for a fun villain while Monica Bellucci goes beyond just looking pretty and finds the right balance between funny and sympathetic. It’s great fun watching these top-notch actors revel in action clichés. It would’ve been less interesting if low level B-Actors were cast instead.

Shoot ‘Em Up is a movie made all in good fun and it is very difficult not to feel that same fun watching it. It may be lightweight and disposable, but those are the exact qualities that are used to its advantage. There are stories of how director Michael Davis cheerfully pitched the film to studios by exploiting the goofiness of the action scenes and how Clive Owen found the script’s energy so hilarious he couldn’t say no. Indeed, its movies like this that remind us why we love action movies in the first place. Seriousness can be the destroyer of fun. Sometimes the less serious an action picture is, the more enjoyable it is. That’s probably why I enjoyed Casino Royale more than The Bourne Ultimatum. All-in-all, this film is worth the casual screening.

3:10 to Yuma Arrives Better Than Expected

by Andrew Jupin

The new vision of 3:10 to Yuma brings to mind that classic statement, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Well, considering that sentence alone has a few grammatical breakdowns that are worth fixing, I suggest that you pay it no mind. At first glance, James Mangold’s outing into the old West seems superfluous. Critics will argue that this is just another instance of Hollywood going back into the vault and fooling with an old, untouchable classic. The problem is that, although I find myself growing tired of the rehashing in contemporary cinema, not all films made before 1970 were perfect. So I decided to go in to 3:10 to Yuma with an open mind and a clear conscience. I don’t care that Glen Ford was in the original. I wanted to see for myself.

Leaving the theater I found myself neither blown away or angry. Mangold’s film takes on the same story of the original. A down-and-out rancher by the name of Dan Evans (played this time by the Man of One Thousand Movie Roles, Christian Bale) decides to help a group of local officials escort the great Wild West outlaw, Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to the next town in order to catch a train bound for a prison. What train you ask?

That’s right…the 3:10 to Yuma. Along the way lots of Western shenanigans occur. People shoot guns at each other, horses run really fast, villains wear dark clothes and yes, they even drink whiskey. But it’s through a combination of those expected genre elements and a cast of superb leading men and phenomenal character actors that the film winds up working really well.

Ben Foster plays Charlie Prince, Ben Wade’s psychotic second in command who will stop at nothing to free Ben from the long arm of the law. Dallas Roberts is Grayson Butterfield, the railroad tycoon who’s train Wade robbed. Character Actor of the Century award winner Alan Tudyk—last seen in the dreadful un-comedy Death at a Funeral—is his usual great self as the town doctor along for the ride. Even Peter Fonda manages to hop aboard and deliver a pretty solid performance as a bounty hunter/former outlaw. Also, look out for an uncredited Frat Packer in a role where, while he’s great in his own right, he is dwarfed by the likes of Bale and Crowe. He sticks out like a sore thumb is what I’m trying to tell you.

3:10 to Yuma turns out pretty much as you would think it would. There are no surprises, no cheap shots, and little-to-no computer graphics (aside from one hilarious equestrian incident). It’s exactly the film I expected it to be, but at the same time, above my expectations on so many performance levels that it really does turn itself into one pretty solid return to the Western Genre. Oh and the good news is that if you enjoy hearing the times and destinations of trains barked by disgruntled cowboys...you're in for about a dozen treats.