Here you go. Presenting a couple reviews for older movies. Hellzapoppin' is from 1941 and is very rarely seen within the United States, which is a shame. Lone Star is a review I did, because I have a calendar of movie posters. I'm going to review each month's poster in the month it's displayed, whenever possible. For February, look for An American in Paris. Ocean's 11 and the two modern ones are still coming eventually. I promise. Hopefully this will tide you over until then.



Lone Star (1952)
Review by Jon Waterman

*1/2

The United States is looking to turn the Republic of Texas into a state. However, Texans aren’t too keen on that idea. Joining the US would mean denying the proposed treaty with Mexico and thus starting a war with them. After going through the heartbreak of the Alamo, the Republic doesn’t quite want to go through that turmoil again when it’s just as easy to remain separate. President Andrew Jackson doesn’t want to give up hope. He knows if Sam Houston agrees, Texas will be behind them. So, Jackson sends Devereaux Burke to find him.

This is one of the most politically charged westerns I’ve seen so far (granted, that isn’t too many). It presents the arguments for and against annexation in a nice back and forth format. However, the arguments against seem much more thought out than those for it. I guess there’s really no reason to restate the case if you’ve already won. The audience knows how it turns out, so why prove it was worth it, right? Either way, it was still a way to flesh out the story line and differentiate it a little from the other westerns.

If you’re not too political or don’t care about all of that stuff, you might enjoy all the fighting. There are a few shootouts and a brawl or two to pump the adrenaline up and balance out the “boring” stuff. Horses, guns, arrows, fisticuffs, battering rams, explosions, stuff breaking – what more could you want? Anything to draw attention away from the ridiculous love story is just fine with me. I don’t know if was just the lacking chemistry between Clark Gable (Burke) and Ava Gardner (pro-Texas newspaper editor Martha Ronda), or if not enough quality time was devoted to it before it really got popping, but something just didn’t sit quite right with me. It was a strange, roundabout way to further the plot.

The whole process took longer than it should. They describe what will happen, show it happening, and then tell other characters what happened. It’s a bit too repetitious for my taste. And also knowing how it all turns out adds to the drag factor. I think the action sequences were the only scenes that really made the movie worth watching, ultimately. Those weren’t incredibly spectacular either, but at least they were well done and proved entertaining.

I know there are better westerns out there, there are better love stories out there, and there are better more political movies out there as well. This one doesn’t mix the elements all that effectively. However, it could be worse. As it stands, aside from the romantic subplot turned plot, the motion picture is just okay.


+++++++++


Hellzapoppin’
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

How do I describe this one? Okay, the vaudeville team of (Ole) Olsen and (Chic) Johnson are trying to adapt their hit Broadway show for the silver screen. The director gets fed up with its madcap, anarchistic styling and brings in a writer to give it a plot. The plot involves a love triangle, and it’s O & J’s job to get the right guy paired up with the girl. At the same time, they have to coordinate and put on a different stage play for all the wealthy guests that will be attending. Did you get all that? I’m sure you think you did, but you don’t know the half of it, my friend.

In all honesty, you should forget the plot. There’s no real reason for it to be there, except to provide the running gag of trying to implement a straightforward plot inside an obviously surrealist, madcap motion picture. Honestly, I was disappointed they kept the joke going as long as they did. I wanted the film to return to the magic of the first fifteen-twenty minutes where anything could happen and it certainly could. After all, they do warn us from the start, “Any similarity between Hellzapoppin' and a motion picture is purely coincidental.”

I don’t know what the original stage production was like, but it certainly couldn’t be the same as this. The movie makes the most of it’s format of presentation, by playing around with editing, composites – shots where Ole and Chic are standing in front of a screen that’s projecting an image of Ole and Chic, title cards, special effects, and big, extravagant sets. This is the best early example I know of (so far) that fully utilizes the medium as part of the art.

“Hellzapoppin’” is full of every kind of humor imaginable. There’s plenty of physical comedy, tons of parody and satire, self-referential, surrealistic, musical and straight-up jokes. It all culminates near the end as they try to sabotage the play they’ve been setting up. Expect to see a little bit of everything. One of the best aspects is their frequent willingness to break the fourth wall and remind everyone it’s a movie. This is one key reason why the plot is so inconsequential. From the beginning, they’ll turn to the audience and speak to them. They’ll also call on the projectionist to rewind the picture or to adjust the framing.

This film also contains a great dance number performed by the Harlem Congeroos. Fans of swing dancing should watch the movie just for this sequence. But mostly, you should watch it for the comedy, supported by a great cast. Of course there’s Olsen and Johnson, but you also get Martha Raye as the horny city girl chasing after the wealthy prince; Hugh Herbert as the master of disguise (although, what he’s dressing up for is beyond us); and Shemp Howard as the slightly sadistic, misogynistic projectionist.

Everyone really came together to create a great, influential piece of comedy. I give great credit to director H. C. Potter for showing off the immense preparation and coordination that obviously went into this production, and to writers Nat Perrin and Warren Wilson for not fully submitting to the studio norms. Not every joke works, but many hold up surprisingly well. You don’t see movies like this anymore. Even the contemporary genre parodies don’t quite capture this type of atmosphere and this level of playfulness.

The older movie reviews are coming, I promise. In fact, I just saw a film last week from 1941 called Hellzapoppin'. I'll post that review soon. The original Ocean's 11 will also hit within the week. For now, I have a couple of housekeeping reviews for you. One is a documentary I saw at the Gene Siskel Film Center and the other was a Sundance Film Festival winner.



Personal Velocity
Review by Jon Waterman

**1/2

This is the story of three women. Delia moves upstate to try to get away from her abusive husband and start a new life with her kids. Greta tries to deal with her sudden success as an editor and reassesses everything from her past. Paula tries to get away from the scene of a horrible accident that left her mentally scarred by driving up to her mother’s house with a teenage runaway hitchhiker she found along the way.

Writer/director Rebecca Miller (daughter of playwright Arthur) gives us a look at three very distinctive stories and lumps them on top of each other. Collectively, the three don’t have a whole lot in common, actually. There are a lot of similarities that apply to two of them, but not all. I wasn’t even left liking all of them. I felt Greta’s character (played by Parker Posey) was actually quite despicable. However, in a strange way, that’s part of the movie’s charm.

What’s good about the film is what’s fresh. What’s bad about the film is everything else. First – the fresh. The three women never meet. Their lives don’t intersect. The only bit of connection between the half-hour stories is a little news blurb that lets you know they’re all within the same television station’s reach. Frankly, I could have done without even that. It would be better to know that it’s happening all over, rather than a centralized location. It was good to show that you don’t have to like a character to be interested in their story. It actually makes it more fascinating if you don’t like the person, because without that connection, it’s more voyeuristic. Also, even though none of the stories were connected, per se, the film still managed to “wrap up.” It didn’t feel like the third story ended, it felt like the movie ended.

The not so fresh aspect was the cinematography. For the most part, I can’t stand digital video. This was not an effect or purposeful utilization of the format. Everything was too blown out/overexposed and too much like a home movie for a narrative. It’s disappointing, considering the cinematographer is Ellen Kuras (“Blow” and a better example of what digital video could/should look like, “Bamboozled”). The potential saving grace is the interludes that use stills. Not only do the forward the action without the regular “velocity,” but they also transport us deeper into the mindset of the character. It is a little quirky and gimmicky, but overall effective just the same.

The movie essentially is a somewhat interesting experiment. It dabbles with some conventions in storytelling and presentation. But, although the changes are relatively minor, the potential impact is large. I can’t help but think there’s a similar message hidden within the context of the movie. However, in the end, it didn’t really “move” me too much.


+++++++


Tall: The American Skyscraper and Louis Sullivan
Review by Jon Waterman

*1/2

Near the turn of the century, architecture was on the verge of a revolution. Buildings were slowly getting taller, but there was still a limit as to how high they could go while keeping the structural integrity intact. While the battle for more height raged on, the battle of artistic expression in buildings emerged. One school of thought took old world designs and adapted them to be placed within modern structures. The other school of thought, including Louis Sullivan, believed that the aesthetics should look forward, not back, and try to create something fresh and original.

Honestly, all of that talk about battles may be true, but it doesn’t really capture the essence of this documentary. The sense of struggle isn’t really portrayed and no real threat is posed to the audience. Instead of it being New York (Daniel Burnham) versus Chicago (Sullivan); classical versus modern; bricks versus steel, the approach was much more docile and co-existent. It made the film a little more boring. Perhaps I just never recovered from the opening sequence.

The film starts with a long series of images that shows off the beauty and, at the same time, mechanics behind buildings against soothing music. The grainy 16mm film and the overall sound quality and music choice gave off a feel of a segment from “Sesame Street.” The length turned it from poetic and nice to somewhat poetic and dull. The movie struggled to find a consistent voice. It had to balance between teaching the uninitiated and keeping it interesting for those already in the know. Parts of the film would be great to show a grade school class, so that they could learn the very basics of architecture. It would work quite nicely were it to be a purely educational piece, explaining how taller buildings came to be and how they work. However, the whole historical aspect of the people involved in creating skyscrapers just demolished the project.

After walking out, I still didn’t exactly grasp what Sullivan had to do with anything. He seemed to want tall buildings to be made, but the movie talked a lot about how he couldn’t get much work after Burnham and his crew took over stylistically following the 1893 World’s Fair. So, how he shaped the downtown cityscape we see today is a little beyond me. I also couldn’t walk down any particular street and point out a Sullivan building. The movie dwells on Frank Lloyd Wright a little too long. I suppose it’s noteworthy to show that he was working under Sullivan, if only to further highlight Louis’ importance in the architectural world, but I don’t need to as much as was told.

Unlike the masters’ buildings, director Manfred Kirchheimer’s film doesn’t exactly stand up. The structure is there, but inappropriate and lends nothing towards what should be the overall purpose of the film. There are some great shots and it’s aesthetically pleasing. The narrator (that eventually shows up) does a nice job, as well. This one could be interesting for architecture buffs – and even better for younger kids who may be interested, but if you know anything about the history, you probably know this stuff already.

I know what you're thinking. You're on reviews 10 and 11 of the year and yet there's nothing from before 1990. What gives? Well, that's why I put in that little thing about "on average." Rest assured, I have more classic films coming your way soon. I have the original "Ocean's 11" as well as the two more modern off-shoots. I have Howard Hughes' "Hell's Angels" and later on I'll be reviewing some classic hip-hop cinema. For now, check out a couple of the latest foreign films that have gotten some attention and acclaim.



The House of Flying Daggers
Review by Jon Waterman

**

It’s a simple story about an underground vigilante group called the Flying Daggers whose purpose is to undermine and destroy the government. Their old leader has been killed and so their efforts have increased to show that they have not weakened. Mei, the former leader’s daughter is discovered as a spy and must escape back north to their hideout. Since she is blind, a man named Jin escorts her. Little does she know, he’s a government spy looking to infiltrate their base. Can he keep up the charade, or will his growing affection for her break him down?

The story line isn’t all that deep or too interesting. If it helps at all, think of it as a martial arts flick where the main character is blind. It’s like “Zatoichi” meets “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.” I say that second part, because it’s one of those new wire-fu movies that have become something of a trend. The same writing and directing team that brought you “Hero” brings about this latest entry into the genre. Yimou Zhang directs and helps Feng Li and Bin Wang write. It’s meant to be something of a companion piece, but I can’t really tell you how it stacks up, because as of yet, I haven’t seen that Jet Li movie.

So, let’s talk about the action stuff. It doesn’t get too incredibly wacky and wild. People do climb about on trees like monkeys and do crazy impossible dodging moves, but actually the majority of the fighting is rather straightforward. Most of the wire action you’ll see is the ones dangling off the fake squirrel that appears in one shot. Even though the fighting is mostly back-to-basics (yet surprisingly dull), I’d consider it a wire-fu because of the few sequences that utilize the anti-gravitational style and for all those flying daggers. Honestly, it’s less like a dagger and more like a heat-seeking missile. These things find their targets and then circle around to do exactly what they need to do. A decent enough concept, but the execution leaves a little to be desired. If special effects have to be used, I’d rather see a shot with the dagger flying around then having the camera fly with the dagger to its location. Or at least switch it up a little and show both.

Other aspects of the cinematography (by first timer Xiaoding Zhao) weren’t all that great either. Some of the scenes were quite vibrant and quite colorful. However, sometimes the scene just looked too phony. I could see the digital manipulation too easily. Other times, there were color correction problems within the scenes. For instance, at once point two characters are fighting in the snow. It starts out a stunning bright white, then loses its luster in certain shots and regains it in others. It’s subtle and not everyone will catch it, but it may still affect you subconsciously.

Nothing about the film really stood out to me as being particularly great, except for one thing. The sound. This was a great use of sound effects and music. If you don’t see the film in theatres, but plan to eventually, make sure you have a great surround sound system. Like I said, the fighting was tame and unappealing, but the audio just blares out and comes at you from all angles. It builds the excitement where the visual side falls short.

Those desperate for a new martial arts flick may be disappointed in the banality of this film. From the love story to the action to the dance sequences, it all seemed a bit too much and certainly too long. This one is just not my cup of tea.


++++++++


A Very Long Engagement
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

When they were children, Manech was Mathilde’s only friend after her parents died and she contracted polio. It was a friendship that transitioned into a life-long romance. But then Manech got sent off to war and was court-martialed for self-mutilation. He, along with four other men, had their hands shot in order to leave the war early. The punishment was to be left out in no man’s land to die. Back home, Mathilde tries to hold on to her hopes. She hasn’t received an official notice that her fiancé has died. Her only reason for carrying on is the hope that she may find him. And so, she begins her search.

Here we have director Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s latest film. Like his previous work, “Amelie,” this movie is primarily a love story (and both star Audrey Tautou). However, this time around, in lieu of the light-heartedness, we get war and mystery thrown into the mix. Typically, a balance like this tends to fail, because the elements clash and step on each other or certain genres are mostly forgotten and thrown in sporadically to provide “depth.” Jeunet, and writing collaborator Guillaume Laurant (the aforementioned “Amelie” and “The City of Lost Children”), keep all three genres at consistent levels throughout. The love story drives the search for her lover, who went missing in World War I. The film is always dealt with in that order.

That’s part of what makes the film so appealing. The thing I didn’t like about such war films like “Black Hawk Down” or “The Thin Red Line” is that they tried to tell ten or twenty stories by floating from one character to another. We don’t need to know the story of everyone in the front. Here we see how powerful and in depth the tiniest sliver of a war can get. As far as WWI goes, this event is a speck of dust, yet it easily fills the two-hour plus running time. Perhaps I enjoyed the war aspect of the film, because it was almost marginalized in favor of the stronger aspects of the narrative. We all know that war is hell, and this movie shows that sometimes you don’t have to linger on that common knowledge. The detective side of the piece makes the film unique to me. Granted, I haven’t seen everything, but I can’t recall seeing another film that handles the balance like this. The mystery is just that. The audience is left in the dark and is subject to various twists and turns (some might think too many) and worthwhile subplots that you seldom see in contemporary thrillers. My biggest complaint would be about the pace. There were breaks in the story that I felt could have been eliminated, while still keeping the entire plot line intact. Sure, my interest held up throughout, but it would have been heightened had it moved a little quicker.

Two other factors kept my interest up: the acting and the cinematography. Just to warn you, Jodie Foster is in the movie. Now that you know, there’s no need to let it distract you or pull you out of the film so you can whisper to your friends. The acting isn’t outstanding by any means, so I should probably say the casting kept my interest. I enjoyed seeing actors from Jeunet’s previous works come back here. The most notable of these is Tautou. She is perfectly cast in this role thanks to her face. She exudes the necessary innocence and hope through her pursed lips, and she conveys the pity and love through her big eyes that no one in the movie can deny. I also enjoyed hearing Florence Thomassin narrate the film. It was a warm voice that gave the picture a welcome storybook quality. Enhancing this is Bruno Delbonnel’s cinematography. The visuals stayed true to Jeunet’s trademark dazzling and slightly quirky style. The landscapes were full and lavish, and even the most drab and dreary settings are made picturesque in their own way (which could be perceived as a negative). The end result is a charming, inviting and interesting film that may not say anything new, but finds a new way to say it.

I promise I'll get to reviewing Ocean's Twelve and it's two predecessors. In the mean time, how about if I throw in a couple other reviews. We have Irreversible, which flaunted the fact that it was the most walked out on film of the year (due to its graphic nature). We also have Ray, which is flaunting Jamie Foxx's acting (and rightfully so). Enjoy.



Ray
Review by Jon Waterman

****

Ray Charles Robinson went blind at the age of seven. That didn’t stop him from living as complete a life as possible. His mother taught him to do things on his own and to not let a lack of sight hinder his vision and his aspirations. Ray took that to heart and headed up to Seattle to start his career as a professional jazz pianist. His skills were apparent from the beginning, and he quickly got bigger and bigger deals. He dropped the Robinson from his name and embarked on a recording career that would continue for over four decades.

His life sounds pretty good summed up like that, doesn’t it? We all know that Ray Charles is a legendary, talented musician. What we may not know is what the movie focuses on. This is the first biopic to come out in a long time that avoids sugar coating any aspect of the subject’s life. At no point did I envy him. It seemed less like a celebration of his life and more of an exorcism. All of his demons are exposed and wrenched out on the screen. I gotta hand it to first time writer James L. White. He managed to make the movie interesting for a potentially painful one hundred fifty two minutes. I could have gone longer, actually. The film covers the most tumultuous years and then very very briefly glances over the rest in the span of five minutes. Some of the dialogue was quite clichéd, but the performances helped greatly to diffuse that.

Virtually all of the characters in the film had some level of depth. Often times it was minimal based solely on the amount of screen time they received, but the wide array of dynamic personalities made for a much richer environment. Sharon Warren (as Ray’s mother) stood out to me. She had to exude a complex range of emotions, and there’s no question that she pulled it off. Even Bokeem Woodbine (as band mate Fathead Newman), who had previously shown me nothing that proves he belongs in the business, impressed me with his character’s subtle progression. Of course, the stand out is Ray, I mean, Jamie Foxx. Foxx is just a dead ringer physically. The movements, the smile, the posture and poise are all pitch perfect. The acting is fantastic, too. A very far cry from “Bait.” It’s amazing that the two biggest hams from “In Living Color” have turned out to be such revered actors. This is definitely one of the best performances of the year.

Director Taylor Hackford and Cinematographer Pawel Edelman put the whole thing together in a visually dark, yet appealing manner. I’d like to thank Taylor for sparing us from any blind or near blind point-of-view shots. I also appreciate the use of red/orange flashes in between shots. It turned out to be a good effect that wasn’t beaten to death. I wish the movie had forced us to pay more attention to the details of the surroundings like Ray had to. As it was, I felt a little distanced and unable to connect fully with anything besides the music.

Despite a deep connection with Ray, it is an incredibly emotional, moving film. The feelings are perfectly punctuated by the music. It was a wise decision to not have Foxx sing these classic songs. These are sung in a way that only Ray’s distinctive voice could sing them. The whole film was handled nicely and couldn’t be executed much better. This definitely beats “The Aviator.”


++++++++


Irreversible
Review by Jon Waterman

**1/2

The infuriated Marcus takes Pierre along on a journey through the streets to exact revenge. Earlier that night, while the two men were inside laughing and dancing and making out with various women at a large house party, Marcus’ girlfriend Alex was being raped and brutally beaten. Pierre, Alex’s ex, tries to keep Marcus calm, but to no avail. He won’t stop until someone pays for what they did. Now they just have to find the guy.

I basically told you the entire plot just now, but that’s okay, because you’ll learn it within the first scene. This film moves backwards. Y goes to Z, then X goes to Y, and W goes to X, etc. until you end at A to B. I know what you’re thinking. Yes, you’ve seen it before. But this movie moves more fluidly than “Memento.” There’s nothing to really figure out. There are no clues or puzzles to solve while watching. Also, you don’t have to deal with potentially distracting flashbacks. Yet, no matter how you slice it, it’s a gimmick.

Technically the film looks very good. I’ll get into that more a tiny bit later. (See what I’m doing there? Messing with the structure. Ah, you don’t care.) However, the film could have worked just as well chronologically or the way it was presented. There are certain little snippets of dialogue that are inserted that make sense later on in the film, but there are as many snippets that make sense in reference to what you’ve already watched. Either way, the tactic verges on hokey, but somehow narrowly escapes that fate. The reason it breaks away from being corny is because it’s contrasted so well with the harsher segments. On the one hand, you have three people carrying on a very mundane conversation about sex or about a party or whatever, and on the other you have an exhaustingly long sequence where all you see is horrendous activity. It’s balanced out in the long run.

The violence is quite vivid. Your eyes won’t be shielded from anything. The rape sequence isn’t even the worst of it. In fact, the sheer length, while unbearable, is simply too long. Near the start of the film, there’s a much bloodier, more gruesome scene to watch. It’s shorter and more concise and thus lingers that much more.

The style of the film is probably its most annoying and most endearing quality (if anything in the film can be considered endearing). Auteur director Gaspar Noé (also writer, producer, editor and sometimes cinematographer – along with Benoît Debie) thoroughly planned out the whirlwind visuals. The camera is almost always moving, sweeping the terrain in one-winged angel-like maneuvers. It rests on the important stuff when need be, but otherwise, it floats around seemingly aimlessly. For some it could be disorienting, but the camera movements remarkably don’t blur the images you see. It’s steady and deliberate and executed very well with the help of seamless edits.

The gimmick tries to counteract the weaknesses, or is used as an excuse for the lack of a more complex storyline. This movie is not for the faint of heart and those with weak stomachs. Those predisposed to motion sickness might also want to stay away. Those looking for pure originality or a stunningly good movie will probably be disappointed.

Well, before I get to my review for Ocean's Twelve, I'm going to watch and review both the old and new versions of Ocean's Eleven. I also have Irreversible on deck. For now, take a look at my thoughts on two big awards contenders: The Aviator and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.



The Aviator
Review by Jon Waterman

***

Here we have the biopic for Howard Hughes. He made the most expensive film to date in the late1920s with the epic WWII spectacle, “Hell’s Angels.” He funded the nearly four-million-dollar project himself. The buzz alone made him a hot commodity in the industry. He directed and produced many other films and he wined and dined several top female movie stars. But his first love was always flying. He was an innovator in creating bigger and better aircraft, notoriously losing millions in failed models. He didn’t care about money, he cared about the industry, and so if he had to spend a lot in order to make that next technological leap, he would. This film chronicles his trials and tribulations – literally.

Director Martin Scorsese comes at us again with another overly long period piece. Unlike “Gangs of New York,” this one doesn’t quite work as well. But before I get into all of that stuff, let’s talk about what is effective. The color palette changes depending on where in the chronological timeline the film is. It starts off with just copper and light blue tones. It progresses to have a broader spectrum of colors, although the colorization look never stops. It’s pretty noticeable straight away, but it hardly seems like a gimmick to me because the progression is so gradual.

The acting is good, but not extraordinary. Leonardo DiCaprio (Hughes) has done all this stuff before. He’s played the manipulative, no nonsense type in “Catch Me If You Can” and he’s played a character with mental problems much better in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.” Alec Baldwin (Pan Am Head Honcho, Juan Trippe) is always fun to watch. Cate Blanchett does a great impression of Katharine Hepburn, but looks absolutely nothing like her. She was the best actor in the film, and there is a scene between her and Leo where they communicate through the door of his projection room that virtually makes the movie. With that said, as great as Blanchett was in the role, I would have loved to see a better visual match.

Speaking of visual matches, the editing in this film is the worst I’ve possibly ever seen from a major motion picture. It’s definitely the worst I’ve ever seen from an award contender. Either the footage wasn’t covered well enough or Scorsese’s go to editor Thelma Schoonmaker just dropped the ball. It was extremely distracting and I expected much more professionalism from such seasoned experts. As a form of comparison, imagine if I chopped out every “the” in my sentences. You’d still be able to understand what I was saying, but you’d wonder why I’d have a job writing in English. That’s how bad the editing was to me.

I don’t really know what Hughes was like, but it was still fun to watch this rendition. I enjoy watching people at the top of their game. Hughes took charge and always knew how to get exactly what he wanted. Even when he was at his lowest point emotionally, his business skills never faltered. The script by John Logan (“Bats” and the vastly overrated “Gladiator”) didn’t leave a bad taste in my mouth, but didn’t really show mastery of such a massive cast and eventful life. The whole experience was just basic. However, the three hours spent in the theater seemed to go by quite quickly. I probably could have stuck around for more. The film doesn’t crash and burn, but like a solitary bag of peanuts, it leaves no impact.


++++++++


The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Review by Jon Waterman

**1/2

While making his latest nature film, Steve Zissou’s best friend/right hand man was eaten by a fish never before seen by man. In the brief glance he got, Steve dubbed it a Jaguar Shark. Now, he’s out for revenge. He wants to destroy the creature that took his friend and prove his harshest critics wrong at the same time. If that weren’t enough, a long lost son and a reporter has been added to the mix/crew. Will this be Steve’s swan song or will it be the start of a personal and professional rebirth?

Here we have Wes Anderson’s latest effort. The maestro behind such instant classics as “Rushmore” and “The Royal Tenenbaums,” like Zissou, has most likely bitten off more than he can chew. His casts have gotten bigger and bigger as has his production value. He’s slowly and steadily entering into dangerous, mainstream territory. This film marks the use of massive sets, exotic locations, and worst of all – special effects.

To create the new species of aquatic life, a combination of stop motion animation and computer graphics work was employed. I don’t really know what the purpose was of constructing them. The spectacle detracted from the main narrative and pulled the focus away from the characters. I would have been perfectly fine had only existing animals been used. I mean, it doesn’t matter what you call the fish, it’s still obvious Ahab is after Moby Dick.

Just like his previous films, the story is divided up into sections. However, this time, I think there were too many divisions and the differences seemed too miniscule to be justified. There are other parts of the script that seemed off to me as well. Written by Anderson and Noah Baumbach (“Kicking and Screaming,” “Highball”), the characterization just wasn’t there. The relationships never developed into anything palpable or understandable. The story took too many detours and contained too many side quests. It got to the point where I couldn’t trust what I saw on the screen as being real. There is a sequence where Steve and his crew are taken hostage. Steve breaks free and starts shooting at the pirates. I thought it was an elaborate dream sequence. It would have been better that way. The whole film was slightly more fantastical than I’m used to seeing from Anderson, but not fantastical enough to allow myself to become immersed.

The most redeeming factor of the film is the acting. Bill Murray does it again. Aside from his take on “Garfield,” he’s quickly become one of my favorite actors. Anjelica Huston is fabulous as the monotone, unfeeling wife of Zissou. The rest of the cast either didn’t impress me or didn’t have a proper opportunity to. Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Bud Cort and Michael Gambon all have relatively limited screen time, which is a shame.

I’m not ready to write Anderson off yet by any means. This film just isn’t up to par with his others. The humor just wasn’t there that much either. It could be that the bar was just set too high. We all know he’s capable. The important thing is to rebound from a less than movie and not become another Woody Allen.

I'm back with a whopping three new reviews. Two Oscar contenders and one far from Oscar contender. I forgot to mention that as my New Year's resolution, I plan to mix the old with the new. That means that at least one out of every ten reviews will be a film from the 1980s or older. I know, it's sad that we can call some of those movies old now, but hey...at least 15 years has passed now. So, with that said, here are three new movies to read up on. Check back later.



Closer
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

Dan sees Alice get hit by a car. He sees that she makes it to the hospital and back okay. They fall in love. He writes a book about her. He’s photographed for the book by Anna. He falls in love with her. Anna falls in love with Larry. Larry was the subject of a practical joke that leads him to her. Larry falls in love with Anna. The resulting love square complicates their lives and everything gets a bit too personal. It becomes hard to distinguish the truth from the lies and even harder to discern who can be trusted and what actions will be taken next.

Patrick Marber wrote the screenplay based off of his own stage play. The dialogue contained within is some of the most compelling to hear delivered. It’s how you wish you could talk. The flow and the creativity and the back and forth works very naturally on the screen, but you’d be hard pressed to find people that actually talk in this manner on a regular basis. There aren’t awkward pauses and everyone knows exactly what to say at just the right moment. It’s flawless, which makes it imperfect and unreal. But it’s still very interesting to watch, and I admire the style.

The most interesting thing about the movie is that the action happens off camera. The film spans nearly 5 years of their lives. The only way you know time has passed is that they make reference to it while talking to each other. You aren’t left in the dark about the time changes for very long at all. The situation is not treated like a mystery. However, all the lying, cheating and deceit happens during the unseen transitions. As a result, you never fully know who’s being honest in a particular situation. Yet, I still tended to take everyone at his or her word for whatever reason. The film seemed brutally honest, even though there was always a chance that the entire thing was a lie.

With the good comes the bad. Okay, not bad, but kinda lame. The ending got really trite really fast. It began to lose me with the way it attempted to revisit memories and themes and everything that goes along with such things. It seemed hokey and too typically storybook. However, leave it to director Mike Nichols to end it on a redeeming note. It’s no coincidence most of his movies are critically acclaimed. There’s just something about the very last shot of the movie that wraps it all up for me. The whole timeframe of the movie makes much more sense based on this one simple shot.

While I don’t think the film is mind-blowingly original or innovative, it still works. The performances are great. The script works in an unusually poetic way. The film simply resonates.


++++++++++


Bad Education
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

Enrique Goded is a cult movie director. He brings the weird and off-the-wall stories you find in the back pages of the paper to the big screen with reckless abandon. However, he’s struggling to find an idea worthy enough to use for his next feature. Enter Ignacio. Ignacio and Enrique were childhood pals. They did everything together, and I mean everything. That is until the Priest at the school discovered them and got extremely jealous. Ignacio has written a script based on his life during school and a fictionalized version of what happened in the two young men’s adult lives. Could this be the movie Enrique’s been looking for, or will it all hit too close to home?

Writer/Director Pedro Almodóvar comes at us again with his atypical approach to filmmaking. The films he makes always take on this cheesy B-movie quality. The acting is usually over the top and the story starts relatively normal then veers farther into ridiculous territory as time goes on. The movies are also usually graphic and crude. This film is virtually no exception. The cult aspect is definitely there, and the camp value presents itself in the storyline eventually as well. However, there are certain qualities that don’t match up to the norm.

First is Gael García Bernal (“Y Tu Mamá También,” “The Motorcycle Diaries”), who plays a triple role astonishingly well. There’s great balance between his primary character, the person in the flashbacks, and the person he’s portraying in Enrique’s movie. There are obvious differences and various approaches given to each role he takes on. Contrast to that Fele Martínez (“Open Your Eyes,” “Talk to Her”) as Enrique. While he and the other actors aren’t wincingly bad, they certainly don’t show off nearly as much range as Bernal, and tend to be more stagy and transparent with their performances. I can only assume this is all deliberate, because Almodóvar is that kind of director.

The other thing missing is the graphic nature and the nudity. This is the most toned down NC-17 film I’ve seen so far. Yes, there are indications of homosexual relationships. Yes, there are even sex scenes. But nothing is shown. There is the whole pedophilia issue, but once again nothing even remotely scandalous is actually put up on the screen. In a way, it’s disappointing. What’s the point of having a rating associated with carnality if it’s not taken advantage of? As a straight male in a healthy relationship I say bring on the male nudity. Audiences have proven they can take it in such films as “The Dreamers” and “Young Adam.” Now, this rant isn’t solely directed at the film. Even though I’m sad to see that some of the explicitness I’ve come to expect from Pedro’s work is missing, I’m also sad to see that the film was probably unjustly given it’s misleading adult rating.

Almodóvar’s films are not bad; they’re just given that illusion. He doesn’t go to the extent that Guy Maddin does, but Pedro’s films still require a little getting used to. The cinematography by José Luis Alcaine looks beautiful and fills the emotional gaps the acting leaves behind to paint a more complete picture. If you haven’t liked Almodóvar’s previous work, this one shouldn’t be any different. However, if you have an open mind, can handle subtitles, and want to see a stunning film with a great performance, then give this film a shot.


++++++++++


Fat Albert
Review by Jon Waterman

**

Fat Albert and the gang are going about their normal cartoon lives, when all of a sudden they hear an ominous crying sound. They discover that a teenage girl, watching the show is deeply saddened and the tears are penetrating their world. Being the proud problem solvers that they are, the whole gang (minus pipsqueak Russell, who stays back to guard the junkyard) leaps through her television set. Now the gang has problems of their own. First, they have to help the crying girl Doris. Then they have to find a way to get back to their cartoon existence before they fade away into celluloid dust.

I’m glad this movie is not just a live action version of the cartoon, like the horrendous “Scooby-Doo.” Not only does this film acknowledge it’s animated roots, it embraces it and makes the original show a driving force for part of the plot. All new animation was created for the film and it turned out very nicely. I would have liked to see a little more back and forth between the two worlds, though. And as ridiculous as it all sounds, the plot actually is made to make sense (in a fantasy-world way) by the end of the film. Overall, it’s a good way to bring a cartoon to a live action setting without having to go the expensive and usually disastrous “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”/”Garfield” route.

The problem with incorporating the show into the film like it did (besides the shameless DVD plug, which never comes into the narrative like I half-expected it would), is that the kids at Doris’ high school have never heard of it before, it seems. Fat Albert and the gang are a pretty recognizable group. You’d think they’d have a passing recollection of the cartoon from their childhood, especially if the little children in the film do. Instead, everyone just acts like they’re dressing funny or they mock Albert because he is Fat, in an intentionally un-clever way. Another flaw is automatically assuming that everyone watching is familiar with all the characters. I’m sure that some of the audience hasn’t seen the show in a while (or at all) and may not exactly know what’s going on.

The casting worked out pretty well as far as matching up the looks. As far as acting goes, it was pretty hit or miss. I’m not expecting great stuff here, but at least put a little effort into it. The biggest offenders were those lead actors/half-brothers from “You Got Served.” One plays the most pathetic villain I’ve seen on screen in a long time, while the other plays Dumb Donald. You’d think if a little nepotism like this was going on, we could have seen Keenan Thompson (who plays Fat Albert just fine) get his former partner Kel Mitchell involved. Out of the rest of the gang, I really liked Alphonso McAuley’s performance as Bucky. It’s a good example of how to play a cartoon character without overdoing it. Just say the words naturally. The appearance will do its job. With a cast this big, it’s tough to get them all involved or to make them all noticeable. Maybe a couple more of them should have stayed back with Russell, who’s obviously not live action, because they couldn’t find a suitable match.

Part of the reason for the bad acting is that it’s a cartoon related project and it’s a kid related project, so I can excuse it. As a kids movie, I think it could be better. The jokes are rather blah, but I still laughed more than I have at similar films. I don’t think there’s enough conflict and the bad guy is never put out there as a formidable threat, so you can’t cheer for Fat Albert. However, it has the Bill Cosby (who not only created the cartoon, but also co-wrote this picture with frequent collaborator Charles Kipps) trademark good message complete with a touching ending sequence. It’s not a bad film for your kids to see by any means and it’s very family friendly. However, there’s a chance both you and your kids may get bored. After all, there’s a overly long song and dance sequence and an over done fish out of water mall sequence that was done much better in both “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and the Howie Mandel classic “Walk Like a Man.”

I can’t say I was exactly clamoring for this picture to be made, but I certainly don’t think it’s something I would immediately throw back into the junkyard. I wish the Brown Hornet could have made an appearance. Maybe next time. This film will just have to hold you over until we finally get a big screen version of “Picture Pages.”

Happy New Year everyone. I don't have any holiday appropriate stuff for you. But here's what I have to offer: Better Living Through Circuitry and National Treasure. You can also add Ocean's Twelve to my to do list, so keep checking back. Thanks for being there in 2004 and we hope you stick around in '05.



National Treasure
Review by Jon Waterman

**1/2

Ben Gates is searching for the most well hidden treasure in history. It’s a legend that was passed down to him from his grandfather, which heard it from his grandfather and so on. They have one clue to work from, but no one has been able to figure it out…until now. Ben not only figures out what the clue means, he also finds the next clue that will lead him closer to the treasure. There are only two problems. One is that the clue is hidden on the back of the Constitution of the United States. The other is that there’s an evil man tracking his every move, trying to beat him to it. Oh my. What a crazy adventure this is going to turn out to be.

I thought this was going to be a huge crap fest, actually. It was pleasantly not. I was expecting something like another “Tomb Raider.” Surprisingly, the technology and the clues and devices used don’t exhibit some hidden techniques that no one had ever seen before or anything like that. It’s mostly very straightforward and logical. However, the further the movie progresses, the more outrageous it becomes.

Even though the technology and devices are mostly believable in a movie sense, the basic plot line and background story is not. Anyone going into this film can’t possibly expect pure logic from such a big budget film such as this. What’s amazing is that it took at least five people (counting only those that are credited) to come up with the story and script. The result is certainly nothing spectacular. What it does have going for it is a fast pace, but it’s a marathon. At over two hours, there’s a little bit too much hunt without any eggs in the basket to keep the interest high. The dialogue is typical. Ben’s assistant Riley is the token jokester with all the quick wit and sarcastic remarks. They are better than most films of this same type, but that doesn’t mean they all are winners.

Director Jon Turteltaub makes a very functional and undemanding action flick. What’s so odd about it is that it starts out with a big explosion and gunplay or whatever, and then it’s followed by a whole bunch of chasing to extremely non-exotic locations searching for the next piece in the puzzle. It’s basically a normal movie posing as an action movie. All the excitement is in your head. At least it gets in your head in that respect, though.

Even though I’m sure the history in the film is not completely accurate, I can see how this would spark some interest amongst young kids. That’s a definite plus. If you’re a high art lover through and through, then you already know to avoid this sucker. However, as far as mindless entertainment goes: you could do better, but you could also do a lot worse.


+++++++


Better Living Through Circuitry
Review by Jon Waterman

*

Normally, this is where I give a brief synopsis of what the movie is all about. This time I can be nothing but brief. This documentary discusses rave culture.

The reason I’m so brief is because that’s the nature of the movie. It bounces back and forth like a typical rave participant (sans glowstick, pacifier and backpack) between topics, never staying on one long enough to fully realize it’s potential. Many electronic musicians were interviewed for the film, and they’re each given their own segments. Consider that the film is only 85 minutes long and it’d be a safe assumption to say that at least twenty groups/individuals get a slice of screen time. You can see how that leaves very little room for exploration or in depth coverage of any aspect. I don’t know if they presume the audience has a short attention span or if they just wanted to stay fair and cover every musician equally or what. No matter what the excuse, it just ended up too sporadic and quick rather than comprehensive and fulfilling.

If you’re looking to hear from the superstars of the genre, then this would be the place to go for your one-stop shopping needs. It features such names as Lords of Acid, Moby, Crystal Method and Superstar DJ Keoki. We also hear from one of the pioneers, Genesis P-Orridge, who gives his insight into the music and provides a little history. But all we get from the film is a little history. The main focus of the movie is to pile information from as many different aspects as possible. We hear about the clothing, the dancing, the set-up of the shows, the mystique of the culture, the drugs, the graphic design, and of course the music that brings it all together.

It sounds like the movie is nice and thorough. However, since so much is covered in such a brief amount of time, with little or no cohesion between the parts, it just falls flat. There’s no real standardization in the approach to the segments. It seems like they were randomly placed. The movie itself lacks continuity. It starts off with music breaks featuring trippy, psychedelic colors and shapes similar to what you’d see on the video screen at a rave. Later, both of these discontinue. It’s as if the filmmakers (director Jon Reiss and editor Eric Zimmerman) just gave up on the concept and for some reason felt no need to remove it from the beginning of the picture.

The whole effort is just a slap-dash of images and sounds put together seemingly randomly and without any type of clear focus. As a non-participant in rave culture, I can’t say the movie offered me anything new or taught me something I didn’t know about it already. I left with no added appreciation for it all.