Movie Review

(On DVD, February 2007) Well, as Adam Sandler films go, this isn’t one of the worst ones. This is, indeed, very faint praise: Sandler’s films have become a predictable mix of sappy morals, slapstick violence, mock anger, insipid female characters and broadly accessible premises. In this case, some things actually work well: the “universal remote” gimmick is used for pretty dumb gags, but it eventually allows a fairly sophisticated meditation on the nature of living life, and the paths that our choices can end up making if we’re not careful. Some gags are amusing, and the film has a surprising amount of internal coherence. Despite the obvious plot threads (including a blatantly obvious “departure point” trap-door), it all amounts to a good character arc. But then there is the rest of the picture: The disturbing way Sandler’s character resorts to violence whenever he’s not accountable for it; the way the female characters are sidelined in easy caricatures; the cheap gags that do little but amuse the 12-year-olds in the audience. Click ends up as a potentially interesting film hobbled with obvious sops to Sandler’s usual demographics. Too bad.

(In theaters, February 2007) Espionage films tend to go, James-Bond like, for big explosions and tense gun-play as a way to show off spy trade-craft. Reality, of course, is entirely different, and Breach at least tries to remain grounded in some sort of verisimilitude as it tells the true story of Robert Hanssen, an FBI agent who kept selling secrets to “the other side” for nearly two decades before his arrest in 2001. As we discover through the eyes of our protagonist, a young agent tasked to his office, Hanssen is a study in contradictions: an overly pious career agent who dabbles in amateur pornography and gun worship, Hanssen thinks of himself as superior to his colleagues and sees in his spying just another way to get back at a system that ignores his talents. Chris Cooper is fascinating in a role that’s plays a fine line between assurance and arrogance, and Ryan Phillippe at least keeps up with him throughout the entire film. Though there are a few odd contrivances designed to pump up the drama, Breach remains restrained in its depiction of a real-life story –indeed, even playing down juicy aspects of the true story such as the amateur pornography and the link to Opus Dei. It all amount to a film that is more intellectually thrilling than the average spy film, even though there’s nary an explosion in sight.

(In theaters, January 2007) The little hyper-caffeinated action film has become a staples of winter movie-going and in these matters, you could do worse than Joe Carnahan’s long-awaited return to the screen after 2002’s Narc. This effort hims him juggling dozens of characters in an action film that owes as much to comic-book plotting than to straight-up criminal mayhem. Loosely stated, Smokin’ Aces is about dozens of paid killers converging on a hotel where a would-be prosecution witness is staying. With that many characters, it doesn’t take a long time before they clash together and start taking themselves down. The cheerfully chaotic nature of the plotting starts early and ends up past the point of ridiculousness (with a nod to Carnahan’s “Ticker” short film), but it’s a fun ride. Alicia Keys is particularly enjoyable as an assassin on the cusp of big decisions, and so is Ryan Reynolds as one of the few characters firmly committed to justice. The film’s best scene comes along with a hail of big-calibre bullets: It’ll thrill you just as it will make you deaf. While the build-up is better than the end result (a statement that also goes for the trailer versus the film), the film itself leaves a good impression, as long as all expectations are in check, and as long as you expect the right type of film.

(In theaters, January 2007) As someone without excessive affection for either Diana Spencer, Tony Blair or the entire monarchic system, I was surprised to discover some entertainment value in The Queen. Oh, it’s certainly nowhere to be found in either cinematography, special effects or action scenes: Perhaps the most damning criticism of the film is that it’s a movie-of-the-week written large, accidentally released in theatres. It aspires to quasi-documentary recreation, and scarcely anything more. As the story describes the aftermath of “Princess Diana”’s death on the Royals and Tony Blair, it also allows something like mutual respect to grow between the two after a rocky beginning. Ultimately, it’s the human element that forms the cornerstone of the film: The exceptional performance of Helen Mirren as the titular Queen is respectful and revealing. The rest of the players do just as well. If the film can often feel a bit long, it’s definitely headed in the right direction throughout. Not spectacular (and definitely overrated by contemporary reviewers), but reasonably good.

(In theaters, January 2007) This flip-side to Flags Of Our Fathers is a better film in most respects: the structure is tighter, the characters are more interesting, and there’s definitely more dramatic tension amongst a band of soldier historically fated to lose. The film, taking place almost entirely in Japanese, nevertheless feels immediate and relevant: Director Clint Eastwood was able to accomplish a film that transcends linguistic borders without even seeming to. The battle of Iwo Jima is fascinating regardless of which side gets the spotlight, but there’s an extra dramatic dimension in seeing it from the “other” point of view. The historical recreation is impressive and so are some of the scenes. What I really would like to see, though, is a mash-up between Eastwood’s two Iwo Jima films, an action-oriented war film presenting a look at the battle from both sides, wrapping up in under 90 minutes.

(In theaters, January 2007) The “African thriller” sub-genre picks up another good entry with this dramatic version of Idi Amin’s reign of terror. Here, a young Scottish doctor stands in for an audience both fascinated and then repelled by Amin’s garrulous charm and utter lack of conscience. The protagonist’s gradual descent into Amin’s madness is reflected in the visual tones of the film, which gets darker and darker as the film advances. This isn’t the only subtle trick played on us: The camera gets noticeably more jittery whenever Amin’s on screen, almost as if the power of the character couldn’t be contained on mere film. (Forrest Whittaker’s turn as Amin is hypnotically compelling, a sure case for an Academy Award nomination.) It all adds up to a small but very effective film, one that manages to use fiction to give us a glimpse at the truth.

(In theaters, January 2007) Guillermo del Toro may not make masterpiece after masterpiece (Hellboy, anyone?), but he’s consistently fascinating in what he can turn out. His habit of alternating between glossy Hollywood movies and more personal films seems to be good for him in both directions: His Hollywood films are quirkier and more interesting, whereas his home-grown films are slicker than ever. So it is that Pan’s Labyrinth is unmistakably a successor to El Espinazo Del Diablo: The children-in peril motif is back, and so is the historical framework and the humans-are-the-monsters theme. Perhaps the most distinctive thing about the film is its mixture of an adult theme with a childish perspective: There an ambiguity to the story that contributes to its impact rather than obscure it: its most likeliest explanation is also the cruelest.. Otherwise, there little to say about the slick polish to the film, the excellent acting and the sensibility of the special effect. Del Toro may mis-step when drawing villains (defining them with the crudest elements), but the rest of his script is sure-footed. Where the film may lose a few viewers is in how, for a while, it’s not clear if it’s a film for kids or featuring kids: by the time the film settles the question, the younger members of the audience may have irreversible nightmares. Good for them.

(In theaters, January 2007) Steven Soderbergh strikes out as often as he hits home run, but The Good German ends up being a solid triple: not quite what we’d expect, but not a bad effort. There’s something lovely about his intention to direct a film as if this was 1945, with limited camera tricks, luscious black-and-white cinematography and classical staging. But this intention eventually clashes with the harsh language, explicit scenes and darkening geopolitics that eventually come to dominate the film. Though the clash is deliberate, it’s not entirely successful: Ironically, I think that the bitter denunciation of American post-WW2 power plays could have played well had the film toned down the more superficial language, sex and violence. More subtlety would have gone a long way… exactly like it did back then. Otherwise, George Clooney and Cate Blanchett are successful in roles seemingly tailored for them, while Tobey Maguire looks like he’s having a lot of fun as a repellent character far removed from his usual goody-goody heroes. Not a bad film, but certainly a let-down in how it does so many things right only to be defeated by the few things it does wrong.

(In theaters, January 2007) The post-Moulin Rouge! resurgence in movie musicals has been good for adapting Broadway plays to the big screen, and Dreamgirls is the latest to make the transition. As with the other ones, Dreamgirls is an effortlessly enjoyable piece of work, with a good mixture of drama and song and humour. Well, ok, not too much humour: Following the template of Motown’s history, Dreamgirls does the usual VH1 biography scenario and manages to shoehorn a happy ending in there anyway. Beyonce Knowles and Jamie Foxx may be the film’s putative stars, but most of the attention goes to Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson in scene-stealing roles. Otherwise, the other highlight of the film is the “Cadillac Man” sequence, destined to be replayed in high-school classrooms whenever the subject of cultural appropriation comes up. Otherwise, well, there isn’t much to say: The film may not be the Oscar powerhouse everyone was expecting, but it’s good enough and “good enough” seems to be the rule for the new musicals.

(In theaters, January 2007) For a Science-Fiction fan, this film is a bit of a mess: The science is implausible, the background details are badly integrated with the world, and the structure feels off, especially toward the end. But this is a great film despite its weak SF elements. From a directorial standpoint, Children Of Men is a tour de force, combining savvy film-making with extraordinary visuals. At least three long continuous shots bring back some of that old “how did they do that?” magic while doing a tremendous job at drawing us into the story. Clive Owen is a solid protagonist, but everyone else holds their own in a finely crafted film. It’s a shame, though, that the extrapolation is so weak: The sterility problems are too sudden, too all-encompassing (and don’t hold your breath for an explanation, because it’s not that kind of film) to be credible, and elements of the technology shown in the film seem inconsistent with each other, not to mention difficult to reconcile with the “we don’t know why everyone’s sterile” statement. Oh well; at least the film is far better than the book when it comes to its SF elements, for which we can only be thankful. (And it’s hardly alone in being a “good SF movie” despite weak SF elements: In 2006, only A Scanner Darkly and The Prestige also earn that distinction.) Cinematic dynamite: don’t miss it.

(On DVD, December 2006) Any Hitchcock film is now regarded with respect, but even on its own, this cleverly-made thriller would be worth a look. The first and most obvious distinction of the film is how it’s conceived as a filmed play with a minimal amount of cuts: The lengthy segments lend an air of sustained tension to the storytelling, showcasing the skill of the actors. But beyond the surface, there’s a lot of subtext to the piece, whether it’s the references to the Leopold/Leob case, or the heavy allusions to homosexuality. James Stewart unfortunately looks like a boy-scout in the middle of all this, but his reassuring presence makes up for his lack of emotional involvement in the story. The technical fascination of the film’s making-of only adds to the interest of the film itself, making for a viewing experience that will reward viewers even sixty years later. Among other questions raised by the film is this one: Why hasn’t this type of film-making been attempted more often since, aside from oddities such as Mike Figgis’ Timecode?

(In theaters, December 2006) This film may be many things, but it’s certainly not what you’re expecting. Those who go in expecting another one of the many, many CGI-animal-comedy films released this year will be surprised by the action scenes, the explicit environmentalism, the romantic drama, the religious satire, the ethnic references, the soul/rap soundtrack and the often unusual turns of the plot. Technically, it’s a stunning piece of work: The Antarctic landscape is fabulously well-rendered, and the animators work miracles with the relatively limited constraints of penguin anatomy. The direction, by Mad Max alumni George Miller (who’s no stranger to off-beat family films such as Babe 2: Pig In The City), is slick and never hesitates to use the possibilities of CGI to its fullest extent. The action scenes alone are surprisingly enjoyable. But it’s on a story level that Happy Feet is most audacious: The film meanders here and there on the emotional map, opting for segments that range from amusing to nightmarish: The density and variety of the story makes the film feel considerably longer than its 108 minutes. Unfortunately, it also gives it a disconnected, almost incoherent feel: by the time it pulls itself together for a toe-tapping finale, it feels as if the film pulls itself out of a corner by jumping out the side window. Perplexing, but still more interesting than most CGI film released this year. The music alone makes it all worthwhile: Beyond the Moulin Rouge!-esque musical sampling of the first few minutes, the latter segments all lift the film well above its usual level and are guaranteed to make you smile… and tap.